Ubuntu Wiki

<cprofitt> Vantrax, about ownership?
<pleia2> or anything-wise
<bodhizazen> I am wondering the same thing
<bodhizazen> why are we re-creating the license issue ?
<cprofitt> http://www.ubuntu.com/legal
<bodhizazen> surely this has come up before ?
<bodhizazen> with wiki ? forums ?
<cprofitt> I think it is clear that the wiki content is owned by the author
<bodhizazen> is there a community standard ?
<bodhizazen> and if so, should we not follow it ?
<Vantrax> yes, if there is
<dthacker> kubuntu wiki is in public domain
<Vantrax> but from what mako was saying it seems like wiki hasnt even discussed it
<bodhizazen> cprofitt: how does the wiki define author ?
<cprofitt> as that is where the wiki 'legal' link takes us
<bodhizazen> many pages are worked on by many people
<Vantrax> that is the issue cprofitt
<cprofitt> I would think a wiki author is rather odd since multiple people can be an author
<Vantrax> you might create a course, then I can go edit it and improve it, then bodhi can. Who says you own it
<cprofitt> but there is a history so the author of each part could be determined
<Vantrax> in moodle too?
<cprofitt> Vantrax, given what I know about CC (which is minimal) each would own their derivative
<bodhizazen> i do not think that is what it says cprofitt
<bodhizazen> quote - the author in the case of content produced elsewhere and reproduced here with permissio
<dthacker> This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work even for commercial reasons, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms.
<bodhizazen> next statemetn
<bodhizazen> or Canonical or its content suppliers
<bodhizazen> so the content is either owned by Canonical
<dthacker> tha's the by-sa license
<bodhizazen> or if content is reproduced with permission it belongs to the author
<cprofitt> well if Canonical and Ubuntu do not have specific legal language concerning the ownership or status of wiki content then the author would have the copyright by US law
<dthacker> so I'm leaning towards' cprofitt's interpretation
<bodhizazen> Furthermore they say
<bodhizazen> You are welcome to display on your computer, download and print pages from this website provided the content is only used for personal, educational and non-commercial use.
<bodhizazen> which is what I would bet most of us would agree to for our project
<cprofitt> I would prefer to still allow commercial uses...
<cprofitt> for multiple reasons.
<bodhizazen> so why not use the same license on our site ?
<cprofitt> but would like to have a clarification from Canonical
<bodhizazen> I prefer NC
<Vantrax> ahh, educational use is fine under NC?
<bodhizazen> If someone wants to use it for commercial purposes we can discuss a donation for server and bandwidth
<cprofitt> well... if we license with NC then Canonical could not use our material
<Vantrax> I think we should look at NC with waivers granted
<Vantrax> cprofitt: we can still allow canonical to use it
<cprofitt> Vantrax -- is New Horizons educational or commercial?
<bodhizazen> It does not say that here http://www.ubuntu.com/legal
<Vantrax> we own the content and can relicense
<dthacker> by-nc-sa:This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms.
<cprofitt> Vantrax, that would be up to the author who holds ownership
<bodhizazen> +1 Vantrax
<bodhizazen> no cprofitt
<dthacker> I would say educational falls under that
<Vantrax> which is the point in making the ownership held by the project
<bodhizazen> only if we publish content with permission from an author
<cprofitt> is New Horizons commercial or Educational
<Vantrax> so the project board can allow exceptions as needed
<Vantrax> linky new horizons
<bodhizazen> Let me quote again -
<dthacker> for profit educational
<bodhizazen> The website HTML, text, images audio, video, software or other content that is made available on this website are the property of someone
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, so we would ask that authors relinquish ownership of their content?
<bodhizazen> the author in the case of content produced elsewhere and reproduced here with permission
<bodhizazen> absolutely cprofitt
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, I do not need to be re-read the lingo
<dthacker> if you use nc, you don't need permission
<cprofitt> I differ in my interpretation of what it means
<dthacker> just attribution
<bodhizazen> next ilne
<bodhizazen> or Canonical or its content suppliers
<cprofitt> the language there may or may not apply to the wiki
<Vantrax> we can specificy our interpretation of NC as part of the CC statement you know
<Vantrax> and provide exceptions
<bodhizazen> Cannonical owns it unless the content is reproduced with permission
<bodhizazen> +1 Vantrax
<bodhizazen> I see no reason we can not claim ownership bu the UCLP, unless content is published with permission
<cprofitt> the legal link is on www.ubuntu.com
<cprofitt>  not wiki.ubuntu.com
<bodhizazen> and I see no reason we can not allow Canonical to use the material, at least that has been our intent
<dthacker> and I'll point again to the kubuntu wiki being classified as "in the public domain" in 2006
<bodhizazen> why is the location of  the link important cprofitt ?
<cprofitt> first: if UCLP owns it... it can grant permission to Canonical assuming the CC allows waivers and exceptions
<bodhizazen> we can recycle 90% , with permission
<bodhizazen> and
<bodhizazen> s/Canonical/UCLP/g
<Vantrax> ill say it again, the Wiki team never decided or even looked at the legal side
<bodhizazen> and make and exception for Canonial
<Vantrax> mako noted that when we went to CC and said they would have to look into it
<cprofitt> second: you would have to have some language or an agreement with authors to remove their ownership of the content they produce
<bodhizazen> I think we are asking for trouble and headaches if we (UCLP) do not own the content
<cprofitt> Canonical is on VERY weak ground if they claim ownership of community wiki content
<bodhizazen> course 1 is NC, canonical not allowed
<cprofitt> as they do not have anyone sign an agreement
<bodhizazen> course 2 is canonical only
<bodhizazen> course 3 is ....
<bodhizazen> and author 2 wants ...
<bodhizazen> author 3 wants
<bodhizazen> etc
<dthacker> maybe my understanding is imperfect, but if I create content and license it using nc.  I only own my exact versions.
<dthacker> changes to my versions, properly attributed, belong to the next author.
<bodhizazen> cprofitt: none of this has been tested in court =)
<bodhizazen> or very little
<dthacker> so why worry about ownership?
<cprofitt> https://help.launchpad.net/Legal
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, actually some of 'this' has been tested in court
<bodhizazen> dthacker: first contenet needs to be managed
<bodhizazen> some yes cprofitt
<cprofitt> dthacker, you are correct
<cprofitt> an author can not without an agreement with a publisher relinquish his/her rights to their product
<cprofitt> at least in the US
<cprofitt> that is why most forums have some form of legal agreement about having license to USE posted content
<cprofitt> they do not claim ownership though
<Vantrax> ok board is now an administrator
<pleia2> thanks Vantrax
<bodhizazen> That is not the only reason they do not claim ownership cprofitt
<dthacker> nothing in the launchad link about nc
<cprofitt> I am sure there are many bodhizazen what are the ones you are aware of
<bodhizazen> IMO the main reason they do not claim ownership is they are nor reviewing and approving the content
<cprofitt> dthacker, exactly... the wiki for Lauchpad is just CC-BY
<bodhizazen> Take the UF
<bodhizazen> how many thousands of posts are there ?
<cprofitt> does canonical review wiki articles?
<bodhizazen> UG can not be responsible for the content of all those posts
<bodhizazen> Most forms do not want that responsibility
<dthacker> bodhizazen: ownership and control are 2 different issues.   I can write a deficient tutorial.  I own it, but there is no need for UCLP mod's to accept it.
<bodhizazen> wiki and UCLP are different in that respect
<Vantrax> and your all in the team now
<bodhizazen> our content is moderated
<cprofitt> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DocumentationTeam/License?action=show&redirect=DocteamLicense
<bodhizazen> I understand that dthacker , lol
<dthacker> so why have to own it all?
<cprofitt> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DocumentationTeam/License
<bodhizazen> I am saying if we publish content we need to :
<bodhizazen> 1. own it
<cprofitt> There is no reason that I can think of for UCLP to 'own' the product of the authors
<bodhizazen> unless we are reporducing content in which case
<bodhizazen> 2. we need permission
<pleia2> cprofitt: +1
<dthacker> IMO, we need to approve published content, not own it
<cprofitt> Unless the UCLP wants to pay me I would want to OWN my product
<pleia2> I'm with dthacker on this one
<cprofitt> and through publishing my work as CC-BY-SA they are allowed to use it
<bodhizazen> It may be my understanding that is off then :)
<cprofitt> just as coders contribute code under GPL - they still own any code they originate from my understanding
<Vantrax> if we want to use NC we would need to have the rights assigned to relicence it and to allow waivers to the licence for approved educational areas
<cprofitt> Vantrax, hence why I prefer to not use NC
<Vantrax> they own it, but cannot control it
<Vantrax> under GPL
<pleia2> ultimately I really think we should follow the DocTeam lead and keep NC out of it
<cprofitt> Vantrax, I agree
<bodhizazen> From this page
<bodhizazen> http://www.ubuntu.com/legal
<cprofitt> but they can stop making it GPL in the future...
<dthacker> I own code in tikiwiki, (very little),  but the relaese manager decides if it goes out the door .
<bodhizazen>  Home Legalese      *        Terms and conditions associated with use of this web site, and the Ubuntu distribution.  Copyright  The website HTML, text, images audio, video, software or other content that is made available on this website are the property of someone - the author in the case of content produced elsewhere and reproduced here with permission, or
<Vantrax> I can see the benefit of both honestly
<cprofitt> see Zen after Cytrix bought it...
<cprofitt> or VirtualBox after SUN bought it
<bodhizazen> or Canonical or its content suppliers. Before you use this content in some way please take care to ensure that you have the relevant rights and permissions from the copyright holder.
<dthacker> pleia2: a belated +1
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, why do you keep reposting that...
<pleia2> when we discuss things with dinda, we can bring the DocTeam's license in as an example of an officialish resource that is not NC
<bodhizazen> Tell me why we do not want our lega page to read similar ?
<bodhizazen> cprofitt: ^^
<Vantrax> I am with bodhi on that one
<cprofitt> I would prefer our legal page to actually be clear.
<dthacker> because we're not canonical, we're a community project, not a commercial one.
<cprofitt> the one you keep posting is not clear
<bodhizazen> simply change Canonical to UCL ?
<Vantrax> clear means big argument and headaches:P
<bodhizazen> UCLP ?
<cprofitt> and we are NOT a for profit organization
<Vantrax> yes
<Vantrax> that is trye
<Vantrax> true
<cprofitt> we are looking at www.ubuntu.com and wiki.ubuntu.com
<cprofitt> and it is unclear if the legal statement on www applies to wiki
<Vantrax> i do not like the idea of a university using our material and bandwith tho, it is going to be expensive for bodhi if that happens
<cprofitt> it is also impossible to determine which content on the wiki was produced elsewhere
<cprofitt> their wording is 'poor'
<Vantrax> at least not without saying something
<cprofitt> and if their lawyer was here I would tell him so
<cprofitt> might be wrong, but 
<cprofitt> Vantrax, using our bandwidth is a different issue
<cprofitt> we are mixing issues
<pleia2> cprofitt: +1
<Vantrax> yeah
<Vantrax> your right
<dthacker> Vantrax, yes we may have to have connection rules or bandwidth rules, but they could use content on their own moodle sever
<dthacker> server
<cprofitt> Moodle courses are portable
<cprofitt> as I proved by uploading the ones I did.
<Vantrax> indeed
<dthacker> \o/ portability
<bodhizazen> what is wrong with this then cprofitt
<bodhizazen> http://paste.ubuntu.com/197435/
<Vantrax> i am reasonably fine with the CC-BY-SA license, but I do have a few conserns which are the same ones that dinda had
<bodhizazen> We really do not need to use the CC-BY-SA, that is not the only option
<Vantrax> true
<Vantrax> other options?
<bodhizazen> http://paste.ubuntu.com/197435/
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, so in the case of a course I author given what you posted - I would be the copyright holder
<bodhizazen> which is very similar to what others use :)
<dthacker> I'd prefer not to wander into the land of exotic licenses
<bodhizazen> not at all cprofitt
<cprofitt> I disagree bodhizazen 
<bodhizazen> you would hold the copyright if you authored material
<cprofitt> since my course would be produced elsewhere
<bodhizazen> which we then wanted to reproduce
<bodhizazen> and we asked your permission
<bodhizazen> and you gave it to us
<cprofitt> and I would grant you rights to use it by publishing it CC-BY-SA
<cprofitt> but I would still own it
<bodhizazen> In that case, it it were published elsewhere, that would be correct
<dthacker> agrees with cproffit
<Vantrax> afk a few
<bodhizazen> it would not be correct if it were published on the UCLP
<cprofitt> your legal did not make any claim about published bodhizazen 
<cprofitt> so you are incorrect in your assertion
<bodhizazen> it can be changed cprofitt , now I think you are being difficult :)
<dthacker> bodhizaen: the act of publishing a course is not enough for the UCLP to claim ownership, they would need to make change to it.
<cprofitt> an author of a book (unpublished) would not lose their copyright if a publishing house published it based on a manuscript they sent in
<bodhizazen> I disagree dthacker
<dthacker> it's in the CC by SA license
<cprofitt> you can disagree bodhizazen but I think legal folks will disagree
<bodhizazen> How is it then that on this page
<cprofitt> I can ask the copyright and patent lawyers my mother-in-law works for.
<pleia2> yeah, copyright (in the US anyway) is automatically granted
<bodhizazen> http://www.ubuntu.com/legal
<cprofitt> we have seen that already bodhizazen 
<bodhizazen> Canonical claims copyright then ?
<cprofitt> which is why any wiki content I am the author of is my copyright not Canonical's
<cprofitt> since I produced it elsewhere
<bodhizazen> Or are you saying that they are not claiming copyright
<cprofitt> and by posting it I granted them permission to use it
<cprofitt> their language is such they would have a hard time removing my copyright
<cprofitt> that may have been their intent, but they would likely fail in the US at least
<bodhizazen> I think you are switching horses in the middle of the river and bing difficult =)
<bodhizazen> not all content on th eUCLP will be authored elsewhere
<bodhizazen> some will come from wiki
<jldugger> is there actually anyone in favor of NC?
<bodhizazen> so we need permission
* jldugger is now known as pwnguin
<bodhizazen> some may come from forms
<bodhizazen> so again we need permission
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, I am not for repacking the content that is already posted elsewhere
<cprofitt> I would simply point people at it...
<bodhizazen> some , for example questions, may come from us, the UCLP
<cprofitt> that should be effective in avoiding the legal issues
<bodhizazen> in the case of the latter, the UCLP owns the content
<dthacker> bodhizazen: if you need to use something verbatim, you cite the source and go on.  Fair use.
<bodhizazen> Well, that is why you need to be more specific whey you say ownership or copy righted
<bodhizazen> dthacker: I am not debating that
<cprofitt> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/legalcode
<bodhizazen> why are you posting that cprofitt ?
<cprofitt> http://www.copyrightaid.co.uk/forum/topic27.htm
<dthacker> bodhizazen: ownership is a charged word.  CC-BY-SA specifically says I own my content.  Others use of my content never affects my ownership. That is why the license is useful.
<cprofitt> informational for the discussion
<cprofitt> +1 dthacker 
<cprofitt> In short my understanding is that while you are the copyright owner, by posting on the forum you have already given the site owner permission to use your work. 
<cprofitt> that was in the discussion
<bodhizazen> I do not think I used that word once here : http://paste.ubuntu.com/197435/
<bodhizazen> nope, no ownership used there
<cprofitt> http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum44/2201.htm
<bodhizazen> why are we discussing CC-BY-* if no other group in Ubuntu uses it ?
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, you are correct you did not ...
<pwnguin> it doesn't use the word ownership, but it does assert that ULCP owns something
<pwnguin> which a) ULCP is not a legal entity
<pwnguin> b) requires transfer of copyright, since there are no works for hire
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, we are discussion CC-BY-* because it is a way for authors to produce work and allow it to be shared while protecting their work
<dthacker> cprofitt: +1
<cprofitt> it is, to my knowledge, the best license for the type of work we are discussing
<pwnguin> honestly, a straw poll seems like it would be effective in determining what is truly being debated here
<dthacker> and the most likely to attract authors
<bodhizazen> Well I think we are off topic is we are the only group in the Ubutnu community to use this license :)
<cprofitt> general copyright statement meant to limit liability or assert ownership on a website would not be a good method
<dthacker> "we're special"
<cprofitt> we are the only group?
<pwnguin> the wiki?
<bodhizazen> what does the wiki use ?
<dthacker> public domain
<bodhizazen> forums ?
<bodhizazen> MOTU ?
<dthacker> unknown
<cprofitt> bodhi did you read the link I posted to the Launchpad wiki?
<pwnguin> motu uses DFSG
<bodhizazen> Launchpad ?
<dthacker> launchpad uses cc-by-sa
<pwnguin> and cc-by-sa i believe is dfsg
<pwnguin> depending onthe version
<pwnguin> because yes, the fine print matters
<cprofitt> https://help.launchpad.net/Legal
<cprofitt> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DocumentationTeam/License?action=show&redirect=DocteamLicense
<cprofitt> that is the wiki doc team content
<cprofitt> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DocumentationTeam/License
<dthacker> that's 2
<cprofitt> dthacker, launchpad uses different CC licenses according to that page
<bodhizazen> You keep giving me links that specify who owns something or who has the copy right
<cprofitt> You asked who uses CC I thought bodhizazen 
<bodhizazen> and then tell me we do not want to do that :)
<bodhizazen> So again ...
<bodhizazen> The documentation contained in the Launchpad Help wiki, the Launchpad Development wiki, and on the Launchpad blog is owned by Canonical Ltd and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
<cprofitt> I want to use CC-BY-SA
<pwnguin> bodhizazen: i'd call them acceptable terms of contribution
<bodhizazen> why do we not want the same thing ?
<dthacker> false logic: licensing != ownership
<pwnguin> ie, you can own a document and contribute it to ubuntu onder cc-by-sa
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, that is fine... but as pwnguin has pointed out UCLP != Canonical
<bodhizazen> The documentation contained in the UCLP is owned by the UCLP and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
<cprofitt> in the case of courses the author would OWN the work and they would publish it under CC-BY-SA
<bodhizazen> That is the same wording as LP
<bodhizazen> changing Canonical to UCLP
<cprofitt> great.
<pwnguin> if the wiki asserts ownership of content, thats a little wierd and you should ask make for cliarficiation
<cprofitt> I am not sure if UCLP can own something as it has no legal standing or substance
<pwnguin> mako
<cprofitt> I prefer to have the authors OWN the work and publish it via CC-BY-SA
<bodhizazen> That is a poor argurement cprofitt :)
<cprofitt> the wiki asserts ownership only if the content was not produced elsewhee pwnguin 
<bodhizazen> we an either ask to be owned by Canonical or we can draft a LLC
<pwnguin> bodhizazen: there's no way you'll be able to incorporate ULCP
<dthacker> if i publish it with CC-by-sa then I will own it
<cprofitt> so likely an author would OWN their work
<pwnguin> cprofitt: i see a (c) canonical 2008
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, my argument is no more poor than yours
<bodhizazen> OK, well with that I think we have made as much progress as can be expected for a day :)
<dthacker> incorporating UCLP adds no value
<pwnguin> you'd at least be able to assign copyright ownership to UCLP
<pwnguin> since the ubuntu foundation is a facade
<cprofitt> pwnguin, https://help.launchpad.net/Legal/ProjectLicensing
<pwnguin> but i have yet to see a case made for transfer of ownership
<pwnguin> cprofitt: those are the terms for using launchpad for free. what of it?
<dthacker> you know, I think the best we can to is make the material we publish accurate, helpful, and available for others to improve.
<dthacker> control of "ownership" is not necessary for that
<cprofitt> to be honest I really see no value in breaking down Canonical's poor legal wording on their website as we should be concerned with how we want to license our product
<pwnguin> to be clear
* pwnguin prefers courseware be licensed under cc-by-sa. 
<cprofitt> pwnguin, I think the language there indicates that not all content on launchpad is 'OWNED' by Canonical
<pwnguin> cprofitt: not really, but it's irrelevant as you point out
* dthacker prefers cc-by-sa, but could live with nc
<cprofitt> if Canonical claimed ownership of all things on Launchpad there would be no need to tell people how to license their project
<cprofitt> I prefer CC-BY-SA
<cprofitt> if Canonical requires us to use NC to get the Ubuntu word in our name I would consider it
<pwnguin> i would consider that newsworthy
<cprofitt> I would not consider asking authors to grant Canonical or UCLP (assuming it had a legal form) 'ownership'
<cprofitt> I can see requiring them to use CC-BY-SA, but not turning over ownership
* bodhizazen has quit ("http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client")
<Vantrax> ok lets can this arguement because we are going round in circles. Not much point in NC because we couldnt enforce it. We cant legally own copyright because we are not a legal entity
<cprofitt> at least based on what I know as of now
<cprofitt> Vantrax, +1
<cprofitt> I hope bodhi comes back...
<pwnguin> i think this argument is going in circles because a key player isn't present in negotiations
<Vantrax> We can rewrite anything ourselves that is that valueable and doesnt have a compatable license
<cprofitt> he is the one pushing hard for NC
<pwnguin> is he?
<Vantrax> I know why he is too
<cprofitt> he is or he believes that Canonical is asking us too...
<cprofitt> please share Vantrax 
<Vantrax> but it creates an ever expanding problem if we do
<Vantrax> we then have to have permission to relicense and make exemptions to the -nc part of the license
<Vantrax> that will be very difficult to sell
<cprofitt> http://mailman.uwc.ac.za/pipermail/nextgen-online/2006-May/010993.html
<Vantrax> we also cannot enforce it
<cprofitt> Vantrax, we would not have permission to relicense just because we use NC
<cprofitt> if we have ownership we do...
<Vantrax> that was the issue
<cprofitt> but using BY-SA would not require relicensing 
<Vantrax> we would have to have permission, in writing, or ownership
<pwnguin> cprofitt: all i meant was that there's this vague and awkward copyright canonical; if there's an intended assertion to ownership of contributions it seems contrary to public perception and actions undertaken
<Vantrax> that is its biggest attraction
<cprofitt> authors publishing under BY-SA would automatically be granting UCLP the right to use it
<Vantrax> yes
<cprofitt> pwnguin, I agree
<Vantrax> not that we would need it because its BY-SA
<Vantrax> keeping a list of contributors to a course would become a problem
<Vantrax> you have to attribute the original author, and every other person that worked on it
<cprofitt> at present I think we need to clarify Canonical's actual request or stance on the issue
<cprofitt> Vantrax, correct
<Vantrax> yes, but im assuming im right on that
<pwnguin> attribution is mandatory, essentially
<cprofitt> it should not be hard to track that...
<pwnguin> no getting around that; we have tools for this, however i dont know how well moodle hadles them
<cprofitt> pwnguin, have you looked at the three courses I uploaded
<pwnguin> not yet
<pwnguin> honestly, its been busy at work lately with the new semester
<pwnguin> and the recent conflict about -nc seems disconcerting
<pwnguin> you'd think the moodle instance would be in the topic
* dthacker needs to get some work done. Later all.
<cprofitt> pwnguin, yes... it is a hang up...
<cprofitt> we had decided on a license, but the issue has come back up
<cprofitt> and I doubt we can move forward until it is resolved
<cprofitt> and it appears to have the possibility of destroying the effort
<pwnguin> i dont understand it; -nc is pretty much discriminatory against field of endevor and clearly non-free
<cprofitt> which is why we must be willing to listen and address people's concerns
<cprofitt> -NC for me is not compatible with Free Software as Stallman would have it
<cprofitt> but I do understand the desire by some to use the license
<cprofitt> two of the courses I uploaded are NC
<pwnguin> its silly; you can find entire courses on MINIX under more liberal licenses
<Vantrax> I think CC-BY-SA assuming no Canonical issues.
<Vantrax> we need to have a proper board meeting with billy and belinda and resolve it
<pwnguin> the shadow board
<cprofitt> http://learn.ufbt.net/mod/resource/view.php?id=29
<cprofitt> that is the license for the third course
<cprofitt> I guess it is possible to license each course individually, but I would not want to do that
<cprofitt> because of the complexity of managing that
<pwnguin> i can understand a few high profile exceptions
<pwnguin> even debian compromises
<cprofitt> a few would be ok...
<pleia2> agreed
<pwnguin> but i think it's vanity to assume projects on UCLP are going to be so high profile that people will seek them out and "steal" them
<cprofitt> multiples in the hundreds would be a nightmare
<cprofitt> pwnguin, I agree
<cprofitt> I also think allowing a training company to download and host our courses while charging for the training is acceptable
<pwnguin> god
<pwnguin> it cant be worse than the status quo
<cprofitt> lol
<pwnguin> http://jldugger.livejournal.com/19709.html
<pleia2> pwnguin: honestly I suspect the reason the ubuntu wiki folks havent put a ton of thought into it is because they feel the same - not worth arguing over, and who will really steal it all anyway? will we actually go after them legally?
<dthacker> pwnguin: ewwwwww
<cprofitt> pleia2, I agree...
<cprofitt> how do you guys feel about author ownership -- is that ok or is there some need for UCLP to find a way to own the content?
<pleia2> it's ok, I see no reason for UCLP to own the content
<pwnguin> i thought the linux kernel settled the whole copyright assignment debate
<cprofitt> lol
<cprofitt> I have no clue about the Kernel
<cprofitt> maybe it was the colonel though, heh?
<dthacker> we don't need to own the content.
<pwnguin> the kernel is owned in aggregate
<dthacker> we meaning UCLP
<pwnguin> in contrast with the FSF, which requires copyright assignment for serious contributions
<cprofitt> dthacker, I got ya
<cprofitt> I need to get to sleep -- it is late and this discussion has taken most of my free time today
<cprofitt> ...
<cprofitt> sorry that it took up your time as well... but we need to navigate the waters with caution

<cprofitt> hello all
<cprofitt> pleia2, has dinda been in at all today?
<pleia2> cprofitt: she joined the channel this morning, but I haven't seen her talk anywhere today
<cprofitt> ok... thanks.
<cprofitt> what about doc?
<pleia2> nope
<bodhizazen> I think we should put licensing discussion on the back burner for the moment
<bodhizazen> the wiki is operating without such a thing
<bodhizazen> and ask for advice from outside this group
<bodhizazen> we can decide to discuss this with the CC and or dinda ?
<bodhizazen> or whoever we wish
<bodhizazen> I also think we need to look at what the rest of the community does
<bodhizazen> The other option would be to hire a lawyer to draft something for us
<bodhizazen> I would consider covering the cost of that last option
<dinda> cprofitt: I'm here for about 20 minutes
<cprofitt> dinda - on licensing 
<cprofitt> Is Canonical ok with us using CC-BY-SA or would they prefer NC?
<dinda> cprofitt: ack - I can speak for myself not Canonical, would have to run it by the lawyers if the CC-SA only were used
<cprofitt> ok...
<cprofitt> Bodhi was concerned and we wanted to clarify that.
<cprofitt> I know the stuff you produce - that we may point people to as a resource - is NC
<dinda> i * think* the why this material is different is b/c we have somewhat competing training materials
<cprofitt> With the exception that we will never 'certify' someone...
<dinda> the desktop course was Canonical's first attempt at producing community developed materials
<pleia2> yeah, the difference is what is tripping us up I think, the DocTeam uses all CC-BY-SA so I was hoping we could just follow their lead
<dinda> pleia2: yip, except there is no Canonical commercial equivalant to the DocTeam materials
* pleia2 nods
<dinda> let me go ahead and pass it by our legal. . .
<cprofitt> that would be fantastic dinda 
<pleia2> thanks :)
<cprofitt> I appreciate it
<dinda> afaik sabdfl or no one else on the CC has any issues with the license you folks want to choose
<cprofitt> dinda, we just want to make sure... no sense in getting started and having an issue down the road
<cprofitt> we do not wish to bite the hand that is 'feeding' us
<dinda> it's b/c I know our agreements with training partners has some exclusivity clauses in regards to materials that I can see some potential conflicts
<cprofitt> but we also would like the product to be as 'F'ree as possible while encouraging the adoption of Ubuntu
<cprofitt> with our produced courses or in our potentially 'using' Canonical's products?
<dinda> they (training partners) might be able to complain b/c we point folks to "free" resources on the same site we are trying to get folks to look at their offerings
<cprofitt> got it...
* dinda goes to review the training partner agreement quickly
<cprofitt> but what if the training partners were able to use our courses?
<cprofitt> If we go NC they would not be able too...
<cprofitt> The course material is only one part...
<cprofitt> providing a lab and a live instructor is another
<cprofitt> There may be a win-win for the training providers if we keep building and improving the courseware
<cprofitt> and they can use it in their commercial training
<cprofitt> just to 'flip' the coin on it...
<cprofitt> does that make any sense?
<dinda> what is the official name of this project again?
<cprofitt> pleia2, dinda - did I lose you guys?
<cprofitt> Ubuntu Community Learning Project
<dinda> cprofitt: training partners can't use your materials, they can only use Canonical materials
<cprofitt> dinda, because of the agreement with Canonical?
<dinda> cprofitt: correct
<cprofitt> ok...
<pleia2> cprofitt: no, I don't really have any input until we understand the legal implications WRT canonical
<cprofitt> hmm... I see some 'ways' around that, but we would have to talk to legal... and I do not know the structure in place currently
<cprofitt> I understand where the logjam could be better now though...
<cprofitt> I assume Canonical currently 'sells' the training to the partners
<dinda> and personally I don't have any issues with the license but in my view as a potential community contributor I'd prefer my work here not be used by anyone for commercial purposes. . .inlcuding canonical
<pwnguin> how about a statement from the board along the lines of "it is the intention of the UCLP to adopt CC-BY-SA by default materials", and ask Canonical legal for approval?
<cprofitt> dinda, the concern I have is the 'definition' of commerical....
<cprofitt> is a College commercial if it is a private institution?
<dinda> with Docs it's a bit easier b/c all that is integrated and while I suppose someone could take all the system docs and charge for it, don't think it would sell
<cprofitt> Is a college like Bryant and Stratton - which is a career ed college that charges per the course and only has associates degrees commercial
<dinda> cprofitt: a college is a commercial regardless of non-profit status b/c they are selling the materials by way of charging tuition
<cprofitt> dinda, that is what I thought...
<cprofitt> others were trying to say that they are not...
<pwnguin> dinda: this ties your hands you know. if a team of say ten people update some courseware to reflect new releases of software, you now need ten sign offs to profit from your own work + theirs
<cprofitt> State Schools may be non-commercial as are K-12s that are public
<cprofitt> I was really hoping to have 'schools' be able to use the material... as I feel they are they key turning the worm
<pwnguin> dinda: generally, and ive spoken to lawyers in a "I am not your lawyer" status about Creative Commons, a college is designated non-commercial
<dinda> the NC was a way to try to appease our corporate folks that we weren't giving the course materials away. . .though I've been advocating conceding the desktop course to the community and changing the license
<pwnguin> presumably, there's some international problems regarding NC
<pwnguin> canonical is not incorporated in the US
<dinda> with my Canonical hat on:  I'm concerned that training partners will be upset if they realize we are hosting or in this case pointing to the community site, yet in our agreements with them we kind of tie their hands
<dinda> pwnguin: yes we are
<pwnguin> oh?
<dinda> pwnguin: there is a Canonical USA
<pwnguin> interesting
<dinda> Canonical Ltd in the UK and also incorporated in the Isle of Man
<dinda> Canonical has subsidiaries in several countries now including Taiwan and the US
<cprofitt> dinda, I would like to suggest that the courseware be free... but the exam and ability to 'certify' people be '$$$'
<cprofitt> but as I do not know the business arrangement with the partners it is hard to know how that fits the business model that Canonical has in regards to training
<dinda> so i'm drafting an email to our legal team right now to get their opinion and to make sure there are no legal objections to Canonical pointing the community site and our paid partners
<cprofitt> dinda, I do appreciate that...
<cprofitt> I have a greater perspective on this now...
<cprofitt> I certainly want to make it fit.
<cprofitt> pwnguin, in regards to schools I would not think that all Universities / Colleges are non-commercial
* dinda puts on her community hat:  the CC-by-SA seems to work fine for docs and I'm personally "ok" working on such a project knowing full well my contribution has no protection from those who want to reuse for comercial purposes
<pwnguin> cprofitt: probably, devry and so on ar enot
<cprofitt> some maybe, but I am not sure how the difference between a training company and a college would be defined
<pwnguin> cprofitt: incorporation status
<cprofitt> State operated learning institutions would likely be, but private... that would get murky
<dinda> cprofitt: inthe states it gets even trickier b/c of accrediation issues with educational institutions. . .
* cprofitt shakes his head
<cprofitt> lawyers...
<pwnguin> then again, it's just one lawyer's suggestion, with no particular credentials other than working for a college and attending a copyright session
<dinda> cprofitt: for example we were told in Texas, the training companies have to abide by certain rules and can't offer courses to individuals, only to companies b/c of non-compete issues with shcools
* cprofitt sigh
<dinda> cprofitt: yeah, and it all seemed so simple!  ;)
<cprofitt> pwnguin, yeah we have had three different interpretations on 'fair use' in regards to K-12
<dinda> cprofitt: don't worry, it will get simpler again once we get the lawyers ok - promise
<cprofitt> dinda, I am not worried...
<cprofitt> it just means we have to go slow... which many of us knew to being with
<cprofitt> a few wanted to move at warp speed, but that is just not possible
<dinda> cprofitt: ok email sent to lawyers
* cprofitt smiles
<cprofitt> thank you very much dinda 
<dinda> cprofitt: np
* dinda waves as I head off to a baseball game
<cprofitt> good luck dinda 

update

<dinda> cprofitt: doctormo_ pleia2 et al:  I have something of an answer from our legal team
<pleia2> great
<doctormo_> dinda: great
* doctormo_ is now known as doctormo
<dinda> unfortunately, as with most legal things, I'm not sure it makes things any clearer for what you folks decide to do,. . .
<dinda> first:  no opinion on licensing, either is fine, no conflicts
<dinda> second: they recommend the project get some legal advice from SFLC
<dinda> we can effect an introduction
<dinda> all that aside, there are now questions as to where the server should be hosted, i.e if you want an ubuntu.com subdomain then elmo, James Troup has already said he would prefer it be in the Canonical data centre. . .
<dinda> I think he was going to work with bodhizazen on that issue already??
<pleia2> I believe so
<cprofitt> SFLC?
<doctormo> dinda: Aye, that's an issue for bodhizazen and other sys-admins,
<dinda> kewl, then bodhizazen already knows all the issues involved in that
<doctormo> cprofitt: Software Freedom Law Center
<doctormo> cprofitt: The FSF spin off group
<dinda> Software Freedom Legal Counsel - i believe
<cprofitt> dinda, that would remove some of Bodhi's concerns if Canonical hosted it.
* pleia2 nods
<dinda> cprofitt: yes but the trade offs are in responsiveness and sys-admin access
<doctormo> Although what would he do with the investment he's already made?
<cprofitt> dinda, true... true
<pleia2> dinda: thank you :) this gives us a lot to discuss
<cprofitt> he would likely just use the server for UBT items if Canonical hosted it.
<doctormo> I wonder if I can further wine and dine jpds ;-)
<cprofitt> I appreciate the information dinda 
<cprofitt> we will have to discuss it more...