March 16th, 2005


userinfo senji
2005/03/16 17:14:00 - Licensing issues
Following </a></b></a>emperor's comment on my previous entry I have been considering the issue of licensing the entries within my livejournal for reproduction (and modification). Obviously in the cases where they include third-party copyright (such as most sheep) the issue is horribly complicated, but in the case where I'm the sole author of the content it seems relevant.

After a discussion on #chiark my position has shifted a bit (as illogicities were pointed out) and I'm rather unsure how to word this but this is the sort of thing I'm thinking of…

Permission is granted to copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell entries from this journal, or portions thereof, provided that:
  • No profit is made as a result of this

  • Acknowledgement is made of my authorship and copyright of the work

  • Either copy of this permission notice, or a link to a copy of this permission notice, shall be included

An entry specifically does not include the userpic or moodicon associated with that entry.

This license represents a default, individual entries may specify other license terms, and requests to change the licensing for specific entries will be considered.

Any thoughts?
Current Mood: [mood icon] thoughtful
Entry Tags: copyright, emperor, geeky, licensing, lj, meta

< | 13 glosses | comment | > )

userinfo emperor
[userpic]
2005/03/16 18:11:36
So you'd object to me writing a book "the 100 best livejournal entries" and including a post of yours, if I was planning on publishing and selling said book?
reply | thread )
userinfo senji
[userpic]
2005/03/16 18:13:33
I probably wouldn't in practice. However I would object to you including it under that license.
reply | parent | thread )
userinfo emperor
[userpic]
2005/03/16 18:23:23
Why? Is it because you object to me making UKP off your work, or of doing so without asking first?
reply | parent | thread )
userinfo senji
[userpic]
2005/03/16 18:29:47
Mainly because I can't construct a logically consistent hard-and-fast rule about what I'm happy with.

In general, though, I think it's more the latter than the former.
reply | parent | thread )
userinfo cartesiandaemon
[userpic]
2005/03/17 11:11:01
Obviously it'd be tidier if you could specify every case, but surely your approach is fine in that few enough people will want to profit from your lj that they can ask, and you can decide then if it's a "sure" or a "but I want a cut" case? I'd assume that's what everyone else thinks, just without such a thought-out disclaimer.
reply | parent | thread )
userinfo naath
[userpic]
2005/03/16 18:33:09
I think that it's the asking. I personally wouldn't want to buy a book and find out that it quoted me without my having been asked.
reply | parent | thread )
userinfo mooism
2005/03/17 12:23:25
See Creative Commons for licences like this.
reply | thread )
userinfo chess
[userpic]
2005/03/17 12:31:43
What about the little user-icon-pictures that you use? Aren't they also someone else's?
reply | thread )
userinfo senji
[userpic]
2005/03/17 12:36:07
Hence the note that userpics and mood-icons don't count as part of an entry.
reply | parent | thread )
userinfo chess
[userpic]
2005/03/17 13:10:11
But userpics are the big 100x100 ones, and mood-icons are the ones beside moods. I mean the ones beside people's usernames.
reply | parent | thread )
userinfo senji
[userpic]
2005/03/17 13:13:30
Oh, good point. There goes my brain not interpreting those as text. Hmm... Yes.
reply | parent | thread )
userinfo curig
2005/06/29 21:54:54
thread )
userinfo senji
[userpic]
2005/06/29 22:02:16
You could sell them only at cost (such as the cost of the media that they're published on).
reply | parent | thread )

< | 13 glosses | comment | > )

Licensing issues - Squaring the circle...

> log in
> recent entries
> fiends
> archive
> toothywiki page
> profile
> new entry
> recent comments


> go to top