[CryptoParty] Proposal: All content should be Public Domain = No copyright

[Kai Engert]

On Fri, 2013-07-05 at 19:00 +0200, ml at enteig.net wrote: 
> > "if the author really did not give any name to be attributed by, you do
> > not have to credit one."
> >
> > As a result, I don't see how the cc-by-sa is different from public
> > domain.
> 
> The difference is that copyleft forces derivatives to be licenced under 
> a copyleft licence, too. The same is not true for public domain.

Thank you for this clarification.


> > From my point of view, cryptoparty is intended to create resources for
> > the general public, and a public domain license seems most appropriate
> > for that.
> >
> > The Artwork and Flyers usually don't include embedded information about
> > the license. We should encourage everyone to reuse and remix resources,
> > without fear for copyright violations.
> 
> Well it should. The question you posed in the creative commons chat was 
> specificly about content that _alread_ was stated to be CC. 

I agree. But it was important for me to get answer, because this
scenario applies to the cryptoparty handbook v1.1, which doesn't explain
how to attribute.

> You cannot 
> simply apply the answer to _all_ content (which is not licenced in any 
> way).

Right. We have content which has been provided without indicating a
license. I'm worried that's a problem, because consumers of such works
cannot predict if it's ok to reuse/remix content or not.

Therefore I'd prefer to see clear rules, what contributors should do, in
order to protect future consumers.


> _Not_ stating any licence makes it hard for users which e.g. just pick 
> up a flyer on the street to determine if they are allowed e.g. scribble 
> some additional info on it and copy it in a copy shop and distribute the 
> message further.

Agreed.


> The other point is that there already is content connected to 
> cryptoparty which is not public domain. I don't want that to be 
> excluded.

Do we know the license of all existing content?

I agree we can provided content that allows sharing, however, all
content should be clearly labeled with the respective license. If we
don't know the license for some content, then it might be better to
exclude it?


> For all new content we should encourage CC0/public domain although I 
> would appreciate a tiny cc:by-sa badge stating "The CryptoParty 
> Community" (or similar) as author.

- person A creates flyer, holds copyright, shared using cc-by-sa
- person B uses flyer, creates new flyer, 
  but forgets to include the bad

What happens? Person A angry, person B in trouble?
It would be nice to prevent that scenario.

I propose:
Content uploaded to the wiki should either
- visually embed its license information
  (even in flyers)
- uploader of new content must carefully label
  the license next to the content in the wiki
  (this means, you cannot simply upload it using the
  media manager)
- or we'll assume it's public domain.

When in doubt, we'll remove it.


> tl;dr: encouraging CC0, not excluding other free and/or copyleft 
> licences.

How about the following modified reminder for the artwork/flyer/slides
pages:

"We encourage you to donate your artwork, your flyers or your slides to
the public domain. If you require a different license, please clearly
embed licensing information into your work, or clearly label your work
with the correct license. It should be possible to reuse/remix existing
resources without having to worry too much."

Regards
Kai