Licence approval

[micu]

Hi everybody,

I am new here and would love to join the discussion. In my opinion its
very important to have such a clean definition of free culture and to
promote it, in order to let the benifits of free knowledge not be
restricted to software.

The first question I would like to ask is how your licence approval
process works. The way I see it, there are two licences missing in
your list

http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses

1. LinuxTag Green OpenMusic License
http://openmusic.linuxtag.org/green.html

2. EFF Open Audio license
http://web.archive.org/web/20040803083103/http://www.eff.org/IP/Open_licenses/eff_oal.html

Or is there a good reason why you do not have these licences on your
list?

Best regards,
micu

[micu]

BTW: Congratulations to you that your license certificate made it on the deeds
of the free Creative Commons licenses. Imho this is a huge contribution for
free culture!

--
GnuPG: https://www1.inf.tu-dresden.de/~s3418892/micuintus.asc
Fingerprint: 1A15 A480 1F8B 07F6 9D12 3426 CEFE 7455 E4CB 4E80

[Andy Brooks]

Hey micu,

The EFF one (at least v2) is just the CC-BY license and the OpenMusic one is pretty old too (it came before CC licenses) -- I wonder how many people use them. I guess you're saying they should be included for legacy reasons? I'm all for legacy, but I think it's important for free knowledge interoperability that we keep license proliferation to a minimum. I'd like to know more about how the license approval process works myself.

-Andy

[Andy Brooks]

Hey micu,

The EFF one (at least v2) is just the CC-BY license and the OpenMusic one is pretty old too (it came before CC licenses) -- I wonder how many people use them. I guess you're saying they should be included for legacy reasons? I'm all for legacy, but I think it's important for free knowledge interoperability that we keep license proliferation to a minimum. I'd like to know more about how the license approval process works myself.

-Andy

On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 10:18 AM, micu <micu...@gmx.de> wrote:

[Mike Linksvayer]

On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 10:26 AM, micu <micu...@gmx.de> wrote:
> BTW: Congratulations to you that your license certificate made it on the deeds
> of the free Creative Commons licenses. Imho this is a huge contribution for
> free culture!

I hope so!

http://trends.google.com/websites?q=creativecommons.org

See "Also visited" -- fd.o by far the most visited other site for cc.o visitors.

I imagine it must be proportionate to traffic, or google, yahoo, etc.
would be on top for most sites. Still, nice to see.

Mike

[Jonathan Gray]

Dear Micu,

I think support for the EFF Open Audio license is discontinued. It is,
however, compliant with the Open Knowledge Definition (which is very
similar to the Definition of Free Cultural Works, but includes data in
addition to content/cultural works):

http://opendefinition.org/licenses
http://opendefinition.org/

I haven't seen the Open Music License before. Do you know how many
people use it, or whether it is being developed? I note that it says
draft and is dated April 2001. Perhaps we should also list it in the
'discontinued' section - if we can establish that development has
ceased. Also I suspect that using the license with the "media locking
option" on might not be compliant with Free Cultural Works or the Open
Knowledge Definition - which could be worth noting!

I hope this is helpful!

Warm regards,

Jonathan

[Hanno Böck]

Am Freitag 11 Juli 2008 schrieb Jonathan Gray:
> I haven't seen the Open Music License before. Do you know how many
> people use it, or whether it is being developed?

I think it was only used for a one-time-action, an OpenMusic-CD by the german
LinuxTag:
http://openmusic.linuxtag.org/

It was back in a time when there were no well-spread licenses for free music.
So for legacy, one should note that these licenses exist and it's probably
fine to call their content free, though it's probably not advisable to use
them today for new content.

Another similar license is LFFI, used by the netlabel neppstar
(www.neppstar.net).

--
Hanno Böck Blog: http://www.hboeck.de/
GPG: 3DBD3B20 Jabber/Mail: ha...@hboeck.de

[Benj. Mako Hill]

<quote who="Andy Brooks" date="Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 10:45:34AM -0700">

> Hey micu,
>
> The EFF one (at least v2) is just the CC-BY license and the OpenMusic one is
> pretty old too (it came before CC licenses) -- I wonder how many people use
> them. I guess you're saying they should be included for legacy reasons? I'm
> all for legacy, but I think it's important for free knowledge
> interoperability that we keep license proliferation to a minimum. I'd like
> to know more about how the license approval process works myself.

I think we should at least address the existence of the licenses
someone on the wiki and explain that they are discontinued. In fact,
I'm happy to even address license which are *not* free but which
might be confused as such so we can explain the problems with the
license and how they can be addressed. As long as it's well organized,
I see no reason why more information on particular licenses shouldn't
be included.

Micu, perhaps you should writing up these licenses on the freedomdefined
wiki?

Regards,
Mako

--
Benjamin Mako Hill
ma...@atdot.cc
http://mako.cc/

Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far
as society is free to use the results. --GNU Manifesto

[Mike Linksvayer]

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 4:59 AM, Benj. Mako Hill <ma...@atdot.cc> wrote:
> I think we should at least address the existence of the licenses
> someone on the wiki and explain that they are discontinued. In fact,
> I'm happy to even address license which are *not* free but which
> might be confused as such so we can explain the problems with the
> license and how they can be addressed. As long as it's well organized,
> I see no reason why more information on particular licenses shouldn't
> be included.
>
> Micu, perhaps you should writing up these licenses on the freedomdefined
> wiki?

That would be cool. FWIW here's a message I sent a few days ago that
lists some of them, but I think it didn't go through because parts of
this thread were on okfn-discuss and I'm subscribed to this list under
a different address than I am that one. Anyway...

EFF OAL 2.0 was declared to be CC BY-SA 2.0. I believe the OAL pages
are now offline, except in the Wayback Machine -- which itself is not
answering for that page right now -- see the link in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Audio_License

In addition to the licenses mentioned in this thread, there were a
bunch of public content licenses created around 2000. I listed several
of them on slide 29 of
http://www.slideshare.net/mlinksva/lugradio-live-usa-2008-creative-commons
but it would be neat if someone cataloged and summarized (including
which ones if any are Free/Open and why, and whether there was any
actual use) them all (I'm sure I missed some). Here's the relevant
text for convenience, slightly edited:

Slide 28: History (iii) Open content licenses (some of them Free):
1998: Open Content License
1999: Open Publication License
2000: GFDL, Free Art License
2001: EFF Open Audio License

Slide 29: History (iv) Other early 2000s open content licenses (some
of them Free):
Design Science License
Ethymonics Free Music Public License
Open Music Green/Yellow/Red/Rainbow Licenses
Open Source Music License
No Type License
Public Library of Science Open Access License
Electrohippie Collective's Ethical Open Documentation License

Slide 30: History (v) Versioning of Creative Commons licenses (some of
them Free -- some of the licenses, not some of the versions):
2002: 1.0
2003 author of Open Content/Publication licenses recommends CC instead
and PLoS adopts CC BY
2004: 2.0
2004 EFF OAL 2.0 declares CC BY-SA 2.0 its next version
2005: 2.5
2007: 3.0

Mike