52 Matching Annotations
  1. Dec 2023
    1. Licenses : You are free to share all of my pictures under the Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 2.0. The PoIC, as a software, is free to modify and/or redistribute under the GNU General Public License v3.0.

      Hawk considered PoIC a "software" and licensed it as such. :)

    1. Their ideas of possible action vary fromimportant-looking signed pronounce-ments and protests to the withholding ofservices and the refusal to assist in techni-cal developments that may be misap-plied.

      Not too dissimilar from programmers who add licensing to their work now to prevent it from being misused.



  2. Jun 2023
  3. Mar 2023
    1. dedicated using Creative Commons

      Creative Commons …what?

      There’s quite a few Creative Commons licenses, some Free Culture, some not, one or two even public-domain-ish.

      I assume you mean CC0-1.0, but that is not clear at all.

  4. Aug 2022
  5. Dec 2021
    1. I’d like to remind you that the code wasn’t developed by WordPress - it was General Public License (GPL). We didn’t steal it, and we gave it back according to GPL (JavaScript is not linked).


  6. Nov 2021
  7. Mar 2021
    1. MIT License. Copyright 2020 Rafael França, Carlos Antônio da Silva. Copyright 2009-2019 Plataformatec.
  8. Feb 2021
    1. Free content encompasses all works in the public domain and also those copyrighted works whose licenses honor and uphold the freedoms mentioned above.
    1. note that TRB source code modifications are not proprietary

      In other words, you can build on this software in your proprietary software but can't change the Trailblazer source unless you're willing to contribute it back.

      loophole: I wonder if this will actually just push people to move their code -- which at the core is/would be a direction modification to the source code - out to a separate module. That's so easy to do with Ruby, so this restriction hardly seems like it would have any effect on encouraging contributions.

    2. Why is TRB licensed under LGPL, not MIT?
    3. The LGPL allows users to use and integrate LGPL software components into their own software without being required to release the source code of their own software components. However, if users modify LGPL software components (“derivative work”), they are required to make the modified software component available under the same LGPL license. To avoid the latter with TRB, users have to comply with para. 5 LGPLv2.1: A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a “work that uses the Library”. Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License. In other words: if you use the TRB libraries in your commercial applications or Open-Source projects, you’re not creating a derivative work of Trailblazer. Your software can be distributed under any terms.
    1. In order to support easy reuse, revision, remixing, and redistribution, the entire Hypothesis Help knowledge base by Hypothesis is dedicated to the public domain via CC CC0 1.0. While we appreciate attribution and links back to Hypothesis from anywhere these works are published, they are not required.
    1. There have also been extensions for suggestions towards more “ethical” licensing, to prevent certain undesirable uses.
    2. It turns out that creating and using Free Software is not just good to individuals, but for businesses as well, for example by building upon publicly available components and by collaborating shared software. The term Open Source is a business-friendly rebranding of the Free Software concept. This line of thought was also widely successful, e.g. Firefox/Mozilla was an open sourcing of Netscape software.
  9. Jan 2021
    1. but that doesn’t mean that confining applications is not a benefit also to FOSS applications, security is an issue that needs to be addressed with many layers of measures no mater what licensing approach you use to license the software
    2. I don’t think he implies that, he didn’t mentioned FOSS or non-FOSS. Third party doesn’t refer to licensing, only to who provides it.
    1. Font Awesome is fully open source and is GPL friendly. You can use it for commercial projects, open source projects, or really just about whatever you want.
  10. Sep 2020
  11. Aug 2020
    1. How does the licensing work in this new setup? Everything in the ee/ directory is proprietary. Everything else is free and open source software. If your merge request does not change anything in the ee/ directory, the process of contributing changes is the same as when using the gitlab-ce repository.
  12. Jul 2020
    1. See https://choosealicense.com/ for tl;dr Please, please add a license. The fact none is listed makes using this software a legal quagmire. Currently it is not legal to use this code or its derivatives in any useful software. I may be mistaken but hopefully this is not the intended effect. Currently no license is mentioned anywhere, what makes this code fully copyrighted, like any other creative work. It limits usefulness of this project - and I hope that it is unintentional. For example it seems that it would solve my problem of profiling hilariously slow rspec tests (2036.33 seconds ./spec/word_processor_spec.rb:43), in current situation I would be unable to legally publish project that would use this solution. Obviously, please do not release it under any license if you are not the author (that would be even worse legal quagmire)
  13. Jun 2020
    1. Disqus does not allow that user can use free licenses for their comments. It is not clear who has ownership of the comments.
  14. May 2020
    1. Although there were some patenting and licensing concerns with GraphQL, these have been resolved to our satisfaction by the relicensing of the reference implementations under MIT, and the use of the OWF license for the GraphQL specification.
    1. Members currently electing to withdraw from the default royalty free license and instead offer Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) terms are:

      Why did they opt out?

    1. The most controversial issue in RAND licensing is whether the "reasonable" license price should include the value contributed by the standard-setting organization's decision to adopt the standard. A technology is often more valuable after it has been widely adopted than when it is one alternative among many; there is a good argument that a license price that captures that additional value is not "reasonable" because it does not reflect the intrinsic value of the technology being licensed. On the other hand, the adoption of the standard may signal that the adopted technology is valuable, and the patent holder should be rewarded accordingly. That is particularly relevant when the value of the patent is not clearly known before the adoption of the standard.
    2. The Free Software Foundation suggests the term "uniform fee only" (UFO) to reflect that such "(F)RAND" licenses are inherently discriminatory.
  15. Apr 2020
    1. retains credit for their intellectual property.

      As far as I know, the CC0 Public Domain Dedication under which public annotations in Hypothesis are released, does not enforce attribution. Although Hypothesis supports Creative Commons' Public Domain Guidelines, which suggest that credit should be given when the author is known, these guidelines are voluntary and non binding. Do you know why Hypothesis has decided to have annotations released under CC0 Public Domain Declaration, instead of CC-BY license?

  16. Nov 2019
    1. Any external contributions to the project from outside Outrun Labs, LLC will not be subject to this 'time-delay' - they'll be dual-licensed immediately under the MIT License.

      But what if they fork this non-open-source repo instead of oni2-mit?

      They probably don't anticipate people trying to contribute to this non-free project. But the non-free source is available (in this oni2 repo) so this issue could come up...

      How does that work if they contribute an open-source contribution to a non-open-source project? Is that allowed/anticipated?

      Their open-source commit might depend on a non-free commit. Would derivatives of their commit be considered free or not? If free, how can they be ported to oni2-mit without also bringing over non-free code/commits? If not free, then ...?

      Can they even legally create or use their own code/contribution?

  17. Oct 2019
    1. Franchise products are governed too much by economic logic and not enough by artistic vision

      Frankly this is because of the licensing issue as we know it. A company buys out a license to use Marvel characters in their films or games; in order to make the most money out of the license, maintain ownership of their license, and to avoid paying a ludicrous sum for it again, the company in question has to make media featuring marvel characters - hence the flow of sequels. Instead of artistic vision, address the licensing issue and the artistic vision will actually have room to flower.

  18. Jun 2019
    1. CC BY-SA

      Actually, I've changed the license to CC-BY-NC-SA. I just thought it might be a good idea to signal my intention that the text should NOT become part of a commercialized "walled garden".

    1. The involvement of for-profit companies like Lumen in the production and distribution of open educational resources remains controversial, since they oftentimes wind up charging students for content that is supposed to be free. Advocates for OER also sometimes worry about whether companies will capture and control student data.

      If more OER content was licensed CC-BY-NC-SA, this might dissuade this type of "capture".

  19. May 2019
    1. the risk that overly onerous and inflexible attribution requirements are simply disregarded

      This seems to be a key point, and this post doesn't really make it clear whether OUR's attribution requirement is onerous. Is the point to make it possible for an educator to find the original source, or to prevent anyone ever viewing a page without a visible attribution? It seems to me those are two very different things.

    1. If big publishers really add value to OER, then open-wrapping is not necessarily a bad thing, said Jhangiani. This is different to "openwashing" where publishers spin a product as open while continuing proprietary practices, he explained. "However, in order for this role to actually be beneficial to the community, they would need to radically change their mentality so that they do not price gouge and do not limit the choices and formats available to students and faculty," said Jhangiani. "They also need to stop behaving like parasites who simply absorb OER into their catalogues and instead also contribute resources back to the commons (like Cengage did a little bit last summer)." 

      To return to a question from an earlier convo, what impact would a CC-BY-NC-SA license on the OER have on the ability of these parasites to use our work?

  20. Nov 2018
  21. Oct 2018
    1. Consequently, the SA condition does not apply to your contributions to modified works including these kinds of changes.

      Examples would really help. I can't imagine a scenario where anyone would care about this. As was pointed out in the comments, making minor corrections to a CC BY-SA work would not enable anyone to reshare that entire work with corrections under a new license. So the case here is if someone wanted to share minor corrections to a work independently of the work itself and license those minor corrections differently? For example: Here are my typo corrections to a published work, outside of the context of that published work? Example please...

    2. In other words, the CC licenses (all of which include the BY condition) enable the creator of a work to prohibit you from attributing them. However, except in the extremely rare cases where the creator explicitly prohibits you from attributing them, you are always required to attribute the creator of a work shared under a CC BY license.

      Except for the semi-famous case of the open resources collected in lardbucket, how often does this example appear in the wild?

  22. Feb 2018
    1. Are comments permanent, and can they be cited? Yes. By making a comment, you agree to grant a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to the rest of the world for your submissions to PubMed Commons under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

      This annotation, which appears on PubMed Commons comments imported by Hypothesis, refers readers of those comments to the original licensing policy.

    1. Are comments permanent, and can they be cited? Yes. By making a comment, you agree to grant a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to the rest of the world for your submissions to PubMed Commons under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

      This annotation, which appears on PubMed Commons comments imported by Hypothesis, refers readers of those comments to the original licensing policy.

    1. Content license You agree to freely dedicate your public contributions to the public domain or, where that is not possible because of law, to freely dedicate your publications using the Creative Commons CC0 Public Domain Dedication (contributions prior to October 27, 2014 were made without reference to specific licensing terms).
  23. Oct 2017
  24. Aug 2017
    1. In the United States, before 1989 no creative work was protected by copyright unless the creator opted in to protection by reigstering. Open (free + permissions) was the default. It was only in 1989, when the US joined the Berne Convention, that protection of all creative works became automatic and closed became the new default, requiring people to opt-in to sharing.

      Wow, I did not know about this historical shift.

  25. Apr 2017
  26. May 2016
    1. Hence Linux, hence Wikipedia. Because these communities could grow and collaborate without geographic constraint, major work was done at significantly lower cost and often zero price.

      I would argue this was a mistake which we are now paying for structurally.

      If Linux was licensed such that derivative profitable use payed equity to the contributors to Linux, than many more people would share in the profits of Google, Facebook, Amazon, Rackspace, and so many more. If you take Google as an example, the company earns ~4.5M$ in profit per employee, of course 80% of their infrastructure is free software. Now imagine that each project on github was wired up using microtransaction systems and a system for assigning equity to those who contribute to the source code. Then as for-profit use of the application generates microtransactions that revenue is split by the current equity distribution to the equity holders.

      This distribution of revenue would allow for a hybrid between the open and distributed, also a more sovereign participation model of open source and the benefits of economic integration rather than simple exposure to economic exploitation.

  27. Feb 2016
    1. Technically, if you use someone else’s code revision from Stack Overflow, you would have to add a comment in your code that attributes the code to them. And then that person’s code would potentially have a different license from the rest of your code.Your average hobbyist developer might not care about the rules, but many companies forbid employees from using Stack Overflow, partly for this reason.As we enter a post open source world, Stack Overflow has explored transitioning to a more permissive MIT license, but the conversation hasn’t been easy. Questions like what happens to legacy code, and dual licensing for code and non-code contributions, have generated confusion and strong reactions.
  28. Mar 2015
    1. respecting open source licenses to making it easier for engineers to open source code and ensuring we’re giving back to the open source projects we depend on