[Harmony-Drafting] Licensing for website content and agreements

Wed Jun 8 14:05:07 UTC 2011

Hi Dennis

My responses to you are in line.

Hope this helps.

Amanda
> Amanda Brock, General Counsel
> Canonical
> 27 Floor, Millbank Tower
> London SW1P 4QP
> +44 2076302446
> +44 7809389878
> Ubuntu - Linux for Human Beings
> www.canonical.com
> Regarding (with the numbering corresponding to markers in-line):
>
> ">The Project
>> Harmony contribution agreements may be modified, but modified versions
>> may not distributed under the Harmony brand; provided that such
>> modified versions may include the following notice: "This Contribution
>> Agreement is a modified version of contribution agreements developed
>> by Project Harmony."
> "I think a simple licence along the lines of Allison's statement is fine, then we can add an attribution statement if this is the general consensus.
>
> 1.  It appears to me that by changing "may" to "shall"/"must"  is close to a required attribution statement for derivatives.
I think that is what Mark is asking for
>     At most one might require reference to the Harmony document from which derivation has occurred.  Having this  also means that folks don't have to hunt someone down to find out what an acceptable attribution is, a common omission in most CC-by declarations that I run across.
I really don't mind so long as a person who amends and uses a document 
cannot say its a Harmony agreement once it is amended. In past 
discussions (perhaps before you joined) the group agreed that it could 
be called a Harmony based agreement.  Like all branded documents, 
including CC, if they are amended they are no longer the branded beast.
> 2. I don't think GPL and CC-by are in any way equivalent.  GPL is more like CC-share-alike without attribution (and without any confusion/presumed-endorsement prohibition too).  Also, GPL has provisions  that are not very meaningful for documents and specifications, including template agreement documents.   I find it odd that the CC-by is considered to have more terms than the GPL.  Which GPL license is that?  I think it is wise to start from the position that there is no thing as "just another open source license."
It seems to me that the point may be being missed here. We are not 
saying GPL and CC are the same or trying to compare them, or any other 
open source licences.

However, we are saying that using either approach:
1. the GPL approach:  saying GPL can be used so long as it is not 
modified and still be called GPL, without its use being under CC or any 
other licence (ie a licence for a licence, etc); and
2. adding a standardised licence document giving rights to use the 
Harmony document: the CC licence is a distinct document which has a 
number of clauses giving the right to use, in this case, a Harmony 
document. This means we end up with two documents rather than one.
whichever is used, is still open.

The two approaches are just two different ways of being open, neither of 
which is right or wrong and both of which are currently used.

So the issue here is not so much a question of choosing a licence to 
apply to the Harmony agreements as a question of approach, ie do we need 
a whole formal licence to apply to the Harmony agreements or is it 
enough to give the community a right to use the Harmony documents in the 
Harmony document. My preference is the latter as it seems to keep this 
as simple as possible.

We are *not* saying CC has more terms than the GPL, we *are* saying that 
in terms of the right to use a standard document, a one line licence 
giving the right to use the Harmony document (the GPL approach)  is 
shorter than attaching a CC licence to the Harmony documents.

Very much hope that helps to clarify, but if not, do shout!
>   - Dennis
>
> MORE THOUGHTS
>
> 3. I favor the CC-by arrangement (but none of the share-alike and non-commercial variations).  The nice part about it is that there is no need to copy the CC-by license itself or even the CC-by deed (a very public-spirited achievement, by the way).  It is also permissive in the way you appear to desire.  There does need to be a statement on the limitation with regard to confusion with any Harmony contribution-agreement templates (just as there is no thing as just another "contribution agreement"), but simple plain language should suffice.  For web pages, there are established practices for embedding links, using the CC-by logotype, and also embedding "semantic" information that does not intrude on the human-readable presentation.  This also works in electronic documents as well as web pages, depending on the digital format of the document.
>
> I assume that the Apache Contributor License Agreement forms (one of which I have just executed) are not themselves explicitly licensed (so are simply all-rights-reserved from birth) because they are specific to contributions to the Apache Software Foundation and are not offered as templates.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: harmony-drafting-bounces at lists.harmonyagreements.org [mailto:harmony-drafting-bounces at lists.harmonyagreements.org] On Behalf Of Amanda Brock
> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 04:01
> To: harmony-drafting at lists.harmonyagreements.org
> Subject: Re: [Harmony-Drafting] Licensing for website content and agreements
>
> Hi there
>
> I have made my comments in line.
>
> [ ... ]
>
> On 07/06/11 19:25, consiliens wrote:
> [ ... ]
>> Here's a slight variation on Mark's proposal.
>>
> *** dh: 1 ***
>> "Except where otherwise noted, all content on this site and the
>> agreements are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
>> Unported License. The Project Harmony contribution agreements may be
>> copied and distributed verbatim under the Harmony brand. The Project
>> Harmony contribution agreements may be modified, but modified versions
>> may not distributed under the Harmony brand; provided that such
>> modified versions may include the following notice: "This Contribution
>> Agreement is a modified version of contribution agreements developed
>> by Project Harmony."
> I think a simple licence along the lines of Allison's statement is fine, then we can add an attribution statement if this is the general consensus.
>> The "following notice" section could be considered the required
>> attribution component of the CC BY license.
> *** dh:2 ***
> The CC licence creates more terms than I think we actually need and I think the model used by GPL is enough. Is there any actual objection to us following the GPL model. Surely this is just another open source model. Again if I am missing something please let me know.
>> A standard widely adopted license is highly preferable if the goal is
>> "to make it easy for developers and lawyers to review the agreements"
>> (quoted from Allison).  The issue is not "over-engineering" vs
>> simplicity,
> I think it is. We don't need a full licence. Go, use it any way you like without changing the wording. If you use it any other way then attribute and note that it is modified.
>> it's a question of inequity and rights distribution.  CC BY, according
>> to Allison, "does seem like a close fit to what we've talked about"
>> and explicitly grants the public rights to the content in a way that
>> doesn't cause problems with Harmony's right to endorse agreements.
>> The "simplicity" of the proprietary all rights reserved no derivatives
>> allowed approach is undesirable and not in the public interest.
> *** dh:3 ***
> However, if the consensus is that we should use CC, then lets use CC.
>
> [ ... ]
>> On 06/07/2011 10:12 AM, Radcliffe, Mark wrote:
>>> I suggest being more explicit:
>>>
>>> Except where otherwise noted, all content on this site is licensed
>>> under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license. The Project
>>> Harmony contribution agreements may be copies and distributed
>>> verbatim under the Harmony brand. The Project Harmony contribution
>>> agreements may be modified, but modified versions may not distributed
>>> under the Harmony brand; provided that such modified versions may
>>> include the following notice: "This Contribution Agreement is a
>>> modified version of contribution agreements developed by Project
>>> Harmony."
>>> .
> [ ... ]
>