That just narks me -)
Me too. My objection is based on someone charging for what someone else did, not on a commercial organisation giving a copy of the work free. And, on the other hand, if the frame work is good, there's is an advantage to it being accepted and publicised by commercial as well as public organisations. In reading creativecommons dot org/weblog/entry/3633 there's a proposal for an educational purposes that might be a thought.
No Derivative Works might also be a good idea. I'd hate to see someone try to pass off a reword as theirs.
Thanks for that - I hadn't seen the educational license before - that is an interesting addendum to the CC licensing structures. It looks like it might solve some issues with the non-commercial clause, because, contrary to my SANS dig above, I wouldn't necessarily want to stop a company from charging to train using the methodology, just not charging for its distribution …
In my mind the "No Derivative Works" is an absolute must not only because
I'd hate to see someone try to pass off a reword as theirs.
but also because without this it means that changes can be made to it without it passing through any form of quality control. This is the last thing that we can allow to happen as any errors in it will be viewed in an extremely negative light and it will take a long time to regain a good reputation. ( Errors that we make ourselves we deserve to be persecuted for -) other people's I don't fancy … 😯 )
Uh, I hate to ask this, but can a loose affiliation of folks "claim" control over a joint work? Do we have to exist legally?
Jamie, do you have a non-profit corporation laying around that could be used?
Jamie, do you have a non-profit corporation laying around that could be used?
Let me check my pockets…um, no. Sorry!
wink
Jamie
Uh, I hate to ask this, but can a loose affiliation of folks "claim" control over a joint work? Do we have to exist legally?
Ah … Hadn't thought of it like that … My assumption was that as other groups exist to produce open source software, and they have the protection of the GPL, that we could make use of any license for a group if we saw fit. I agree that in some cases these are legal entities ( Apache and Samba spring to mind ), but a majority aren't. I think that so long as all of the contributors agree to the licensing terms then we don't have a problem.
I will however do my best to clarify this definitively.
Jamie, do you have a non-profit corporation laying around that could be used?
It's not really an entity that exists in the UK to the best of my knowledge … I guess that "charity" would be the closest thing … These are though, I understand, a bit of a pain in the neck to administer having ( sensibly ) all sorts of legal obligations to get the tax breaks that they get …
Unless we have to, I would really rather avoid creating anything, it takes time, costs money and generally is a pain in the neck …
I am, as always, willing to listen to input on this matter though -)
Ok. Clarification of the CC license, the terms are defined as such
"Licensor" means the individual, individuals, entity or entities that offer(s) the Work under the terms of this License.
and
"Original Author" means, in the case of a literary or artistic work, the individual, individuals, entity or entities who created the Work …
That seems to me to cover the position that we are in -)
However …
Having actually read the darn thing in detail, I can see why there is the OML as well.
There is a clause relating to "public performance" which requires that you make the "performance" available under the same terms as the original document - I guess that without the clarification of the OML one could argue that an examination presented in court based on the methodology could be seen as a "public performance" of the work, and thus would need to be freely distributable …
Fun huh ? 😯
I agree with you azrael & ddow
@ddow,
good point yours about "Do we have to exist legally?"
What about asking to a lawyer (possibly a friend whose cost = 0 ) ?
Anyway seems that guys at Isecom (OSSTMM) have still passed through this stage and mixed some licences http//
Maybe this could be enough (if I'm not missing something)
Rob
The ISECOM example starts to fall apart at this point unfortunately ( because
(1) It _IS_ a non-profit organisation and registered as such.
and
(2) The OSSTMM is written by Pete Herzog, on his own, there are external peer review times, but the actual document ( I believe … ) is the product of one man, and thus, he can do what the heck he likes with his copyright …
I've asked on the CC mailing list what they think about the questions that we have, and I've pointed at the OSSTMM as an example … So I'll report back as soon as I know more … wink
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I present the results of the CC mailing list discussions …
azrael wrote
> Hi All,
>
> I'm currently working in collaboration with some others on creating a
> methodology for Digital Forensic work, we want to publish publicly so that
> most people can benefit from the knowledge - we however want to keep
> control
> of the document for quality control purposes, and also to restrict it being
> sold, because … well basically because we don't want that -)
>
> We have a couple of questions regarding the CC licenses Attrib - No
> Commercial - No Derivs …
>
> (1) Does No commercial prevent someone using our methodology to create a
> piece of work for profit ? E.g. Can a paid forensic examiner work a client
> case according to our methodology and report it according to guidelines
> that
> we set if we use the "No commercial" section …Yes. Copyright law itself doesn't reach far enough to stop them.
You're running up against the functionality problem; processes as such
aren't copyrightable, only descriptions of them. Even a copyright in
the format isn't sufficient – there's a 19th century case (Baker v.
Selden) that copyright in an accounting system won't stop someone else
from publishing a book of forms that "interoperate" with the system.You'd need something more like patent protection, or perhaps trade
secret. Trade secret is pretty much incompatible with using a CC
license, and with your goal of distributing the knowledge.What your license will do is make sure that no one changes the
methodology as they distribute it far and wide, and also make sure that
no one distributing it will profit *from the distribution*.Good, sorry, I didn't quite make it clear which side of the fence we were on on this one -) The above result is what we were looking to obtain - protection of our work, but free use of the "benefits" from following it.
Happy to hear this.> (2) If the above happens ( either for profit or not … ) and the acquired
> results are presented in court, would this qualify as a "public
> performance"
> of the work, and would it then be licensed under the same terms ? (
> Obviously this is an impossible legal position … )
It would (I think) be a public performance, but because of the answer to
(1), there wouldn't be a licensing issue. Note also that with a
BY-NC-ND license, there's no share-alike clause, so there'd be no
question about relicensing the in-court results under the same terms.
The reuse is either forbidden in the first place, or permissible and
whatever contributions the person using it made would be free and clear.Can I ask for some further clarification on this please ? Does producing work from a methodology licensed through CC have no requisite to state that the resulting work was created using such a methodology ( other than good scientific citation ) ?
My understanding is "no." Your best leverage as an author to force
someone to acknowledge you if they use your methodology is not to let
them see it unless they promise to acknowledge you. Under a CC (or any
open) license, hiding it from them isn't an option. Copyright, however,
doesn't reach far enough to force methodology users to acknowledge you,
unless they do something like reading your precise instructions out loud
in public.> (3) There are no issues with licensing a group work provided all
> contributors agree to the terms, am I correct in thinking that ? Or do we
> have to create some form of legal entity to license under ?You are correct. It's definitely a best practice to get that agreement
in writing and to document the specific contributions made by everyone.James
azrael wrote
> (1) Does No commercial prevent someone using our methodology to create a
> piece of work for profit ? E.g. Can a paid forensic examiner work a client
The document describes a process. You can't copyright a
specific process. You can copyright text that describes how
to do a specific process.The USPTO is dumb enough to issue patents on things that are
covered by patents, so you might be able to patent it.
OTOH, the patent will be revoked when challenged.> results are presented in court, would this qualify as a "public performance" of the work,
> and would it then be licensed under the same terms ? (Unless the individual reads from your document, it won't be
a "public performance". If they do read from the document,
"fair use' would probably apply.> We have seen what has been done with the OSSTMM which uses a CC license,
> along with the addendum of an "Open Methodology License" … (a) The Open methodology licence is incompatible with the
CC-SA-ND licence that they use.b) If any of their work product uses both licences, the
individual that acquires the work gets to select the licence
that they want to redistribute the material under.> contributors agree to the terms, am I correct in thinking that ? Or do we
> have to create some form of legal entity to license under ?I'd suggest that contributors sign a form stating that they
agree to their contribution being redistributed under the
licence that the organization chooses. that way you may
very explicit what might otherwise be implicit. Things that
are implicit tend to be things that cause difficulties later.xan
jonathon
I believe that that leads us to consider the use of the CC license on it's own with the No Derivs, No Commercial, Attribs clauses in place as our best choice.
-)
I'd very much like to thank James Grimmelmann and Jonathon Blake for their quick and considered responses to my questions.
Good job Azrael. Do we have a clear view if a "for profit" school or training facility could distribute and discuss a copy of the methodology if there were no charge for the distribution? I believe this is a point we also need to be clear on.