[AktiviX] copyright configuration: licensing commercial use?

[cc at riseup.net]

Hi

On Wed 30-Jun-2004 at 07:50:11PM +0100, mp wrote:
> 
> perhaps you have convinced me that for practical
> purposes, in this context, your suggestion is the
> better; however i do think that it in that case would
> make sense to include an introduction to the principal
> differences as they been expressed in our sentiments
> here: stuff under this license can be used by Murdoch
> without paying us a single cent, because we beleive that
> it is a good thing if he does so, or because it is
> easier and whatever else we can come up with. I say so
> because I imagine that it is a sensitive issue to some
> activists (if their stuff in principle could be used by
> those who have so much and don't share..... is
> attribution enough?)

Yes, I agree, the free software outlook on these metters
is one that AktixiX should aim to spread, and explain it
in a clear way is a start of this :-)

There are links to this Copyrights page built into the
wiki but it has no text at the moment on it, we could
write this up there:

  http://wiki.aktivix.org/AktiviX:Copyrights

> > A more realistic example would be if someone wanted to
> > reproduce stuff off the site for a pamphlet on free
> > software.
> 
> yes. Like IBM.

Well I can't really see that happening either...

But I could imagine that a distro such as Blag might want
to use some material off the site for help / howto
documentation on Linux for activists? But with a
no-commercial use clause this could be a problem since it
is encouraged for people to burn and sell or give away
Linux on CDs... 

> > A concrete example of something like this is the
> > Indymedia Handbook which is mostly from stuff from the
> > IMC wiki http://www.hedonistpress.com/indymedia/
> 
> I wouldn't really call this an example of commercial
> use, but rather a friendly mirroring.

Well yes, but I think there is a lesson here.

There has been a print run of a nice paper version with a
hemp cover and these were paid for by a US IMC for using
for outreach in Africa. Also SchNews has some for sale for
a fiver each on their recent tour. However when I
contacted the printer to ask about copies for the UK IMC
network there were none available... If this book was
under ShareAlike Attribution terms anyone could print it
and sell it, if it was under ShareAlike Attribution
NoCommercialUse terms nobody could, could they? As it is
the copyright of it is unclear since it's content was
taken from IMC sites where the terms are not all clear or
all the same...

I think it would be a good thing if there were lots of
copies of this book printed and available to buy... or
better, free ;-)

> > If we use a license that does not allow commercial use
> > then the person putting together a pamphlet would not
> > be allowed to sell it, which would be bad because it
> > could mean that it wouldn't even get produced :-/
> 
> What does commercial use mean then? Doesn't it mean FOR
> PROFIT also? Or does it mean just to sell it (even at
> production cost)? Or does it refer to a more specific
> activity and a particular (capitalist) business model?

I don't know really (IANAL - I am not a laywer ;-), all of
these I expect and in addition I thinks selling stuff for
below the production costs would also be commercial just
because it is being sold. 

I would say that mirroring content and running google ads
on the mirror would also count as commercial use -- this
has happened with the wikipedia.

> In other words:
> 
> Does it mean both (i) that IBM could not sell it, and
> (ii) that a local collective or cooperative, which is a
> friendly not-for-profit, such as Seeds For Change, could
> also not sell it, although their activities is
> qualitatively different than that of IBM? What control
> do we have over it?

Yes I think these things would be the same in law wouldn't
they?

> Perhaps what i am getting at here is rather a discussion
> about the taxonomy of CC licenses in general and not our
> particular case. I will ask CC about this issue.

Good idea.

> In any case, I think that I tend to agree with you that
> there is a lot to be said for letting all use be allowed
> for two reasons: (i) nothing will be of a
> quality/content that will attract Murdoch (however IBM
> might just find something for a marketing leaflet!);
> (ii) it is easier and much more permissive, thus easier
> to deal with.

Yep.

> > Martin suggests that for some cases we could change
> > the terms of the license -- but to do this we would
> > have to contect everyone who contributed to ask their
> > permission and they would all have a veto over
> > changing it and if someone was not contactable then we
> > would be stuffed and couldn't change the license. 
> 
> Unless it is stipulated that stuff licensed here can be
> "sold" for commercial purposes through a swift consensus
> decision making process, such as a 2-3 day process on
> this (or another) list (similar to an Indymedia feature
> based on newswire postings).

But there will be people who do stuff on the wiki that
won't also be on the list -- how could people on the bake
a decision to change the terms of other peoples work?

> > I'd be interested in hearing what others think about
> > this... Bunny? Nick?
> 
> Me too. As I said in last email: I think this is an
> interesting discussion and involves a tension between
> the traditional process of "recuperation" versus some
> sort of fast/wider and easier spread of a new idea. 

Yeah, I agree.

Chris