License choice? which ones?

Asked by Evan Boldt on 2008-10-17

I have a license system implemented already, but I've been wondering some things.

First question:
Should we allow users to choose the license? It is another level of complexity added, and many will not know which to choose, nor care about which.

Some existing materials might be listed under different licenses.

Second Question:
What licenses should be allowed?

These are materials and would probably be best covered by a creative commons IMO, but I'm not terribly experienced with this.

Some kind of list of licenses is needed.

Question information

Language:
English Edit question
Status:
Answered
For:
SpreadUbuntu Edit question
Assignee:
No assignee Edit question
Last query:
2009-07-31
Last reply:
2009-08-12
Shahriar Tariq (tariq86) said : #1

IMHO
The contributor should have the flexibility of choosing their own license. Creative Commons License is quite good enough to handle most peoples need.

We can put a point in our site that if no license is selected, CC=By-SA (or anything that majority decides) will be taken as the license for those specific materials.

Sure many does not understand these licenses but if we do not use it then none will (thus none will get to know these licenses)

well that's my thought on the subject, lets see what other says :)

take care

JackRasmussen (transit-jack) said : #2

CC=By-SA would be fine, but I have a feeling that SA might get a little tricky down the road. Sure we will not be making a profit but indirectly Canonical has a chance to make a profit. I'm not sure of the Legalese in this case but we are marketing. To be on the safe side I would recommend CC=By.

JackRasmussen (transit-jack) said : #3

My bad I was confusing SA with No-Profit. CC=By-SA will be plenty fine.

Evan Boldt (echowarp) said : #4

I added CC-BY anyway. It probably shouldn't be the default.

Think it's ok to have no Share Alike even available?

I was considering "public domain" but then I remembered that the Ubuntu logo is actually a trademark of Canonical. What is their logo licensed under?
 That is probably the one we should use.

JackRasmussen (transit-jack) said : #5

It looks like we need a trade mark license to be able to use their logo legally

https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-art/2006-July/002389.html

Under Copyright law they are Creative Commons. But under trademark Law we need to get a license to use it from them. I wonder if they are willing to give that license to all contributers to SpreadUbuntu?

Evan Boldt (echowarp) said : #6

Yes but i think they make an exception for promotional use, which would include almost everything on the site, including the site.

http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy

Excerpt:
Permitted Use
Certain usages of the Trademarks are fine and no specific permission from us is needed.

Community Advocacy. Ubuntu is built by, and largely for, its community. We share access to the Trademarks with the entire community for the purposes of discussion, development and advocacy. We recognise that most of the open source discussion and development areas are for non-commercial purposes and will allow the use of the trademarks in this context, provided:

    * the Trademark is used in a manner consistent with the Usage Guidelines below
    * there is no commercial intent behind the use
    * what you are referring to is in fact Ubuntu. If someone is confused into thinking that what isn't Ubuntu is in fact Ubuntu, you are probably doing something wrong.
    * there is no suggestion (through words or appearance) that your project is approved, sponsored, or affiliated with Ubuntu or its related projects unless it actually has been approved by and is accountable to the Ubuntu Community Council

Interestingly, there are several things that are not allowed that I did not think of before:
* Use in a domain name or URL.
* Use for merchandising purposes, e.g. on t-shirts and the like.

I hope Ruben already got that permission.
I may have to remove the "t-shirt" section. A loophole might be to give the files necessary for making your own.

Furthermore: This draft trademark policy is itself published under the CC-BY-SA license, you are welcome to base your own project trademark policies off it, just let others use your changes and _give credit to the Ubuntu project as the original source!_

Ruben Romero (huayra) said : #7

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Evan Boldt
<email address hidden> wrote:
> Question #48290 on SpreadUbuntu changed:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/spreadubuntu/+question/48290
>
> Status: Answered => Open
>
> Evan Boldt is still having a problem:
> Yes but i think they make an exception for promotional use, which would
> include almost everything on the site, including the site.
>
> http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy
>
> Excerpt:
> Permitted Use
> Certain usages of the Trademarks are fine and no specific permission from us is needed.
>
> Community Advocacy. Ubuntu is built by, and largely for, its community.
> We share access to the Trademarks with the entire community for the
> purposes of discussion, development and advocacy. We recognise that most
> of the open source discussion and development areas are for non-
> commercial purposes and will allow the use of the trademarks in this
> context, provided:
>
> * the Trademark is used in a manner consistent with the Usage Guidelines below
> * there is no commercial intent behind the use
> * what you are referring to is in fact Ubuntu. If someone is confused into thinking that what isn't Ubuntu is in fact Ubuntu, you are probably doing something wrong.
> * there is no suggestion (through words or appearance) that your project is approved, sponsored, or affiliated with Ubuntu or its related projects unless it actually has been approved by and is accountable to the Ubuntu Community Council
>
>
> Interestingly, there are several things that are not allowed that I did not think of before:
> * Use in a domain name or URL.
> * Use for merchandising purposes, e.g. on t-shirts and the like.
>
> I hope Ruben already got that permission.
> I may have to remove the "t-shirt" section. A loophole might be to give the files necessary for making your own.
>

You should really not use energy in worrying about this. This project
is a project of the Ubuntu Marketing Team and has been decided upon in
a meeting with key members of the team (including the founder).

No permission is neccesary beyond the Marketing and LoCo Teams
approval; we ARE spreading Ubuntu, no confusion there or anywhere
else.

T-shirts are also ok. Both the Norwegian AND Ecuadorian LoCo have made
their own t-shirts and have had different designs and changes in the
logo, so I wouldn't remove that section either.

As long as we trust the people we work with it's all good. Trust as in
"they are working in and for the Ubuntu community as we are". then not
even the t-shirts should be an issue. Mind you though, this has been
regarding to approved LoCo's, no "external" entities have been
involved.

>
> Furthermore: This draft trademark policy is itself published under the CC-BY-SA license, you are welcome to base your own project trademark policies off it, just let others use your changes and _give credit to the Ubuntu project as the original source!_
>
> --
> You received this question notification because you are a member of
> SpreadUbuntu, which is an answer contact for SpreadUbuntu.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~spreadubuntu
> Post to : <email address hidden>
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~spreadubuntu
> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>

Evan Boldt (echowarp) said : #8

Currently the only choice for license is CC-BY-SA

Should GNU FDL be included. There is one material that was originally double licensed with BY-SA and FDL, but is the only one that I have seen that has anything but BY-SA

Ruben Romero (huayra) said : #9

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Evan Boldt <
<email address hidden>> wrote:

> Question #48290 on SpreadUbuntu changed:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/spreadubuntu/+question/48290
>
> Status: Answered => Open
>
> Evan Boldt is still having a problem:
> Currently the only choice for license is CC-BY-SA
>
> Should GNU FDL be included. There is one material that was originally
> double licensed with BY-SA and FDL, but is the only one that I have seen
> that has anything but BY-SA
>

If there is no technical issue we should allow GNU FDL and any other license
that the material maker wants to give their material.

BUT

I believe we should always have the material double licensed with CC-BY-SA
as well. that way we can have uniformity in what we have in our repository
and take the license trouble out of the spreadubuntu marketing material
contributors/designers.

My $0.02

R.

Kẏra (thekyriarchy) said : #10

I think CC-BY-SA and freer should all be options. So the options should be:
CC-BY-SA (default)
CC-BY
CC-PD
CC0

Ruben Romero (huayra) said : #11

>
> Danny Piccirillo proposed the following answer:
> I think CC-BY-SA and freer should all be options. So the options should be:
> CC-BY-SA (default)
> CC-BY
> CC-PD
> CC0
>

So do you mean CC-BY-SA as default AND a requirement + any other freer
license?

Could you please elaborate on this a bit?

Thanks in advance!

R.

Kẏra (thekyriarchy) said : #12

I'm not sure what you mean by requirement, but i mean the user will be presented with these as options:

Please choose a free culture [or content] license for your work:
* CC-BY-SA (recommended)
* CC-BY
* CC-PD
* CC0

Can you help with this problem?

Provide an answer of your own, or ask Evan Boldt for more information if necessary.

To post a message you must log in.