💾 Archived View for gemi.dev › gemini-mailing-list › 000428.gmi captured on 2024-05-12 at 16:06:07. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-12-28)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Hey folks, just dropping a quick note to ask everyone who operates a Gemini site to take a moment to choose a license for their content and add a note to their index page to this effect. I recommend creative commons. My capsule is CC-BY-SA, which allows my content to be shared freely so long as it's attributed to me, and adapted or revised so long as the new work is also shared with CC-BY-SA. This tool can help you pick a CC license: https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/ Cheers!
On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 10:34:42AM -0400, Drew DeVault wrote: > I recommend creative commons. My capsule is CC-BY-SA, which allows my > content to be shared freely so long as it's attributed to me, and > adapted or revised so long as the new work is also shared with CC-BY-SA. Echoing everything Drew said -- and also, if you do choose a license for your capsule's content, I'd encourage specifying the version number for the license if it has one. For Creative Commons licenses like CC-BY-SA (or CC-BY or the others) they are currently at version 4.0, so that would be CC-BY-SA-4.0, or CC-BY-4.0, etc. if you're using the most current versions. Steve
> Hey folks, just dropping a quick note to ask everyone who operates a > Gemini site to take a moment to choose a license for their content and > add a note to their index page to this effect. > > I recommend creative commons. My capsule is CC-BY-SA, which allows my > content to be shared freely so long as it's attributed to me, and > adapted or revised so long as the new work is also shared with CC-BY-SA. > > This tool can help you pick a CC license: > > https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/ A final line in any .gmi file of the form "-- CC-BY-SA: Your Name" would have the added benefit that it would survive being copied around, and stay in place even if the original site disappears. regards marc
On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 2:33 AM marc <marcx2 at welz.org.za> wrote:
> A final line in any .gmi file of the form
>
> "-- CC-BY-SA: Your Name"
>
> would have the added benefit that it would survive being
> copied around, and stay in place even if the original site
> disappears.
>
Agreed. But it's advisable to have an actual copyright notice using either
? or the English word "Copyright" and the current year. If you make it a
link line, you can also link to the exact license you are using.
Note that there is no reason to update the copyright date when you make a
change, much less to make a change *just* to update the date. Doing so
will not extend your copyright, and most companies don't have any reason to
care about the status of their IP in 2210.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice -- but it is not the
unauthorized practice of law, either.
John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan cowan at ccil.org
Cash registers don't really add and subtract;
they only grind their gears.
But then they don't really grind their gears, either;
they only obey the laws of physics. --Unknown
> regards
>
> marc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.orbitalfox.eu/archives/gemini/attachments/20201103/a7d1
6211/attachment.htm>
On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 10:34:42AM -0400, Drew DeVault wrote: > Hey folks, just dropping a quick note to ask everyone who operates a > Gemini site to take a moment to choose a license for their content and > add a note to their index page to this effect. > > I recommend creative commons. My capsule is CC-BY-SA, which allows my > content to be shared freely so long as it's attributed to me, and > adapted or revised so long as the new work is also shared with CC-BY-SA. > > This tool can help you pick a CC license: > > https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/ > > Cheers! because i am the person i am, i included my typical licensing on my capsule: license/copyright: it is illegal for anyone to look at any of this or use any of this for any purposes, especially me
On 11/3/20 3:48 PM, phoebe jenkins wrote: > because i am the person i am, i included my typical licensing on my capsule: > > license/copyright: > it is illegal for anyone to look at any of this or use any of this for any > purposes, especially me Sounds like you might like Schrodinger's License https://github.com/benlk/misc-licenses/blob/master/schrodinger-license.md
On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 03:54:56PM +0000, James Tomasino wrote: > On 11/3/20 3:48 PM, phoebe jenkins wrote: > > because i am the person i am, i included my typical licensing on my capsule: > > > > license/copyright: > > it is illegal for anyone to look at any of this or use any of this for any > > purposes, especially me > > Sounds like you might like Schrodinger's License > > https://github.com/benlk/misc-licenses/blob/master/schrodinger-license.md > hah, i like that! i was basically looking for a version of the "don't be evil" license that i thought would actually work - basically, if you are a person that needs to care about copyright, you can't use it :p
Hi - me again
> > A final line in any .gmi file of the form
> >
> > "-- CC-BY-SA: Your Name"
> >
> > would have the added benefit that it would survive being
> > copied around, and stay in place even if the original site
> > disappears.
> >
>
> Agreed. But it's advisable to have an actual copyright notice using either
> ?? or the English word "Copyright" and the current year. If you make it a
> link line, you can also link to the exact license you are using.
>
> Note that there is no reason to update the copyright date when you make a
> change, much less to make a change *just* to update the date. Doing so
> will not extend your copyright, and most companies don't have any reason to
> care about the status of their IP in 2210.
So I was under the impression that a creative work
is covered by copyright as soon as it is fixed in
a tangible medium... no special "copyright" word
required. Statues and paintings don't have
a (c) sign on them, yet they are still covered.
Then again, I might have been misinformed - and
I am not lawyer either...
But my motivation for suggesting a format for
a license notice at the end of a .gmi file
is a bit different. It is not there to
make prosecution of "pirates" easier, but to
facilitate reuse.
The corporate world likes to hold on to all
its rights ("all rights reserved") but
we don't have to - things like BSD, GPL and
CC-* are people saying that they are happy
to contribute to something shared, on certain terms.
And if these statements are embedded in .gmi files,
tools can be built which parse this.
Imagine a "greatest quotes in gemini-space"
site/capsule. Or "my favourite sites, long
lost". Or "a temporary mirror of a slow capsule
about to be slashdotted by me linking to it".
All these things could be done if the copyright
holders are fine with it... they just need to
tell us.
regards
marc
On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 5:44 PM marc <marcx2 at welz.org.za> wrote:
> So I was under the impression that a creative work
> is covered by copyright as soon as it is fixed in
> a tangible medium... no special "copyright" word
> required. Statues and paintings don't have
> a (c) sign on them, yet they are still covered.
>
That's quite true. But the advantage of a notice is that a license
violator can't claim "I didn't know". This is useful not only if you need
to go to court, but just to get them to take down their copy of your
content. This often comes up when someone posts a copy with your name
removed, which of course CC-BY(-SA) does not allow. If there is a notice,
you can send them an email saying very politely that they are willful
infringers of your copyright and may be liable for up to US$150,000 for
each illegally copied work. They generally take it down fast.
The corporate world likes to hold on to all
> its rights ("all rights reserved")
>
By the way, that phrase has no legal meaning and can be completely
ignored. It is neither a license nor a copyright notice.
> we don't have to - things like BSD, GPL and
> CC-* are people saying that they are happy
> to contribute to something shared, on certain terms.
> And if these statements are embedded in .gmi files,
> tools can be built which parse this.
>
+1, absolutely
John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan cowan at ccil.org
People go through the bother of Christmas because Christmas helps them
to understand why they go through the bother of living out their lives
the rest of the year. For one brief instant, we see human society as it
should and could be, a world in which business has become the exchanging
of presents and in which nothing is important except the happiness and
well-being of the ultimate consumer. --Northrop Frye (1948)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.orbitalfox.eu/archives/gemini/attachments/20201103/715c
6d32/attachment.htm>
On Mon Nov 2, 2020 at 9:34 AM EST, Drew DeVault wrote: > --f7ceb9e8209701b61de27f66baf11d7ea731a827a4f69596fb9d8f0d9bf5 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Content-Type: text/plain > > Hey folks, just dropping a quick note to ask everyone who operates a > Gemini site to take a moment to choose a license for their content and > add a note to their index page to this effect. > > I recommend creative commons. My capsule is CC-BY-SA, which allows my > content to be shared freely so long as it's attributed to me, and > adapted or revised so long as the new work is also shared with CC-BY-SA. > > This tool can help you pick a CC license: > > https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/ > > Cheers! > > --f7ceb9e8209701b61de27f66baf11d7ea731a827a4f69596fb9d8f0d9bf5-- Hello Mr. Devault, Thanks for the reminder and the suggestion for CC-BY-SA. I'll have to do a little research on the different licenses before I decide. Some content will be copyright, but other content I wouldn't mind being CC-BY-SA. Thank you, Jordan
Hi marc, On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 11:44:36PM +0100, marc wrote: > > But my motivation for suggesting a format for > a license notice at the end of a .gmi file > is a bit different. It is not there to > make prosecution of "pirates" easier, but to > facilitate reuse. > > <snip> > > And if these statements are embedded in .gmi files, > tools can be built which parse this. > Some FOSS licensing minutiae that most folks might not care about, but sharing anyway :) If you're looking for a way to embed machine-parseable license info, I'd suggest using SPDX short-form identifiers [1]. This is a standardized way to embed one of the SPDX license IDs [2] into a work in a way that is easily greppable, in a format such as the following -- showing CC-BY-SA-4.0 as Drew suggested earlier: SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-4.0 The Linux kernel and several other FOSS projects have started adopting identifiers like this, among other reasons to minimize the cruft of multi-line comments with license headers and the like. (Disclosure: I'm involved with the SPDX project, so I'm biased and also interested in this stuff more than is probably healthy.) Steve [1] https://spdx.dev/ids [2] https://spdx.org/licenses
Hello Steve > If you're looking for a way to embed machine-parseable license info, > I'd suggest using SPDX short-form identifiers [1]. This is a > standardized way to embed one of the SPDX license IDs [2] into a work > in a way that is easily greppable, in a format such as the following > -- showing CC-BY-SA-4.0 as Drew suggested earlier: > > SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-4.0 <snip> > (Disclosure: I'm involved with the SPDX project, so I'm biased and > also interested in this stuff more than is probably healthy.) Hey, good to learn about the SPDX project, it is great that people care about these things. As a first (maybe incorrect) impression: One thing that gives me pause is that its documents come with a, for lack of a better word, corporate "All other rights expressly reserved" blurb. Also, even though the list of licenses they have collected is long, I can't spot (and let me know if otherwise) any newer ethical licenses - the ones one can find by following links on writing.kemitchell.com For instance, one could imagine somebody publishing their capsule under a "free but no surveillance, no deduction of personal information" license, and if there is a gatekeeper who approves an "acceptable" license, then this might be harder. Maybe if there is an open process on how license names can be added to the curated list (does anybody claim to own the database ?), this concern would be reduced... Then there is the (quite) unusual matter of the gemini syntax - how to accommodate the "SPDX-License-Identifier" token in gemini files. The gemini markup doesn't have a "label: value" format, and no comments - its markup are things like "*" or "##' and maybe even informally "--". Noting that this lack of extensibility is deemed a feature, not a bug... and correctly so in my view. regards marc
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 6:35 AM marc <marcx2 at welz.org.za> wrote: Also, even though the list of licenses they have collected is > long, I can't spot (and let me know if otherwise) > any newer ethical licenses - the ones one > can find by following links on writing.kemitchell.com The first sentence on that page says: "The SPDX License List is a list of commonly found licenses and exceptions used in free and open source and other collaborative software or documentation." That excludes licenses that are not commonly used and those that are not free/open source licenses. SPDX looks through various sources to determine what's commonly used, but probably can't find anything that's not on the Web. It defers to the OSI and the FSF to determine what is a free and open source license, though it does make its own judgments of the form "Oh, this is the same as the 2-clause BSD" and includes them. > For instance, one could imagine somebody publishing > their capsule under a "free but no surveillance, no deduction > of personal information" license, and if there is a > gatekeeper who approves an "acceptable" license, then > this might be harder. Such a license is neither free nor open source, and as such it is outside the SPDX remit. Some CC licenses aren't either, but they are included because they are commonly used for documentation. Then there is the (quite) unusual matter of the gemini > syntax - how to accommodate the "SPDX-License-Identifier" > token in gemini files. > That's why I think it is a good idea to make the copyright notice a link line, like this: => https://spdx.org/licenses/CC0-1.0.html Copyright 2020 by John Cowan under CC0-1.0 John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan cowan at ccil.org Using RELAX NG compact syntax to develop schemas is one of the simple pleasures in life.... --Jeni Tennison -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.orbitalfox.eu/archives/gemini/attachments/20201104/4bd1 95bb/attachment.htm>
On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 03:00:21PM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 6:35 AM marc <marcx2 at welz.org.za> wrote: > > Also, even though the list of licenses they have collected is > > long, I can't spot (and let me know if otherwise) > > any newer ethical licenses - the ones one > > can find by following links on writing.kemitchell.com > > > The first sentence on that page says: "The SPDX License List is a list of > commonly found licenses and exceptions used in free and open source and > other collaborative software or documentation." That excludes licenses > that are not commonly used and those that are not free/open source > licenses. SPDX looks through various sources to determine what's commonly > used, but probably can't find anything that's not on the Web. It defers to > the OSI and the FSF to determine what is a free and open source license, > though it does make its own judgments of the form "Oh, this is the same as > the 2-clause BSD" and includes them. Thanks marc, and thanks John for the details. One more point to clarify: Earlier this year SPDX updated its guidelines to permit the inclusion on the list of _some_ source-available licenses that don't meet OSI / FSF requirements for their respective definitions. The guidelines are at [1] if you are interested. Under the revised guidelines, a few licenses that have been called "ethical source" licenses are on the list. For instance, the Hippocratic License 2.1 was added to the list earlier this year. [2] As John noted, the SPDX community does not aim to establish its own definitions for terms like free or open source software, and tries to defer to other groups that are focused on those topics. I realize I've taken things far afield from Gemini, so I'll hold off from further licensing trivia on this list :) Happy to chat offline if folks have questions about any of this. Steve [1] https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/master/DOCS/license-inclu sion-principles.md [2] https://spdx.org/licenses/Hippocratic-2.1.html
---