**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Sat Jan 10 02:59:59 2015 Jan 11 00:06:59 DocScrutinizer05: I'm pretty sure you can *not* officially speak for OpenMoko. being an ex-employee gives you zero power over copyrights formerly owned by the company Jan 11 00:07:20 contacting Sean is probably the best bet though for finding out who owns the copyright nowadays Jan 11 00:07:44 (usually there is some kind of legal successor even if a company goes out of business AIUI) Jan 11 00:09:38 starseeker: personally, I find it quite depressing that CC-BY-SA is considered unsuitable for scientific publications... but I guess that's the way it is :-( Jan 11 00:12:06 by-sa prolly isnt compatible with the way R&D works in companies anyway Jan 11 00:12:44 not being able to do derivative work on scientific publications is kind of a no-go Jan 11 00:13:25 (since you cant redistribute this work in a cc-by-sa non-compatible license) Jan 11 00:15:29 I suppose this is more about academic publications... but yeah, I fear the idea in the US is that it has to be more or less public domain, so companies can create proprietary locked up stuff based on it... Jan 11 00:22:36 * arossdotme is away: Away Jan 11 00:29:13 * arossdotme is back (gone 00:06:36) Jan 11 00:55:15 antrik: obviously I cannot speak legally binding for anybody else (unless I'm under contract and got instruction/permission to do so). But I meant to speak for OM regarding what been the intention when publishing stuff under CC-BY-CA and that is sth I can speak about Jan 11 00:57:53 particularly see http://people.openmoko.org/joerg/schematics/GTA02/Schematics_Freerunner-GTA02_A5-A7cumulative_public_RC0.pdf front page Jan 11 01:05:50 or let's put it this way: when somebody want to use those documents in a way that requires some small deviations from the verbatim rules of CC-BY-CA and I tell them that's OK, they can assume I'm talking in the name of OM and when some trouble arises, it's me to blame for doing so, not them Jan 11 01:07:17 but the basic statement simply is: there will be no problems since nobody is interested in creating any problems regarding that Jan 11 01:10:34 publishing the files under no license whatsoever been no option since that wouldn't waive copyright in the material, so OM picked the best most permissive license we could think of Jan 11 01:38:50 CC-BY-SA is not a permissive license. it's a copyleft license -- which is precisely the issue here Jan 11 01:39:09 if you wanted a permissive license, CC-BY would be more appropriate, or maybe even CC0 Jan 11 01:41:12 this is not just a matter of "small deviations". the copyleft is a very fundamental decision, not really up for interpretation Jan 11 02:02:04 whatever you say Jan 11 02:02:28 are you the once to claim this copyright? Jan 11 02:02:48 if no, then I wonder what you're arguing about with me Jan 11 02:04:55 particularly maybe you postpone such argument until there's actually an issue to argue about Jan 11 02:10:00 when starseeker couldn't contact Sean and still has massive issues using the CC-BY-SA file, I might find a file version that's not licenced in any way, on my local mirror of OM fileserver. I might share this file to starseeker under certain agreement regarding the way he uses it. THEN you could bash me for breaking my agreement with OM, though I'd still wonder what's your interest in doing so, since iirc you're not involved - Jan 11 02:10:02 and never been - in OM, right? Jan 11 02:13:03 particularly you wouldn't even know if I actually break my agreement with OM by doing so, at all Jan 11 02:25:26 however for any article in a magazine aiui it's pretty much sufficient to have a footnote "Original CAD files (C) Openmoko Inc, used with permission. All derivative data files available at under CC-BY-CA" and still the complete article doesn't need to be under CC-BY-CA itself, and the author or the mag can hold the copyright Jan 11 02:27:28 as for using the files in educational context, I think CC-BY-CA is absolutely fine, and the results are *supposed* to be CC-BY-CA again Jan 11 02:29:55 given these preconditions are met, I consider myself entitled to give such permission for a "used with permission" Jan 11 02:30:40 just in case no better solution can be found, like the suggested contacting Sean Jan 11 02:31:58 quote Sean: "better ask for pardon than for permission" Jan 11 02:35:19 and again: there's *nobody* who's still interested in keeping the copyright of those files. They are public, and that's it. We encouraged other companies to use them to build own (derivative) cases based on them, and CC-BY-CA was only ment to force those companies to also share the derivative CAD files when they do so Jan 11 02:36:15 -By-SA* Jan 11 02:40:38 maybe we can augment the licensing so all "2nd order derivative data" like rendering them etc is simply "free" Jan 11 02:41:29 after all, real physical cases made based on them are also not CC-BY-SA ;-) Jan 11 02:42:05 so when a real case isn't (meant to be) CC-BY-SA, why would a (rendered) picture of such case be? Jan 11 02:43:37 it's basically about definition of what's "derivative work" Jan 11 02:46:17 the hell are you going on about Jan 11 02:55:04 annoying copyright debates Jan 11 02:55:52 >>his Section 4(a) applies to the Work as incorporated in a Collection, but this does not require the Collection apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this License<< http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode 4.a. This clearly applies to articles in journals **** ENDING LOGGING AT Sun Jan 11 02:59:58 2015