Question, CC License, post split from: Discuss: Joomla! FAQ Section

brad · Post by **brad** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 4:48 am

Taken from: http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,158266.0.html

ibnhafsun wrote: Will be helpful, well done.

We only need now a generic permission to translate and post the FAQs on the international boards.

No, we can´t do that. We need to ask the authors and then the FAQ mods. If we use the license (CC a-nc-sa), we can´t do it. May be it´s time to add something like "and translations on the international boards" to the FAQs submission guide.

Why not use the material under the CC licence and credit the original work by linking back to the relevant FAQ?

ibnhafsun · Post by **ibnhafsun** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:20 am

Are you going to remove the forum ads?

brad · Post by **brad** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:51 am

ibnhafsun wrote: Are you going to remove the forum ads?

I have no idea how that question related to the recently released FAQ's on the help site. However, in answer to that question, no. However, we do not have ad's on the help site.

ibnhafsun · Post by **ibnhafsun** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:59 am

The FAQs are now licensed under a CC a-NC-sa.

Posting a translated FAQ on the forums would be a violation of the NC clause. OSM has the right to use the FAQs on the official set of websites, not me.

I´ve asked this to the FAQ WG some time ago (prior to the new publishing terms). As I´ve said, I needed the author´s permission and the FAQ WG permission too. Now, with a CC a-nc-sa license, I can translate a FAQ and place it on my non ad supported website but not here as it would be a violation of the NC clause.

brad · Post by **brad** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:05 am

I guess you should post this in the foundation forum. However OSM is not a commercial business, and in my understanding, material posted on this forum is not being used in a commercial context.

I'll split off these posts, and allow someone else to continue this discussion with you.

ibnhafsun · Post by **ibnhafsun** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:14 am

Thanks, brad, better this way.

The current situation is as I´ve stated (and as I´ve stated before): copyrighted works handled by a Team and published under a CC a-nc-sa. My understanding is that everyone wants the helpful information translated and available to the non-english speaking users. If not, excuse me. To achieve this you can:

a) add a line to the FAQs submission
b) add Translation Teams to the FAQs Teams or a new WG
c) keep things as they are now (asking for prior permission)

The simplest solution is a)

brian · Post by **brian** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:15 am

@ibnhafsun

If I was to take an FAQ from help.joomla.org and translate it to klingon keeping all attributions and links back to the source and then post it here at forum.joomla.org. Even "if this forum could be deemed to be commercial" then as I wouldnt be gaining any financial benefit wouldnt that therefore be ok. I can only see the problem if I posted the klingon translated faq on klingon.com which is a commercial venture?

IANAL

ibnhafsun · Post by **ibnhafsun** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:29 am

OSM is an allowed user but it would be an unfair use.

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-l ... n-0001.pdf

brian · Post by **brian** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:36 am

Thats an interesting read thanks. Is there a similar document that covers translated works?

ibnhafsun · Post by **ibnhafsun** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:43 am

In despite of our current translation guidelines, a translation is always a derivative. Always (see the US IP code).

The rules for a derivative under a -sa clause are the same applied to the original work: a-nc-sa

ibnhafsun · Post by **ibnhafsun** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:59 am

http://www.adamfields.com/CC-NC-allowed ... wchart.pdf

This flowchart is very illustrative too.

PS: it only covers the simplest use cases with a wider and "more relaxed" interpretation.

brian · Post by **brian** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 1:06 pm

Is there an error in the flowchart? Shouldnt the bottom option be no not yes?

Chris Davenport · Post by **Chris Davenport** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 1:13 pm

Which clause (in the document you referred to) would a translation of a FAQ posted to the forum violate?

I'm guessing B3. But that states that the NC-licensed work must be the primary or substantial draw for it to to fail to be non-commercial. I think you would have a hard time arguing that any given FAQ would be that important to forum visitors as a whole.

Or am I missing the point?

Regards,
Chris.

manuman · Post by **manuman** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 1:19 pm

Sorry... until Brad moved this I missed the discussion.

First impression is that Chris is correct, however I'll pass this on to legals and see what they have to say.

Cheers
shayne

ibnhafsun · Post by **ibnhafsun** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 1:44 pm

First of all, those guidelines are a simple overview (with a non restrictive interpretation). Usually you should take in mind

license and

intentions.

Now, let´s see your point:

3) Is the NC-licensed work being used in connection with advertisements for third party products or services where the NC-licensed work is the primary draw or a is substantial amount, both qualitatively and quantitatively? For example, does a podcast consisting solely of CC BY-NC-SA licensed music have ads for a record store at the start and end of the podcast.

take a look at what we see on a single forum post (see the attached file)

and answer the question.

For me, the work (a FAQ) is being used in connection with the adsense ad, where the FAQ is the primary draw or a is substantial amount, both qualitatively and quantitatively. But it is just my opinion, you know... And you would have a hard time trying to explain me how that ad would be impressed and clicked without the FAQ.

ibnhafsun · Post by **ibnhafsun** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:04 pm

brian, yes it´s an error.

Chris Davenport · Post by **Chris Davenport** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 5:26 pm

ibnhafsun, I see your point. I think there is an inherent ambiguity in the license wording that will require legal interpretation. Does version 3.0 of the CC licenses make a better job of it?

Regards,
Chris.

ibnhafsun · Post by **ibnhafsun** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 5:35 pm

The NC clause is a real nightmare. Don´t tell me I haven´t told you

Does version 3.0 of the CC licenses make a better job of it?

My short answer: no. You should go to the license terms and the intentions again.

But, IMO, that´s not the question and it depends of what do you pretend to do and offer. What do you have? What do you want to have? The big questions

. Once you have an answer, the licensing policy would be easier to choose.

ibnhafsun · Post by **ibnhafsun** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 5:40 pm

Ops, someone, I am sure, would ask: what´s the problem? We all are nice people, doing our best just for free and fun.

My reply would be: remember furthermore. With this licensing scenario we have a lot of people involved, not only the original author. As I´ve said before I can claim my rights over a translation of a derivative work of the original FAQ. You only need a guy willing to cause problems to see what the CC a-nc-sa means.

Of course you could say, "bah, let´s wait and see what happens", but, IMO, it would be like saying "Joomla! has a security bug that will compromise your server, but don´t worry, you need to find a hacker first".

brad · Post by **brad** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:25 pm

a) add a line to the FAQs submission

Can you give us an example of what wording you are proposing?

louis.landry · Post by **louis.landry** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:35 pm

Since James Vasile is the SFLC attorney working on the next generation FDL and has intimate knowledge of the area... is Joomla!'s attorney and sits on the OSM board, I think we should probably present the question to him and see what he suggests

Louis

ibnhafsun · Post by **ibnhafsun** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:42 pm

Nice idea

Let´s wait then. But don´t forget to explain him what do you want to have (he will be able to see what do you have).

brian · Post by **brian** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:10 pm

Especialy good idea if he recommends the FDL instead of the CC

mcsmom · Post by **mcsmom** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 7:42 am

I will probably be talking to James tomorrow, so I can ask him to take a look at this thread.

brian · Post by **brian** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:16 am

thanks. good to be able to draw on the experience of an expert

compass · Post by **compass** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 3:44 pm

Bear in mind that the author can make exceptions.

The author could allow OSM to make translations through 3rd parties (derived works), commercial use (if faq + adwords equal that), but it could still be NC so that community members can take the material and use in NC settings.

ibnhafsun · Post by **ibnhafsun** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 5:57 pm

Yes, but take in mind that OSM is not the author.

The "old" policy said just the opposite: you are the author and by posting a FAQ you are allowing OSM (not me) to make use of that material and to make derivatives on the official set of websites.

The Joomla! Forum™