License and legal concern about the W3C wiki content

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

License and legal concern about the W3C wiki content

Jeremie Patonnier
Hi,

I make a new post thread to talk about those legal stuffs.

To resume my position : I think CC BY-BC-SA are a bad license for a wiki. The attribution constrain is to hard for such a content, especially educational content. USA and UK have legal agreement (such as « Fair use ») to not have to worried about it. But France and some other countries do not have such an agreement.

To be perfectly clear, I don't care. The spirit behind that content is very clear : « Use it to spread the world about Web standards ». It's fine with me... but we all know that the Internet is full of jerk. In the current legal state, if a single moron make a change on the wiki content under CC, he can lock the content down.

Now, to answer Karl, I suggest two things here :
  1. If possible, turn any CC content into a CC0 "Public Domain" content. FWIW I think it's the most appropriate license term for such a content.
  2. If it's not possible, add some precision about what "attribution" means on the W3C wiki. It's the way Wikipedia deal with this concern and even if I'm not convince it's enough, at least, it prevent from any stupid legal abuse.
Now to conclude, as I said, this will change nothing to me, but I think it's a concern for the W3C. IMHO If this wiki become more and more publicly known, this concern will grow fast.

Cheers
Jérémie

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Karl Dubost <[hidden email]>
Date: 2011/7/31
Subject: Re: WSC update - introductory article edited.
To: Jeremie Patonnier <[hidden email]>
Cc: Chris Mills <[hidden email]>, "'[hidden email]' w3. org" <[hidden email]>



Le 30 juil. 2011 à 18:20, Jeremie Patonnier a écrit :
> I'm pretty sure we will never have to be worry about that

so maybe we should not start worry about it. ;)

> but I think there is some legal concern here anyway.

What would you propose for a license that would address those concerns.

--
Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/
Developer Relations & Tools, Opera Software




--
Jeremie
.............................
Web : http://jeremie.patonnier.net
Twitter : @JeremiePat

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License and legal concern about the W3C wiki content

Patrick H. Lauke
On 31/07/2011 21:02, Jeremie Patonnier wrote:

> To resume my position : I think CC BY-BC-SA
> <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/> are a bad license
> for a wiki. The attribution constrain is to hard for such a content,
> especially educational content. USA and UK have legal agreement (such as
> « Fair use ») to not have to worried about it. But France and some other
> countries do not have such an agreement.
>
> To be perfectly clear, I don't care. The spirit behind that content is
> very clear : « Use it to spread the world about Web standards ». It's
> fine with me... but we all know that the Internet is full of jerk. In
> the current legal state, if a single moron make a change on the wiki
> content under CC, he can lock the content down.
>
> Now, to answer Karl, I suggest two things here :
>
>  1. If possible, turn any CC content into a CC0 "Public Domain" content.
>     FWIW I think it's the most appropriate license term for such a content.

+1 - particularly for Wiki having an attribution (BY) requirement gets
messy with multiple authors (unless the attribution was to be made to
W3C and the wiki as a whole entity, rather than individual authors that
made the edits/additions).

Though it'd be great to have NC and SA enforced, it's probably easier
for all involved to waive those as well.

I wouldn't mind it being http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

P

>  2. If it's not possible, add some precision about what "attribution"
>     means on the W3C wiki. It's the way Wikipedia deal with this concern
>     and even if I'm not convince it's enough, at least, it prevent from
>     any stupid legal abuse.
>
> Now to conclude, as I said, this will change nothing to me, but I think
> it's a concern for the W3C. IMHO If this wiki become more and more
> publicly known, this concern will grow fast.
>
> Cheers
> Jérémie

--
Patrick H. Lauke
______________________________________________________________
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]

www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/
______________________________________________________________
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
______________________________________________________________

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License and legal concern about the W3C wiki content

Karl Dubost-5
In reply to this post by Jeremie Patonnier

Le 31 juil. 2011 à 16:02, Jeremie Patonnier a écrit :
> • If possible, turn any CC content into a CC0 "Public Domain" content. FWIW I think it's the most appropriate license term for such a content.

CC0 = no rights reserved.
note that it doesn't solve everything (*) but might help, I would be happy with it. The wiki [1] has a lot of contents already, not sure how we deal with the history.



[1]: http://www.w3.org/wiki/

(*) It is not possible to put your work in public domain in France for example. but I'm not a lawyer and the wikipedia page seems to talk about CC0 positively.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domaine_public_en_droit_de_la_propriété_intellectuelle_français#Quand_l.E2.80.99.C5.93uvre_entre-t-elle_dans_le_domaine_public_.3F



--
Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/
Developer Relations & Tools, Opera Software


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License and legal concern about the W3C wiki content

Chris Mills-6

On 31 Jul 2011, at 21:42, Karl Dubost wrote:

>
> Le 31 juil. 2011 à 16:02, Jeremie Patonnier a écrit :
>> • If possible, turn any CC content into a CC0 "Public Domain" content. FWIW I think it's the most appropriate license term for such a content.
>
> CC0 = no rights reserved.

ok - this sounds reasonable to me.


> note that it doesn't solve everything (*) but might help, I would be happy with it. The wiki [1] has a lot of contents already, not sure how we deal with the history.
>

hrm.

>
>
> [1]: http://www.w3.org/wiki/
>
> (*) It is not possible to put your work in public domain in France for example. but I'm not a lawyer and the wikipedia page seems to talk about CC0 positively.
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domaine_public_en_droit_de_la_propriété_intellectuelle_français#Quand_l.E2.80.99.C5.93uvre_entre-t-elle_dans_le_domaine_public_.3F
>
>
>
> --
> Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/
> Developer Relations & Tools, Opera Software


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License and legal concern about the W3C wiki content

Jeremie Patonnier
In reply to this post by Karl Dubost-5
Hello

2011/7/31 Karl Dubost <[hidden email]>
CC0 = no rights reserved.
note that it doesn't solve everything (*)

(*) It is not possible to put your work in public domain in France for example.

CC0 is possible in some ways in France. But it's necessary to understand the way Intellectual property is define in France.

French Intellectual property is define in two part :
  1. First, we have what we call "Droit Moral". This is more or less what we could call "Attribution Right". This is the right for a creator to claim the paternity of his creation. And, more important, it's also the right to deny to others the opportunity to claim a false paternity over his own creation. This right is indisputable and can not be avoid, even by the creator himself (and even after his death!) once his paternity is set. So, in France, even if someone put his creation under a CC0 license he can't loose this right.
  2. Second, we have what we call "Droit fiduciaires". This is the part where we talk about money ;) In France, any creator can expect some money for his creation work but this right can be sold or given to a third party.
For exemple, as a web site creator for a Web agency, nor my boss, nor my client can deny me the right to claim that I made my client's web site. But, my boss pay me to do it so he earn the right to make money with it (and sell this right to my client) without any further rght from me to ask for more money, whatever my client do with my creation (even if he earns billions on the currency of your choice with my creation).

So under the French law CC0 means that a creator can still claim his paternity over a creation (and no one else can) but said that no one has to pay to use his creation ;) More precisely, he say that no one can forbid someone to make money with his creation even himself.

It's due to this point of "Droit Moral" that it's usualy said that "it's impossible to put a creation under a true Public Domain license in France".
--
Jeremie
.............................
Web : http://jeremie.patonnier.net
Twitter : @JeremiePat