Licensing for PG-Canada content
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Darryl Moore wrote:
I'll open this discussion by suggesting a cc|ca licence option (1) attribution
http://creativecommons.ca/index.php?p=explained
I.E. anyone can do anything they want so long as they attribute PGC as the source.
I know that some people have expressed their concern over the PG license. However, I don't believe it should be discarded out of hand. A key point is that it does _not_ claim any copyright on the text itself and only restricts what can be done with the text as long as it is done along with the Project Gutenberg trademark. This helps to end the self-perpetuating new claims of copyright on old material that is so prevalent. I have a problem with releasing PG Canada e-books under an Attribution license that says we can: let others copy, distribute, display, and perform [our] copyrighted work - and derivative works based upon it - but only if they give [us] credit. If we own the copyright to an item, we are entitled to say that; but as long it truly is public domain material, we don't have a right to impose such restrictions on it. We could _request_ to be acknowledged as a source, but I don't see that we could require it. Andrew
I think that maybe we could/should have an option on the web site to provide the books is a raw ASCII form. In that form I think we could even have a non-licence which clearly states that the text is in the public domain and is provided with absolutely no restrictions. My thoughts around licencing of other forms are two fold: 1) I am assuming there is a reasonable amount of work which goes into marking up the texts as James is planning. (This unfortunately may be where my ignorance shows as I have not yet done any of this sort of stuff.) Copyright law unfortunately does not provide any guidelines for how much work constitutes a new derived work. By placing a licence here, even if it is somehow determined that what we are providing are new derived works, we will have ensured that they are treated like public domain. 2) We need to ensure that a future malcontented DP volunteer does not make everybodies' lives difficult by claiming his own more restrictive rights on the works for the same reasons stated in (1). By ensuring that the works submitters are consenting to the same licence they will not be able to force us to remove works from the archives at a later date. Basically any licence would be to cover our asses. We could even state that in other words, in the licence itself. Put in a preamble which says that we don't think you should need this but... The only reason for the attribution is to acknowledge the work that DP volunteers have done and to spread the word about the public domain and Project Gutenberg. If we disavow the licence then perhaps we could just make this a polite request. Andrew Sly wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Darryl Moore wrote:
I'll open this discussion by suggesting a cc|ca licence option (1) attribution
http://creativecommons.ca/index.php?p=explained
I.E. anyone can do anything they want so long as they attribute PGC as the source.
I know that some people have expressed their concern over the PG license. However, I don't believe it should be discarded out of hand.
A key point is that it does _not_ claim any copyright on the text itself and only restricts what can be done with the text as long as it is done along with the Project Gutenberg trademark. This helps to end the self-perpetuating new claims of copyright on old material that is so prevalent.
I have a problem with releasing PG Canada e-books under an Attribution license that says we can: let others copy, distribute, display, and perform [our] copyrighted work - and derivative works based upon it - but only if they give [us] credit.
If we own the copyright to an item, we are entitled to say that; but as long it truly is public domain material, we don't have a right to impose such restrictions on it. We could _request_ to be acknowledged as a source, but I don't see that we could require it.
Two thoughts here. 1) I believe that providing raw text files as an output format is a given. I personally would be very disappointed if this were not so. Some people will say "get rid of those old, obselete ascii texts", but they have proven to be the most portable, long-lasting texts for many purposes. A brief story here: As a Project Gutenberg volunteer who deals with catalog correction emails, I had a message to reply to not long ago, from someone who wanted to find all of the King James bible in one text file. Somehow, he had ended up viewing the catalog record for a PG release which contained the text of the King James bible split up into multiple html files instead. So we received from him a long message about how he comes to PG expecting to find plain text files, and what business have we got doing anything else.... 2) What you mention below seems to me to have to do with the eternally recurring argument of "sweat-of-the-brow" copyright vs. "intellectual contribution" copyright. I do not know how this issue stands under Canadaian law, however, here is a quote which may be applicable from "Canadian Copyright Law, 3rd Ed." Editions _per se_ are not protected by copyright. That is, the way a work is typographically arranged (format, type fonts and layout) is not currently protected by the law. Andrew On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Darryl Moore wrote:
I think that maybe we could/should have an option on the web site to provide the books is a raw ASCII form. In that form I think we could even have a non-licence which clearly states that the text is in the public domain and is provided with absolutely no restrictions.
My thoughts around licencing of other forms are two fold:
1) I am assuming there is a reasonable amount of work which goes into marking up the texts as James is planning. (This unfortunately may be where my ignorance shows as I have not yet done any of this sort of stuff.) Copyright law unfortunately does not provide any guidelines for how much work constitutes a new derived work. By placing a licence here, even if it is somehow determined that what we are providing are new derived works, we will have ensured that they are treated like public domain.
2) We need to ensure that a future malcontented DP volunteer does not make everybodies' lives difficult by claiming his own more restrictive rights on the works for the same reasons stated in (1). By ensuring that the works submitters are consenting to the same licence they will not be able to force us to remove works from the archives at a later date.
Basically any licence would be to cover our asses. We could even state that in other words, in the licence itself. Put in a preamble which says that we don't think you should need this but...
The only reason for the attribution is to acknowledge the work that DP volunteers have done and to spread the word about the public domain and Project Gutenberg. If we disavow the licence then perhaps we could just make this a polite request.
As per the King James Bible example below. . . . I just found the following King James Versions: The Bible, King James Version 10900 Apr 2005 The Bible, King James, Revelation Book 66[#86][bib66xxx.xxx] 8066 ... Apr 2005 The Bible, King James, Genesis Book 1[#21][bib01xxx.xxx] 8001 The Bible, King James version, Complete, Books 1-66 7999 Apr 1992 New eBook of Bible [KJV] [From many editions] [biblexxx.xxx] 30 Aug 1989 The Bible, Both Testaments, King James Version [kjvxxxxx.xxx] 10 Simply by searching for "King James" and "KJV" Is there something wrong with our catalog or search engine that would not allow the casual reader to find and use these, including the whole Bible in one file, as requested below? Should we do something to make finding these simpler or more obvious? BTW, we also have several other English editions of the Bible, in one large file or broken down by book, and also several in other languages, all found with my search of "Bible." Thanks! Michael On Sat, 29 Jan 2005, Andrew Sly wrote:
Two thoughts here.
1) I believe that providing raw text files as an output format is a given. I personally would be very disappointed if this were not so. Some people will say "get rid of those old, obselete ascii texts", but they have proven to be the most portable, long-lasting texts for many purposes.
A brief story here:
As a Project Gutenberg volunteer who deals with catalog correction emails, I had a message to reply to not long ago, from someone who wanted to find all of the King James bible in one text file. Somehow, he had ended up viewing the catalog record for a PG release which contained the text of the King James bible split up into multiple html files instead. So we received from him a long message about how he comes to PG expecting to find plain text files, and what business have we got doing anything else....
2) What you mention below seems to me to have to do with the eternally recurring argument of "sweat-of-the-brow" copyright vs. "intellectual contribution" copyright.
I do not know how this issue stands under Canadaian law, however, here is a quote which may be applicable from "Canadian Copyright Law, 3rd Ed."
Editions _per se_ are not protected by copyright. That is, the way a work is typographically arranged (format, type fonts and layout) is not currently protected by the law.
Andrew
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Darryl Moore wrote:
I think that maybe we could/should have an option on the web site to provide the books is a raw ASCII form. In that form I think we could even have a non-licence which clearly states that the text is in the public domain and is provided with absolutely no restrictions.
My thoughts around licencing of other forms are two fold:
1) I am assuming there is a reasonable amount of work which goes into marking up the texts as James is planning. (This unfortunately may be where my ignorance shows as I have not yet done any of this sort of stuff.) Copyright law unfortunately does not provide any guidelines for how much work constitutes a new derived work. By placing a licence here, even if it is somehow determined that what we are providing are new derived works, we will have ensured that they are treated like public domain.
2) We need to ensure that a future malcontented DP volunteer does not make everybodies' lives difficult by claiming his own more restrictive rights on the works for the same reasons stated in (1). By ensuring that the works submitters are consenting to the same licence they will not be able to force us to remove works from the archives at a later date.
Basically any licence would be to cover our asses. We could even state that in other words, in the licence itself. Put in a preamble which says that we don't think you should need this but...
The only reason for the attribution is to acknowledge the work that DP volunteers have done and to spread the word about the public domain and Project Gutenberg. If we disavow the licence then perhaps we could just make this a polite request.
_______________________________________________ Project Gutenberg of Canada Website: http://www.projectgutenberg.ca/ List: pgcanada@lists.pglaf.org Archives: http://lists.pglaf.org/private.cgi/pgcanada/
Andrew Sly wrote:
Darryl Moore wrote:
I'll open this discussion by suggesting a cc|ca licence option (1) attribution
http://creativecommons.ca/index.php?p=explained
I.E. anyone can do anything they want so long as they attribute PGC as the source.
I know that some people have expressed their concern over the PG license. However, I don't believe it should be discarded out of hand.
A key point is that it does _not_ claim any copyright on the text itself and only restricts what can be done with the text as long as it is done along with the Project Gutenberg trademark. This helps to end the self-perpetuating new claims of copyright on old material that is so prevalent.
Can't the CC|CA license option be tweaked to cover the special needs of PGCan and which conforms with Canadian copyright law?
I have a problem with releasing PG Canada e-books under an Attribution license that says we can: let others copy, distribute, display, and perform [our] copyrighted work - and derivative works based upon it - but only if they give [us] credit.
If we own the copyright to an item, we are entitled to say that; but as long it truly is public domain material, we don't have a right to impose such restrictions on it. We could _request_ to be acknowledged as a source, but I don't see that we could require it.
Again, I'd get with the CC|CA folk to ask for some new category/ approach/wording to fit PGCan's special needs. Even though most of the works will derive from PD sources (but not all of the works -- for the rest, such as modern donated works, CC|CA is a must), there are portions of what PGCan issues which will automatically be copyrighted by the "born copyrighted" principle. Standing back and looking at the Bigger Picture, I believe it a Very Good Idea (tm) for any PG country group to not go it alone when it doesn't have to (as PGUSA seems to do for just about everything under the sun.) And for PGCan to tie itself to the key movements such as Creative Commons which wish for positive copyright reform not only is a very good idea, it is a smart political move to gain friends and influence (for example, consider asking someone from the CC|CA group to serve on the PGCan Board of Trustees.) PGUSA could have been a lot more powerful in influencing public policy (which would then have gained it greater prominence, leading to more stable core funding and greater results) had it not been so strangely xenophobic the last decade with its "Everyone is out to screw us and the Public Domain, so we must go it alone in everything we do" philosophy. It is sad. So PGCan, being a new entity with no baggage, is well-positioned to not repeat the same mistakes of the past and to take the leading world-wide role in copyright reform issues and the protection of the Public Domain. Grab the ring! Want to influence Canadian copyright policy?, then work with CC on wording that works for PGCan and which is also in conformance with Canadian copyright law. Don't go it alone here unless it proves necessary to do so. Just my $0.02 worth. Jon Noring
participants (4)
-
Andrew Sly -
Darryl Moore -
Jon Noring -
Michael Hart