| |
BGonline.org Forums
Licenses / Expectations
Posted By: Michael Petch In Response To: An ongoing concern. Licensing in general (Stick)
Date: Thursday, 13 September 2012, at 5:49 p.m.
Howdy Stick, I agree with you with one small exception I will mention later. However, what I would do and what others would do could differ. If we take your opening rolls database (I use the term database loosely), I don't see any copyright notice, or license. The lack of copyright notice of course doesn't mean there is none. In most jurisdictions there is an implied copyright notice.
If I was new to your site, and saw the opening rolls information. I would assume an implied copyright, and since you are in the US, that I would have to adhere to your copyright laws. I couldn't just plagiarize your data as is, and assume I'd get away with it. However, I would have no problems reusing your data as long as it fell under "fair use". Unfortunately, "fair use" laws are often very ambiguous in nature. Sometimes it is very difficult to see the line between what is legally okay, and what isn't.
If I want to derive something new (in large part based on your data) and didn't feel it was fair use I'd have to contact you to learn exactly what type of license you'd extend to me. It could be public domain, it could be restricted, I don't know. If I'm using it for personal use it is one thing, but if it is being redistributed then that is usually where the issues arise.
Generally speaking with fair use comes citing source material with references, bibliography, footnotes etc. However as you pointed when you said "It's appreciated and expected that someone says 'Is this okay?' but in reality they don't have to, legally." there is nothing legally binding someone to be courteous to you as long as they are abiding by copyright laws in your jurisdiction.
This is where my only nit pick in what you said is. In a particular "It's appreciated and EXPECTED that someone says 'Is this okay?'. The lack of any actual license doesn't necessarily suggest that there is any such expectation on someone who may use/leverage the data. I would agree with the statement "It's appreciated that someone says 'Is this okay?'", but not expected.
However if someone had a license on their site for their data/information that in essence (without the legalese) said "You are granted permission to do anything commercially or non commercially with the information provided you contact the author to inform them of such usage, and provide proper attribution". This isn't an example of a good license, it is simply to make a point. In this case there IS an expectation to contact the author.
What I do agree with is that many people (including myself) who intend to use a good portion of someone else's work will likely extend the courtesy of contacting the original author. I will contact an author especially if I believe there is any grey area in what constitutes "fair use" in the absence of an actual license.
The other benefit of a clearly visible license that includes clauses for how works can be redistributed and reused, is that if someone wishes to contribute to your data (Lets say Stick's opening rolls data on BGO), they will know the terms by which the data they submit will be propagated. They can make an informed choice as to whether they wish to contribute to that persons/projects collection.
One example of what someones's expectation as a rollateer might be that MAY DIFFER from the project they are submitting the data to can be found in this thread. Ken said "I would have no problems using any of my rollouts as long as your tool is free." . Ken's expectation is that the project itself (or any derivatives) is non-commercial. As a rollateer my data is free to be used in commercial and non commercial applications, however I prefer to see attribution that I was one such person who contributed data to the project. It is not about whose view is right, it is that even rollateers may have different expectations. Most backgammon data projects that I have seen don't seem to spell out what the license is. An informed person would contact the owner(s) of the project to find out.
The main point is that the expectations for the most part are unknown, and this is what I'd like to see changed. Projects that collect data/information for the betterment of Backgammon should make it clear what license is being used, so that the expectations of those providing data to a project are managed AND/OR manage the expectations for those who may wish to derive future works from that data.
Mike
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.