Confusing Possible GPL & CC Conflict
Timothy Clemans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2008_January_21#Image:Sagecontourplot.png
If this person's is right that you can't release a screenshot of the
Sage Notebook under a CC license then I'm worried that the Sage
documentation can't actually be licensed under CC-by-sa since it
includes code from docstrings in the GPLed Sage code.
William Stein
That's an excellent question. I personally think that all docstrings in Sage
should be viewed as part of the Sage "documentation", and
hence also be licensed under CC, since we state that all the documentation
of Sage is so licensed (this could be a dual license -- it's under CC
and GPL).
Does anybody disagree? We're the copyright holders on 100% of
this stuff, so it's up to us to decide.
-- william
William Stein
> On Jan 20, 2008 10:50 PM, Timothy Clemans <timothy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The message that started this is
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2008_January_21#Image:Sagecontourplot.png
> >
> > If this person's is right that you can't release a screenshot of the
> > Sage Notebook under a CC license then I'm worried that the Sage
> > documentation can't actually be licensed under CC-by-sa since it
> > includes code from docstrings in the GPLed Sage code.
You can assure the people in that wikipedia conversation that it is definitely
*not* our intention to disallow CC licensing screenshots of sage that show
the documentation, and that I'm sure we'll be happy to work with them
to clarify the license so that they'll be comfortable with those screenshots
being on Wikipedia.
William
mabshoff
On Jan 21, 8:00 am, "William Stein" <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 20, 2008 10:58 PM, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > The message that started this is
> > > If this person's is right that you can't release a screenshot of the
> > > Sage Notebook under a CC license then I'm worried that the Sage
> > > documentation can't actually be licensed under CC-by-sa since it
> > > includes code from docstrings in the GPLed Sage code.
>
> You can assure the people in that wikipedia conversation that it is definitely
> *not* our intention to disallow CC licensing screenshots of sage that show
> the documentation, and that I'm sure we'll be happy to work with them
> to clarify the license so that they'll be comfortable with those screenshots
> being on Wikipedia.
use. Screen shots are covered by that. And it isn't like you want to
post some NDAed super secret nuclear bomb plans.
> William
Cheers,
Michael
Justin C. Walker
Unless I'm reading the wiki comments in the wrong way, they are not
concerned that "we" are disallowing the release of screenshots as CC-
licensed. The question is *can* we release screenshots as CC-
licensed, when the content is GPL-licensed.
Justin
--
Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon-At-Large, Director
Institute for the Enhancement of the Director's Income
--------
The path of least resistance:
it's not just for electricity any more.
--------
William Stein
>
>
>
> On Jan 20, 2008, at 23:00 , William Stein wrote:
>
> >
> > On Jan 20, 2008 10:58 PM, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 20, 2008 10:50 PM, Timothy Clemans
> >> <timothy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The message that started this is
> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/
> >>> 2008_January_21#Image:Sagecontourplot.png
> >>>
> >>> If this person's is right that you can't release a screenshot of the
> >>> Sage Notebook under a CC license then I'm worried that the Sage
> >>> documentation can't actually be licensed under CC-by-sa since it
> >>> includes code from docstrings in the GPLed Sage code.
> >
> > You can assure the people in that wikipedia conversation that it is
> > definitely
> > *not* our intention to disallow CC licensing screenshots of sage
> > that show
> > the documentation, and that I'm sure we'll be happy to work with them
> > to clarify the license so that they'll be comfortable with those
> > screenshots
> > being on Wikipedia.
>
> Unless I'm reading the wiki comments in the wrong way, they are not
> concerned that "we" are disallowing the release of screenshots as CC-
> licensed. The question is *can* we release screenshots as CC-
> licensed, when the content is GPL-licensed.
Good point. However, we own the copyright to 100% of the relevant
GPL-licensed code, so we still get to decide the question of whether or
not we allow the screenshots. I think they wikipedia people are just
being careful and respectful of our copyright, which I greatly appreciate.
-- Wiliam
Justin C. Walker
I don't get the same impression from the discussion there. I think
they (actually, "belk") are asking a somewhat more general question,
although it's not completely clear what their point is. They are
discussing "(elements of) GPL'd software". I can't tell whether they
mean
- a screenshot of something that is produced by software that is
licensed under GPL.
- a screenshot of a batch of software (code) that is licensed
under GPL; or
Consider:
This, regarding a shot of a display of a "3D" plot of a function:
"Claimed {{GFDL-self}}, but this is a screenshot of copyrighted
software. Are there enough copyrighted interface elements here to
make the screenshot non-free? —Bkell (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2008
(UTC)"
and this, regarding the Sage shot, which includes Sage code (which I
will guess has *no* copyright attached to it since it's just a bit of
scripting to show the result [the plot itself]):
"...What I am wondering here is whether this same restriction
applies to screenshots of GPL software. —Bkell (talk) 06:47, 21
January 2008 (UTC)"
In any case, I think this could be an indicator of GPL licensing
beginning to capsize under its own weight (which will probably have a
lot of attendant collateral damage when it happens). I would be
cynical, but they're making it way too difficult...
Justin
--
Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon at Large
Director
Institute for the Enhancement of the Director's Income
-----------
Nobody knows the trouble I've been
-----------
William Stein
It probably has nothing to do with the GPL. It's just questions about
copyright in general. I hadn't realized that many of their questions
did not actually involve doing
sage: foo?
or
sage: foo??
I now understand what you meant that these are just generic copyright
questions that should easily be covered under "fair use".
Thanks for the clarification (and for protecting me from the trolls
and flame bait!).
-- William
Alexander Dreyer
> questions that should easily be covered under "fair use".
copyright laws, but it does not have an exact equivalent in the laws
of other countries.
For instance, the German Wikipedia admins do not per se accept "fair
use", because it also covers things like screen shots of movies, which
are not permitted by German laws. (Although de.wikipedia.org is
located in the US, most of the collaborators live here and have to
obey the European laws.)
So, in order to avoid the same discussion for any non-English language
Wikipedias, one should mention, that the relicensing to CC was done in
accordance with the copyright holder. Alternatively, for simple
screenshots of the notebooks, one could mention, that the generation
of the picture does not need a high level of creativity.
Regards,
Alexander
David Joyner
This sounds good to me - SAGE docs under a dual license.
>
> -- william
>
>
> >
>
Timothy Clemans
Apparently none of the screenshots made by a GHOP contestant are
allowed on Wikipedia because they contain parts of the Mac OS X
interface and there isn't a notice that states that screenshots of the
Sage Notebook can be released under a CC license.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2008_January_21#Image:Sagecontourplot.png
On Jan 21, 4:30 am, "David Joyner" <wdjoy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 21, 2008 1:58 AM, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 20, 2008 10:50 PM, Timothy Clemans <timothy.clem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The message that started this is
>
> > > If this person's is right that you can't release ascreenshotof the
David Joyner
interface, in particular their logo, might not being allowed to have a
CC-by-sa license. It
might be that Apple owns the rights to such an image. A similar argument
holds for IE, I presume. However, I thought it was a trademark issue, not a
copyright issue. (I vaguely remember reading of a case where a Mustang
Car Club somewhere decided to make a calendar of some of its owners cars
to attract more member. Ford sued, or threatened to sue - I forget - based
i think on trademark infringement.)
Robert Bradshaw
very least. The issue seems to be the proprietary UI elements, and
though personally I think that falls under fair use, I neither have
the knowledge nor time to fight for it.
- Robert