Peto poglavlje

A Comparative Guide to Open Content Licenses

The licenses are classified in the following manner: The first section deals with the "first generation" licenses while the second section deals introduces the "second generation" licenses (See Chapter 3, section c.). A number of the initial licenses have now been incorporated within the Creative Commons licenses, and these are included in the appendix. While they are not in use anymore, they are interesting to study for reason of understanding the transition from the first to the second generation license.

Please note that every license listed in the next chapter also includes a description of the procedure to be followed if you are to use that license (usually found at the end of the license).

• Free Art License
• GNU Free Documentation License
• Common Documentation License
• EFF Open Audio License
• Open Music Licenses
• The Green OpenMusic? License
• The Yellow OpenMusic? License
• The Red OpenMusic? License
• Creative Commons Licenses
• Open Content and Open Publication License
• The Open Content License
• Open Publication License
• Design Science License
• Ethymonics Free Music License

---

Free Art License

Version 1.1
http://artlibre.org/license.php/lalgb.html

Perhaps one of the first initiatives at translating some of the Free/ Open Source ideas outside of the domain of software and into the domain of art, this license, describes itself as the license with a Copyleft attitude.

The Free Art license was born out of the meeting "Copyleft Attitude" in Paris in 2000. These meetings brought together for the first time, computer specialists and free software activists along with contemporary artists and members of the art world. The license allows artist/ creators to make their works available freely to the public, and grants them the right to copy, distribute and modify the work if certain conditions are met.

Philosophy of the Free Art License

The preamble states that

   Whereas current literary and artistic property rights result in
   restriction of the public's access to works of art, the goal of
   the Free Art License is to encourage such access.

The license is also designed to enable the public to make creative use of art works, therefore reinforcing the idea of the user/ producer model of the internet and other digital media. It also recognizes that with the birth of the internet, there are greater possibilities of collaboration, shared and distributed production etc., traditional copyright does not facilitate such collaborations. The Free Art License

   Also encourages a continuation of the process of experimentation
   undertaken by many contemporary artists. 

The Free Art License advocates an economy appropriate for art, based on sharing, exchange and joyful giving. It says "What counts in art is also and mostly what is not counted".

Rights Granted

An artist/creator using the Free Art License grants the user the following freedoms:

1. Freedom to make copies of the work for personal use or the use of others
2. Freedom to distribute the work on any medium. This right is applicable both to modified and unmodified works. The person distributing may do it either for free or charge for the distribution.
3. Freedom to modify the work as long as the same preconditions as mentioned above are met.

The freedom to distribute and the right to modify are however subject to the following conditions: The licensee has to attach the license in its entirety or indicate where it can be found

• Specify the name of the author of the original
• Specify to the recipient where he can access the originals

How does it work

The license envisages enabling a continuation of the process of the creation of art. This is counter-posed to an idea of art as simply an end result oriented activity. Therefore it establishes the following model:

Original Work â†' Subsequent works (based on original) â†' Communal work

To ensure that any work that is used under the Free Art License does not get taken out of the public domain, the license prohibits the incorporation of the license into any art work which is not licensed under the same terms and conditions as the Free Art License. Thus a person who creates a subsequent work based on an original work cannot then attempt to remove it from the public domain. That work has to be licensed under the Free Art License.

The Free Art License imposes this restriction not to deny any person his contribution or authorial rights but by choosing to contribute to the evolution of this work of art, the licensee/ user agrees to give to others the same rights which were also granted to the licensee.

The Free Art License clearly states that no person has any right to use any of the works without accepting the terms and conditions of the license. The moment they accept then they are bound to follow the terms of the license. Acceptance does not have to be explicitly stated, it can also be by the way of an act such as copying, distributing or modifying the work.i

Why use the Free Art license?

The Free Art License offers a useful legal protocol to prevent abusive appropriation. It will no longer be possible for someone to appropriate your work, short-circuiting the creative process to make personal profit from it. Helping yourself to a collective work in progress will be forbidden, as will monopolising the resources of an evolving creation for the benefit of a few. Expressed positively, this is a good license to use to contribute to a cultural public domain.

Documentation Licenses

While not cultural production in the classical sense, it is important to briefly speak about and understand free documentation licenses. As anyone who has tried learning to use software will know, an important aspect of the software also lies in the documentation that is available for it. These licenses, whilst not being medium-specific, are targeted at this form of publication, but may possibly be useful for documenting things other than software.

GNU Free Documentation License

Version 1.2, November 2002
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html

The GNU Free Documentation License serves primarily as a supplement or a complementary license to the GNU GPL. It is intended primarily for manuals or other instructional texts or documents which have a "functional value". Given its subject matter, the license is also a little technically confusing for the lay reader. It would be better to avoid this license if your work is more in the nature of a literary work. One of the Creative Commons licenses would be more appropriate to use for such works.

Philosophy

Since free software needs free documentation: a free program should come with manuals providing the same freedoms that the software does. This license seeks to make manuals, instructional texts or other functional and useful documents "free" in the sense of freedom.

Rights granted

There are three principle goals of the license:

1. Grants everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, commercially or non-commercially with or without modifying it
2. The License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others
3. This License is a "copyleft" license, which means that derivative works of the document must themselves be free in the same sense.

How does it work?

However the GNU Free Documentation license is a very cumbersome one in terms of the procedural requirements that it places on a user, as well as being a difficult license to read for a lay person. It still serves as the best license for software documentation, but for any other kinds of instructional literature, like a textbook, I would recommend using a Creative Commons license rather than the GNU Free Documentation license. A number of the provisions in this license are designed specifically with software manuals in mind and may not have significance for other instructional manuals. This is specially true with respect to the requirements that it has on the different segments of a work and procedures to be followed for the same.

All in all the GNU Free Documentation License is useful as a complementary license to be used with software that has been licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL. For users with such requirements it is useful to consult the license directly.

Common Documentation License

Version 1.0, February 16, 2001
http://www.opensource.apple.com/cdl

A documentation license brought out by Apple for software documentation, instructional manuals etc. It seeks to be a much neater and simpler license than the GNU Free Documentation License by avoiding a number of the elaborate technical details of publishing which are required there.

Philosophy

A straight forward documentation license. It says that

To preserve simplicity, the License does not specify in detail
 how (e.g. font size) or where (e.g. title page, etc.) the author
 should be credited. 

What does it apply to

Any documentation, manual or other work that contains a notice placed by the Copyright Holder stating that it is subject to the terms of this Common Documentation License

Rights Granted

The license grants the following rights: The right to copy, modify, publicly display, distribute and publish the Document and the Derivative Works in any medium physical or electronic, commercially or non-commercially; provided that:

• all copyright notices in the Document are preserved;
• a copy of this License, or an incorporation of it by reference in proper form is included in a conspicuous location in all copies such that it would be reasonably viewed by the recipient of the Document; and
• You add no other terms or conditions to those of this License.

How does it work?

All derivative works have to be released under the terms and conditions of this license, and all appropriate notices regarding the license and the changes are retained.

The work and the derivative work may be compiled in a compilation. If it is a mere aggregation, then the other works in the compilation shall not be subject to the terms and conditions of this license. However all notices regarding the applicability of this license to the work/ derivative work shall be retained.

EFF Open Audio License

Version 1.0.1, text version.
There is no substantive change from ver. 1.0[.0] and only typographic errors have been corrected.
http://www.eff.org/IP/Open_licenses/eff_oal.php

The EFF Open Audio license is a license that is based on the GNU GPL for music and other audio works.

The EFF (Electronic Freedom Foundation) is a non profit activist group involved in campaigning, litigating and advocating on various electronic rights, ranging from online privacy, fighting against digital rights management (a technology directed at "protecting copyright"), as well as advocating alternative models of production and distribution.

Philosophy of the Open Audio License

The preamble states the general principles of copyleft very clearly, and also argues for why there is a need for innovative licensing mechanisms that allows people to share their works in the context of the digital revolution. It is intended to help create a vibrant public domain in which there will be easy availability of works which people can build upon. The license sees it self as:

   A tool of freedom for artists who wish to reach one another and
   new fans with their original works. It allows musicians to
   collaborate in creating a pool of "open audio" that can be
   freely modified, exchanged, and utilized in new ways. Artists
   can use this license to promote themselves and take advantage of
   the new possibilities for empowerment and independence that
   technology provides.
   This also allows the public to experience new music, and connect
   directly with artists, as well as enable 'super distribution'
   where the public is encouraged to copy and distribute a work,
   adding value to the artist's reputation while experiencing a
   world of new music never before available.

The preamble also makes it clear that while EFF is uncomfortable with licensing as opposed to sale, this license differs from the usual coyright licenses in that it is designed specifically to achieve the goals of making more works accessible and available for use and modification.

How does it work?

The license is applicable for any work that is released under the EFF Open Audio license, and marked as (o). When used for a sound recording, the license covers both the copyright in both the sound recording (the 'master' rights) and the underlying musical composition (the 'songwriter' rights).

Rights Granted

The license grants the following rights:

1. Right to access / use the work
2. Right to copy or reproduce the work
3. Right to distribute the work
4. Right to modify the work or create derivative works
5. Right to publicly perform the work in any medium

Provided

• The identity of the original author should be acknowledged and all details retained. This can be done either through a physical medium such as on the album cover or by embedding the details in the digital file.
• That any new work created which is either derived from or contains, any part of the original work, then it must be licensed under the same terms and conditions as this license. This does not apply in the case of a mere aggregation (as in the case of an anthology for instance).

Open Music Licenses

http://openmusic.linuxtag.org/showitem.php?item=209

The Open Music license is an initiative from Germany that attempts to replicate the GNU GPL into the domain of music but provides for a set of customized licenses (represented in as Green, Yellow, Red and Rainbow) depending on the nature of rights that are allowed by the license.

Philosophy

To enable musicians to share their works and allow people to use the music, but also ensuring that musicians retain enough control to make money from their music.

The OpenMusic? License was drafted after consultations with several songwriters, musicians and bands. While the core of the license remains the ability to allow people to use and distribute OpenMusic?, the licenses then break up into three primary colours, which follow the logic of traffic signal lights.

• The Green License gives the go ahead for almost any kind of use
• The Yellow License allows all rights but prevents commercial exploitation
• The Red License only allows for personal use and distribution

There is a fourth option which is a do it yourself, mix and match license called the "Rainbow License". Once you are familiar with the basic three colours, then you can create your own rainbow licenses.

Rights Granted

	Green	Yellow	Red
Private Use	+	+	+
Private Modification	+	+	-
Private Derived Works	+	+	-
Private Distribution	+	+	+
Private Broadcasting	+	+	+
Commercial Use	+	-	-
Commercial Modification	+	-	-
Commercial Derived Works	+	-	-
Commercial Distribution	+	-	-
Commercial Broadcasting	+	-	-

How does it work?

All the versions require the following notice:

   Copyright (c) <year> by <author's name or designee>. This
   material may be distributed only subject to the terms and
   conditions set forth in the <fill in appropriate color>
   OpenMusic License, vX.Y or later (the latest version is
   presently available at http://openmusic.linuxtag.org/). 

The reference must be immediately followed with any options elected by the author(s) and/ or publisher of the work with reference to the medium that they are choosing.

The Green OpenMusic? License

Draft v1.1, 22 April 2001

The green music license is based most closely on the GNU GPL and hence grants the widest range of liberties.

Rights Granted

A musician making his/ her work available under the Green OpenMusic? License grants the licensee the following rights:

1. Reproduction: The right to reproduce the work in whole or in part in any medium, physical or electronic provided that the terms of this license are adhered to, and the licensee who is making a reproduction makes it known that the work is licensed under the terms of the Green License.
2. Commercial redistribution: The right to redistribute includes commercial redistribution.

How does it work?

Any publication in physical form (like a CD) requires the citation of the original publisher and author. The publisher and author's names must appear on all outer surfaces of the product. On all outer surfaces of the product the original publisher's name shall be as large as the title of the work and cited as possessive with respect to the title.

Specific medium: The musician retains the copyright of the work and grants rights under this license for a specified medium. He or she may choose to license another format under a different license. Thus the terms of the license may be limited only to digital distribution over the internet, in which case the licensee would not have the same rights with respect to cassettes or CDs. Permission can however be obtained from the copyright holder for any other medium. This option is called the Media Locking option.

To accomplish this, add the phrase

   Distribution of the work or derivative of the work is restricted
   to <insert medium here> unless prior permission is obtained from
   the copyright holder 

to the license distributed with the work.

Scope

If the licensee includes an OpenMusic? work or a part of a collection with other works, the license does not become automatically applicable to the other works. Thus you could have a CD with ten songs, and two of these are licensed under the terms of OpenMusic?. This does not make the other eight subject to the OpenMusic? license. However there should be a notice which informs people about the works that are OpenMusic? works.

As with most open content licenses, the works are licensed as is and there are no warranties provided. If the license makes any modifications, the following requirements must be satisfied:

• All modified versions of works are covered by this license. This includes a new work that incorporates a part of an OpenMusic? work
• The modified version must be labeled as such.
• The person making the modifications must be identified and the modifications dated.
• The location of the original unmodified work must be identified.
• The original musician's name(s) may not be used to assert or imply endorsement of the resulting work without the original author's (or authors') permission.
• The new work has to be released under precisely this License, with the modified version filling the role of the work, thus licensing distribution and modification of the modified version to whoever possesses a copy of it.

Good-practice recommendations

The license also recommends that if any person is distributing any OpenMusic? work in a physical form, they should send a 30 days notification to the original musician/ licensor so that it gives him an opportunity to provide an updated work, if s/he has one. The notification should describe any modifications to the work.

It is also suggested that it is considered good form to offer a free copy of any physical form expression of an OpenMusic?-licensed work to its author(s).

The Yellow OpenMusic? License

Draft v1.1, 22 April 2001

The second in the colorful set of the OpenMusic? licenses, the Yellow License is a bit more restrictive than the Green License when it comes to commercial uses. Use this license if you want to allow modifications but the music should be restricted to non-commercial usage. Everything remains the same as the Green License, except that there is one additional clause which restricts any commercial usage without prior permission.

The publication of this work or derivative works in whole or in part in standard (physical) form for commercial purposes is prohibited unless prior permission is obtained from the copyright holder. "Commercial purposes" include any broadcasting via commercial networks, commercial hiring, commercial copying and lending, and commercial public performance.

The Red OpenMusic? License

The most restrictive of all the OpenMusic? licenses, this license only allows for three rights.

Rights granted

1. Personal use
2. Personal distribution
3. Personal broadcast

So the rights which are granted in the Green License such as the right to modify, the right to distribute and the right to create derivative works are not allowed under this license. There is also no right to make any commercial usage of the work.

So as you can see, the progression from green to yellow to red is one about a movement from the grant of almost all rights to the grant of very restricted rights.

Creative Commons Licenses

Version 2.0
http://creativecommons.org, http://nl.creativecommons.org

One of the most significant initiatives in the relatively new domain of open content licensing, the Creative Commons have in a short span of time created a buzz around the idea of open content. Backed by solid licenses and highly user-friendly interface, as a way of navigating the site on which their licenses are presented Creative Commons has emerged as the premier destination for people interested in licensing different kinds of content on an open content basis. The web site has a lot of information for a range of users, from the first time user to a list of advanced readings for scholars and researchers. The Creative Commons is also creating a set of international licenses that are customized for different jurisdictions. A Dutch language version is available from the website above, which also provides news and information in Dutch.

Philosophy of Creative Commons

Inspired by the free software movement, the Creative Commons believes that a large vibrant public domain of information and content is a pre-requisite to sustained creativity, and there is a need to proactively enrich this public domain by creating a positive rights discourse. It does this by creating a set of licenses to enable open content and collaboration, as well as acting as a database of open content. Creative Commons also serves to educate the public about issues of copyright, freedom of speech and expression and the public domain.

How does it work?

Creative Commons have a set of licenses which are created through a license wizard. The wizard offers the end user the ability to make their choices on three key concepts. The combination chosen by the end user determines the final license. The three key concepts are:

1. Attribution
   Attribution is the right to be identified as the author of the work. By choosing yes, you essentially allow people to use your work provided that they give you credit and acknowledge your authorship. It is to be noted that Creative Commons Ver. 2 makes attribution the default rule since over 95% of the people who used CC licenses had chosen "yes" to the attribution choice.
2. Commercial Use
   This choice basically determine whether you will allow any person to make a commercial use of your work, or if it will only be allowed for non-commercial purposes.
3. Modification/ Creation of Derivative works
   The second choice determines the ability for people to create derivative works from your work. By choosing no to this option, you allow people to access, make copies, distribute, display and perform your works verbatim. But they are not allowed to make derivate works based upon it. You may allow yes to this option, without any conditions, in which case people are free to make derivative works without any restrictions. You may also choose yes, but impose a condition that the derivative work will have to be licensed under the same terms and conditions that govern your work. In other words, a person making a derivative work from your work will not be allowed to add any additional restrictions on other people using the work of making derivatives of that work.

In the first version of Creative Commons, you could technically come up with eleven kinds of licenses, based on a combination of attribution / derivation / commercial usage. But now in Version 2, as attribution has been made a default rule, there are only six possible combinations that you can arrive at. These are:

1. Commercial/ Derivation
   b. Non Commercial/ Derivation
   c. Commercial/ Non Derivation
   d. Non Commercial/ Non Derivation
   e. Commercial/ Derivation but Share Alike
   f. Non Commercial/ Derivation but Share Alike
   

To make it easier for the end user to use, the same license is presented in three forms:

• As a Commons Deed: This is a simple one page, plain-language summary of the license, complete with the relevant icons.
• Legal Code. The formal license in legal language
• Digital Code. A metadata translation of the license that helps search engines and other applications identify the work by its terms of use.

In addition to these basic licenses, Creative Commons also offers a few special licenses such as:

• Public Domain Dedication
  This is when you effectively want to relinquish your copyright, and do not want to control any rights at all. It is a "No Rights Reserved" decision.
• Founder's copyright
  A method through which you adopt a shorter term for your copyright, namely 14 years, extendable by another fourteen, rather than the seventy years after death of author rule of the US Copyright Act.
• Mash Me
  The sampling license that enables people to creatively rework your content in full or in part.
• Share Music
  A license that allows people to download, copy, file-share, trade, distribute, and publicly perform your music but does not allow them to make derivative works or make any commercial usage of it. This is the equivalent of a non commercial, non derivation license but written specifically for musicians.

Baseline rights and restrictions in all licenses

All Creative Commons licenses have many important features in common.

Every license

• :
• Asserts your copyright over the work, and then allows you to determine the manner and extent to which you are willing to grant people freedoms to your work.
• Makes it clear that the license does not affect the fair use rights that a person may have with respect to the work, and that it does not limit in any manner rights that you may acquire on the basis of the "first sale doctrine" or your freedom of speech and expression.

Note: The "first sale doctrine" in copyright essentially stipulates that any person who buys a commodity which is also the subject of copyright is free thereafter to transact with that copy (for instance, if I buy a book I am free to sell it to a second hand store).

Every license requires licensees:

• to obtain your permission do any of the things that you may have chosen to restrict. Thus, for example, if you have chosen a license that only allows people to access, copy and distribute your work, then they will have to obtain your permission if they want to make a commercial use of the work or want to create a derivative work.
• to keep any copyright notice intact on all copies of your work, when they distribute the work.
• publish the license with the work or to link to your license from copies of the work.
• not to alter the terms of the license.
• not to use technology or any other means to restrict other licensees' lawful uses of the work.

Every license allows licensees (provided they live up to your conditions) to:

• copy the work
• distribute the work
• display or perform it publicly
• make digital public performances of the work (e.g., webcasting)
• shift the work into another format as a verbatim copy

Every license:

• applies worldwide
• lasts for the duration of the work's copyright
• is non-revocable

The standard terms and conditions apply for all licenses, and the areas of difference between the various licenses, as stated before, really depends on the combination of two primary ingredients, whether you allow commercial use, and whether you allow the creation of derivative works (and, if so, under what conditions).

We can now return to the six basic licenses that can emerge based on your preferences while navigating through the Creative Commons License Wizard.

a. Commercial / Derivation

This is the broadest license that is available under the CC Package. It grants the end user all the rights including the right to create derivative works, as well as the right to commercially exploit the work. There are also very few restrictions that are imposed by this license, apart from crediting the author where necessary, and following the other procedural requirements, such as maintaining the notices of the license.

This license does not even require the user to distribute his or her derivative works under the terms of the Creative Commons license. S/he is even free to impose ordinary copyright terms which are restrictive on the derivative work.

b. Non-Commercial / Derivation

Under this license the end user is granted all rights, provided that they do not make any commercial use of the work without your permission. The user however has the right to make derivative work. It is to be noted that for the purpose of this license, file-sharing or other means of sharing the work on a non-monetary basis is not considered a commercial use.

c. Commercial / Non Derivation

This license is in many ways the reverse of the previous one. Under this license, you are allowed to make commercial use of the work but you are not allowed to make any derivative works based on the original work.

d. Non Commercial / Non Derivation

This license is perhaps the most restrictive license as it grants the user no rights apart from the baseline rights, namely the right to use, copy, distribute and perform the work. The end user however has no right either to make a derivative work or to make any commercial use of the work.

The last two licenses come closer to the GNU GPL family in that they impose restrictions on the way that the end user may deal with the question of how derivative works are to be dealt with. The term that is used in the last two licenses is "share alike", which means that the end user is allowed to exercise the right to create a derivative work only if s/he also allows the same rights to others.

e. Commercial / Derivation but Share Alike

Under this license, the user is granted all rights including the right to make commercial exploitation of the work as well as to create derivative works. The only condition is that the same rights have to be granted by the user with respect to the derivative work that s/he produces. Thus even taking the example from within the Creative Commons licenses, an end user who uses a work based on this license cannot then license his work out under any of the non derivation licenses. In other words s/he cannot then impose any restriction on the right to create derivative works. This license, like the GNU GPL, has a self-perpetuating quality as it travels from person to person ensuring that the original freedoms granted are not curtailed.

f. Non Commercial / Derivation but Share Alike

Similar to the previous license, the only condition imposed here is that there will be no commercial use of the works.

Other Licenses

Open Content and Open Publication License

http://www.opencontent.org

The Open Content and Open Publication Licenses were drafted by Dr. David Wiley, Assistant Professor of Instructional Technology at Utah State University. It was one of the first attempts to translate the terms of the FLOSS model into the non-software model. These are perhaps only of academic or historical value now, as the open content site has been officially closed since early 2004 and the licenses have been replaced by the Creative Commons licenses. In his words:

   OpenContent is officially closed. And that's just fine. My main
   goal in beginning OpenContent back in the Spring of 1998 was to
   evangelize a way of thinking about sharing materials, especially
   those that are useful for supporting education. Here is a brief
   end of project report. In the Spring of 1998 I coined the term
   "open content" and began evangelizing the idea. As of today,
   Google knows about over 125,000 uses of the term "open content"
   or opencontent. Google and DMOZ both have categories for "Open
   Content". Harvard Law uses the term. We've been mentioned by the
   New York Times, The Economist, MIT Technology Review, Wired,
   Reuters, and others popular news media. Creative Commons at
   Stanford Law has cited OpenContent as a major inspiration. MIT
   has opened its content with its OpenCourseWare initiative, CMU
   has its Open Learning Initiative, and other schools are
   following. Several printed books have been published under the
   OPL. &c. All told, I think we're off to a dandy start. I'm
   closing OpenContent because I think Creative Commons is doing a
   better job of providing licensing options which will stand up in
   court. 

It is important to acknowledge Wiley's open mindedness about a development on the open content license. I think it is a great gesture of moving away from an authorial framework to a more collaborative set up. It is however useful for us to understand these two licenses. Firstly, they are and always will be applicable to works that have been published under these licenses. Secondly it is helpful to understand the initial efforts in the move to the open content model.

The Open Content License

Ver 1.0, July 14, 1998

Philosophy of the Open Content license

The license follows the FLOSS model but attempts to include the larger world of content. "Content" is not defined, which makes the license applicable to any medium. The license was drafted keeping academic needs in mind, making it possible for people to share their work.

Rights Granted

Following in the footsteps of the GNU GPL, the Open Content License also works on the fundamental premise of freedom for the end user. In this case there are three fundamental freedoms that are granted:

1. The right to make copies
2. The right to redistribute the content
3. The right to modify the content

How does it work?

The license allows:

1. The right to make copies
2. The right to redistribute the content

When you license a work under the Open Content License, you grant the licensee the right to copy and distribute exact replicas of the OpenContent? (OC) in any medium. The licensee however has to ensure that:

* s/he conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty. * keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; (See below) and give any other recipients of the OC a copy of this License along with the OC.

Note on the warranty clause: One of the critical components of the licensing model starting from the GNU GPL is that the licenses are very clear that the product/ software comes without any warranties. All open content licenses that have attempted to model themselves on the GNU GPL follow the same pattern, and the "no warranty" clause is very important. What it basically does is to protect the licensor from any legal claim made by a user of the content, since the licensor is only making the work available as it is, and does not provide any warrant on it. Under the Open Content license, the licensee is allowed to charge a fee for the media (e.g. floppy disk, CD ROM etc.) and/or handling involved in creating a unique copy of the Open Content for use offline.

The licensee may also charge a fee for instructional support for the open content. You may at your discretion offer warranty in exchange for a fee. This is less like a warranty and more like a service charge, since the content itself does not come with any warranty.

The licensee can however not charge a fee for the Open Content itself, or for making it available where there is no tangible medium involved (thus someone sending it via the internet or FTP cannot charge).

3. Right to Modify

The licensee can modify the work. These modifications become "works based on the Content" and have to be distributed on the same terms and conditions as the Open Content license.

In addition, the license must ensure the following:

* The modified content must carry prominent notices documenting the changes including the exact details, nature and content of the changes, and the date of any change. * The modified work has to be licensed at no charge to all third parties under the terms of the License.

These conditions do not apply to instances where you can distinguish between works that have been based on Open Content and those that have not. For instance you may have an anthology of poems, where some of the poems were based on Open Content while others are not. In such cases it does not mean that the entire anthology will be subject to the Open Publication License.

Open Publication License

v1.0, 8 June 1999

If you pick up any ordinary book, you will always find in the first few pages a copyright notice that generally says

   All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced,
   distributed, in full or in part without the permission of the
   publishers. 

This is a typical publication license which means that you can only use the book / article by reading it, and you have no right to reproduce it for instance in a compilation that you are bringing out.

The Open Publication License attempts to reverse this by making all publications licensed under it freely available for reproduction, distribution and modification.

Medium it applies to

No longer in use. Was used for any kind of publication including documentation. It must be stated that this license, being an early generattion of open content license is not one of the clearest. Now, for purposes of publication it might be more appropriate to use either a Creative Commons license or for the purposes of documentation, to use the GNU Free Documentation License.

How does it work?

The primary reason for the absence of clarity is a clause in the license (Clause 6) which allows a person to impose certain licensing options, or restrictions, which alters the nature of the license and transforms it from being a free license to a relatively non free license.

Clause 6 of the license basically allows the licensor the ability to add a clause which says that no substantive modifications may be made and distributed without the expression permission of the licensor. It seeks to accomplish the task of two kinds of licenses within the same license. That can be confusing both for the licensor and the user. The Creative Commons have solved this problem by having various combinations, so that if you choose to not allow people to distribute modified versions of your work, then it is under a separate license altogether.

Design Science License

Copyright 1999-2000
http://www.rare-earth-magnets.com/magnet_university/design_science_license.htm

The Design Science License is a general copyleft license that attempts to accommodate all kind of works, but is particularly suited for media works.

Philosophy of the Design Science License

The preamble of the license begins with a general statement of what copyleft seeks to do, and pitches itself in opposition to the exclusions of copyright. It situates itself clearly within a "socially relevant" practice of science and arts and states that

   Whereas "design science" is a strategy for the development of
   artifacts as a way to reform the environment (not people) and
   subsequently improve the universal standard of living, this
   Design Science License was written and deployed as a strategy
   for promoting the progress of science and art through reform of
   the environment 

.

Medium it applies to

The license is generally applicable to all works that may be protected under copyright, and the definition of "work" also includes any derivative work that may be created from a work licensed under the DSL.

Importantly, the Design Science License also requires that both the "object form" (the work in a presentation format, like a PDF or an mp3 file) and the "source data" (the file in which the work was originally authored) are distributed under its terms; plus any accompanying files necessary for the installation, configuration or compilation of the work.

Example: If the work is a text document composed and edited in the LaTeX? format, then the original LaTeX? file is the source data, and a PDF document generated from it is the object form. If the work is an mp3 audio file exported from an audio sequencer program, then the original sequencer file and all sound samples used are the source data.

Rights Granted

The license grants the user the right to copy, distribute and modify copies of the Work. How does it work?

1. Right to copy
   The license grants the right to distribute and publish verbatim copies of the entire Source Data of the Work, in any medium, if the full copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty is conspicuously published on all copies, and a copy of this License is distributed along with the Work.

With respect to the distribution and publication of the object form of the work, any one of the following conditions have to be met:

• • • The Source Data should included in the same distribution, distributed under the terms of this License; or
    • A written offer is included with the distribution, valid for at least three years or for as long as the distribution is in print, with a publicly-accessible address (such as a URL on the Internet) where, for a charge not greater than transportation and media costs, anyone may receive a copy of the Source Data of the Work
    • A third party's written offer for obtaining the Source Data at no cost, is included with the distribution. This option is valid only if is the licensee is a non-commercial party, and only if s/he received the Object Form of the Work along with such an offer.i

The licensee may copy and distribute the Work either gratis or for a fee, and may also offer a warranty protection if desired, you may offer warranty protection for the Work.

1. Right to modify the work
   The license allows for a right to modify the work and create to a derivate work provided:
   • • The new, derivative work is published under the terms of this License.
     • The derivative work is given a new name, so that its name or title can not be confused with the Work, or with a version of the Work, in any way.
     • Appropriate authorship credit is given: for the differences between the Work and the new derivative work, authorship is attributed to the licensee, while the material sampled or used from the Work remains attributed to the original Author; appropriate notice must be included with the new work indicating the nature and the dates of any modifications of the Work made.
2. No restrictions
   The license does not allow the licensee to impose any further restrictions on the Work or any of its derivative works beyond those restrictions described in the License.

Ethymonics Free Music License

Version 1, August 2000
http://www.ethymonics.co.uk/fmlinfo.html

Ethymonics is a small music company that sells free music. Reversing the general presumption that downloading free music hurts the music industry, the Ethymoncs license is designed to use free music as a way of promoting artists.

According to them

   By permitting others to make copies of the music, and even to
   sell those copies, the music becomes widely known. If you like
   the music, then you can buy the artist's CD or go to see them
   play live. Ethymonics is a company that sells Free Music. We pay
   the artist a royalty, so people can buy a CD from us to support
   the artist, as well as get a high quality CD. 

Philosophy

The preamble to the license reiterates the principles of the GNU GPL and the free software movement, that the word "free" refers to freedom and not to price. Hence it is a license that is modeled on the principle of the GNU GPL. See http://www.ethymonics.co.uk/philos.html for a text outlining their philosophy.

Medium it applies to

The license is applicable for musical works, and this includes the work, whether in a recording, performance or other form of musical representation, or any derivative work.

Rights Granted

The license grants the licensee the following rights:

1. Right to access the musical work
2. Right to make copies and distribute the musical work Provided the licensee fulfills the following requirements:
   • • conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice;
     • keep intact all the notices that refer to this License;
     • supply, with each copy of the Music, all significant information about the Music, including the title of the work, the name of the artist, and the names and roles of all credited personnel;
     • supply, to each recipient of the Music, along with the Music, either a copy of this License or a website where it is available

In case any part of the above information is not available, for example when the Music has been received by making a recording of a performance, then this information must be obtained independently and no copies can be made or distributed without this information being included with each copy of the Music.

1. The right to play or perform the Music publicly For example in a broadcast, provided that you make available to listeners the title of the work and the name of the Artist. In case a recording is made of such performance, then it also falls under the provision of this license
2. A recording made as a result of the music being played or performed is covered by this License when its contents constitute a work based on the music. The license must be made available to listeners.
3. The right to make copies of such a recording Provided that the license is also made available.

No restrictions

The license does not allow the licensee either to sub-license or impose any restrictions on the work or any derivative works.

-- RoshoLinux - 23 May 2006