Re: Booklet, version 7

On Wednesday, February 02, 2011 09:01:31 pm Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 February 2011, Stuart Jarvis wrote:
> > On Wednesday 02 February 2011 16:22:54 Felix Michel wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday 02 February 2011 12:49:27 Felix Michel wrote:
> > > > > the booklet is more or less ready for printing.
> > > > 
> > > > It's awesome :-) I have been watching a little, even though
> > > > lacking the time to contribute.
> > > > 
> > > > > I just have to buy a usb
> > > > > stick and then i will go to a copy shop.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The only thing missing is license part on the cover. For me it
> > > > > is allright to publish the booklet under a CC license. I just
> > > > > dont know how to put all this.
> > > > 
> > > > Legally*, I don't believe we can do this without the explicit
> > > > permission of all contributors. Neither can we attribute
> > > > copyright to KDE e.V. as on page 38 - I never transferred my
> > > > copyright to KDE e.V. (though I would be happy to).
> > > > 
> > > > So, what are our options? Well, copyright is automatically with
> > > > the creators in most countries, so making no mention of
> > > > copyright at all does not mean that there is not any. We can add
> > > > a notice later once we have full agreement. An alternative is
> > > > 'Copyright 2011, contributors' particularly since they are
> > > > listed on page 2.
> > > 
> > > Okay, just tell me what i should put on the left side of the cover.
> > > I can put everything you want, just tell me.
> > > 
> > > What i think we need:
> > > 
> > > Copyright
> > 
> > 'Copyright 2011 Contributors '
> 
> That's useless. In this case you can simply leave it out.

Yep, leaving it out is fine by me. (But is it any more useless than the 
manifeslty untrue 'Copyright 2011 KDE e.V.'?)

> > Seems most true to me (copyright notices are basically meaningless
> > anyway and vague is ok - some Fedora stuff even says 'Copyright Red
> > Hat and others')
> > 
> > > License
> > 
> > I favour not specifying a license right now. That means whoever picks
> > it up has no rights and will have to contact us for permissions. Is
> > that a problem? Copying a printed version is kinda rubbish anyway,
> > better to have a proper licence on a downloadable version.
> 
> Yes, IMHO not specifying a license would be highly problematic.
> 
> One issue I have with this is that this might cause bad publicity
> because, effectively, we would be publishing the booklet under a non-
> free license.
> 
> Another issue I have with this is that I would not be allowed to give a
> copy of the booklet (in electronic form or printed out) to anybody. All
> I could do is point others to the download link. That would be pretty
> lame.

Problem is:
- We didn't have the foresight here to get prior agreement on what licence the 
work was under, therefore we do not have permission to release it as CC-by-sa
- One of us putting a CC licence on the cover is not valid because none of us 
has the rights to do that
- It's not inconceivable that a contributor would be unhappy with a derivative 
commercial use for example (permitted by CC-by-sa, which would be my choice)

Therefore I suggest we get that permission as quickly as possible (email the 
listed contributors) and add the CC licence text /before/ we put it on a KDE 
server for download. Then, once we make it available to download it is under a 
free licence (and validly so).

What I didn't want to do is spend time doing that before getting printed 
copies done for FOSDEM (if that is possible). Therefore sidestep it for the 
first printed copies by not giving a licence.

Or, we can shut our eyes, stick a CC licence on it and ask people afterwards. 
There won't be any objections from me - if there's even any of my stuff left in 
there by now...

Cheers,
Stu
 
_______________________________________________
This message is from the kde-promo mailing list.

Visit https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-promo to unsubscribe, set digest on or temporarily stop your subscription.