Ph: 18200810
![[image]](http://mowser.com/img?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fgroups%2Fimg%2Fwatched_n.gif "Click the star to watch this topic")
![[image]](http://mowser.com/img?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fgroups%2Fimg%2Fthreadsub_n.gif "Click the envelope to receive email updates")
![[image]](http://mowser.com/img?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fgroups%2Fimg%2Fchevron_left_blue.gif)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
![[image]](http://mowser.com/img?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fgroups%2Fimg%2Fdot_clear.gif)
From: micu <micuin...@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 10:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Wed, Jul 9 2008 1:18 pm
Subject: Licence approval
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_...
Or is there a good reason why you do not have these licences on your
list?
Best regards,
micu
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
From: micu <micuin...@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 19:26:47 +0200
Local: Wed, Jul 9 2008 1:26 pm
Subject: PS: congratulation
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!
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
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
From: "Andy Brooks" <ajbro...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 10:45:34 -0700
Local: Wed, Jul 9 2008 1:45 pm
Subject: Re: Licence approval
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
- Hide quoted text -
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 10:18 AM, micu <micuin...@gmx.de> wrote:
> 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_...
> Or is there a good reason why you do not have these licences on your
> list?
> Best regards,
> micu
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
From: "Andy Brooks" <ajbro...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 10:46:02 -0700
Local: Wed, Jul 9 2008 1:46 pm
Subject: Re: Licence approval
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
- Hide quoted text -
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 10:18 AM, micu <micuin...@gmx.de> wrote:
> 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_...
> Or is there a good reason why you do not have these licences on your
> list?
> Best regards,
> micu
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
From: "Mike Linksvayer" <m...@gondwanaland.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 17:13:51 -0700
Local: Wed, Jul 9 2008 8:13 pm
Subject: Re: PS: congratulation
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 10:26 AM, micu <micuin...@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!> 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!
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
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
From: Jonathan Gray <jonathan.g...@okfn.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:26:03 +0100
Local: Fri, Jul 11 2008 9:26 am
Subject: Re: Licence approval
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
- Hide quoted text -
micu wrote:
> Hi everybody,
> 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_...
> Or is there a good reason why you do not have these licences on your
> list?
> Best regards,
> micu
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
From: Hanno Böck <ha...@hboeck.de>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:36:17 +0200
Local: Fri, Jul 11 2008 9:36 am
Subject: Re: Licence approval
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> people use it, or whether it is being developed?
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
![[image]](http://mowser.com/img?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fgroups%2Fimg%2Fui%2Fapache%2Funknown.gif)
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
From: "Benj. Mako Hill" <m...@atdot.cc>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:59:51 +0300
Local: Thurs, Jul 17 2008 7:59 am
Subject: Re: Licence approval
<quote who="Andy Brooks" date="Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 10:45:34AM -0700">
> Hey micu,
I think we should at least address the existence of the licenses> 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.
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
m...@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
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
From: "Mike Linksvayer" <m...@gondwanaland.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 07:44:33 -0700
Local: Fri, Jul 18 2008 10:44 am
Subject: Re: Licence approval
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 4:59 AM, Benj. Mako Hill <m...@atdot.cc> wrote:
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...
> 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.
That would be cool. FWIW here's a message I sent a few days ago that> 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?
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-co...
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
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
End of messages
©2008 Google
You are viewing a mobilized version of this site...
View original page here
