Chicken & Egg Script Licensing

[Qwalyphi Korpov]

I do my tiny bit of scripting.  So sometimes I looking in the WIKI for examples.  The WIKI has it's own terms of use.  Here's a link:

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Project:Terms_of_Use

It's not very long.  I'll paste some fragments I need to make my point:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contributing to the Wiki

By contributing content to the Second Life Wiki, you indicate your agreement to the ... and you license your contributed content under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Using_Wiki_Content"

Unless otherwise noted, you have permission to reproduce, distribute, and adapt content from the Second Life Wiki under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.

----------------------------------

Okay.  Now here is the puzzle:

Everyone who contributes agrees that their contribution will be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.  Everyone who uses the content is advised that the content is licensed under the same license unless otherwise noted.

Some of the content contains language stating that it's use is licensed under the GNU license.

Are the statements about GNU licensing invalid because all contributions are under the CCASA3.0 per the terms of use?  Is that content licensed under the GNU per the included statements?  If so does that put the contribution in violation of the WIKI terms of use?  Or perhaps it's an approved exception to the rule without any approval being noted or required.

I'm thinking it makes no sense to license a script under both the Creative Commons thing & the GNU. Cuz they probably conflict with eath other.  Although - who's gonna read all that anyway?

I am not a lawyer.  These are just my puzzled thoughts on the question.

 

[Amethyst Jetaime]

I'm not a lawyer either, but it seems to me that the TOU document should be taken as a whole.  If looked at that way the Creative Commons License would apply to any resident that contributes or uses examples and the statement "unless otherwise noted" refers to the next section about use of the SL and LL trademarks which does note that use is subject to the LL guidelines.

 

[Qwalyphi Korpov]

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

I'm not a lawyer either, but it seems to me that the TOU document should be taken as a whole.  If looked at that way the Creative Commons License would apply to any resident that contributes or uses examples and the statement "unless otherwise noted" refers to the next section about use of the SL and LL trademarks which does note that use is subject to the LL guidelines.

 

---

That seems a very reasonable interpretation Amethyst.  Still I can imagine ongoing puzzlement if someone receives content that asserts GPU licensing and also Creative Commons at the same time.  My example script contains the GPU assertion.  Following the WIKI TOS requires anyone using the content to do all of this:

When using content from the Second Life Wiki, you must do all of the following:

 

 

•     Acknowledge that the content is from the Second Life Wiki
•     Include the URL for, or link to, the original copy of the content on the Second Life Wiki
•     Include our copyright notice: “Copyright © 2007-2012 Linden Research, Inc.”
•     Indicate that the content is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License; and
•     Include the URL for, or link to, at least the license summary at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0 (and, if possible, to the complete license terms at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode).

[Prokofy Neva]

This is why all these "information wants to be free" sort of "licenses" are all so fake, annoying and ultimately destructive.

They come out of the fanaticism of Richard Stallman and Lawrence Lessig who ultimately want to destroy copyright as an institution, and decouple content from commerce, not ensure that rights are acknowledged or that there is "innovation". That's all a shill.

As you can see, they contradict each other, and aren't required, in fact, to claim copyright.

It's a convention in SL to put the name of the person who wrote the script even if you copy it and it comes out as "your" item then in inventory.

If you want to be acknowledged as a creator, then put perms on your item and sell it, even for $1. Then you will not face all this vexation.

These "licenses" are not really "about" law. They are about lawfaring, or misuse of law to try to create socialist paradises. You don't need them to accomplish even the magnificence you wish of giving everything away. You can always price it at $0 or $1.

[Qwalyphi Korpov]

Well - that's all very interesting Qwal (to you.)

((btw - I'm still not a lawyer and this is just my confusions posted for general consumption))

Lets consider who has the "authority" to assert that an LSL script is distributed under the terms of Creative Commons...3.0 BY-SA?  Only the copyright holder.  Correct?

Okay then - if the contributor is not the copyright holder they can't assert a modification of the copyright terms.  Which is what the CC-BY-SA is.  That's why Rob Linden posted an item back in 2007 that included this "As long as you author the content (not cut and paste from sources you are not the sole author of), we welcome your contribution."  I found that gem in a discussion page.  Here's a link: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Talk:LSL_Portal  

Curiously that requirement of 'sole authorship' is not included in the WIKI Terms Of Use.  Which seems to force us to rely on the contributors understanding of CC-BY-SA licensing and their willingness to only make appropriate contributions.

[Qwalyphi Korpov]

Thanks for contributing your views Prokofy.  I can see the 'control freak' aspect plays a big part in this.  Personally I enjoy the puzzle game space it provides.

[Qwalyphi Korpov]

Fascinating Qwal.  How do you come up with these items?

So your theory is that only the copyright holder has the authority to assert a Creative Commons BY-SA (by attribution & share alike) license for a work.  Although in theory anyone who later distributes that same work or a derivative work is required to continue using a CC-BY-SA type license.  A possible exception being the original author/copyright holder.   They can distribute the work under a variety of different licenses.

What about this:  Suppose someone finds a Public Domain script and contributes it to the WIKI Script Library.  No one else is asserting copyright so ...  Can they add a copyright claim with their name and then distribute it as CC-BY-SA?

I'm asking because some of the scripts in the WIKI library state that they are Public Domain.  So I'm again puzzled and confused.

I am not making this up.  Although I am not a lawyer.  Also - I could have lots of stuff wrong (as if you hadn't guessed)

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions

 

[Qwalyphi Korpov]

Well Qwal you've generated nearly zero discussion here.  Why don't you use one of your alt accounts to give the illusion of a discussion?

Ah, alternate identities.  That's a fascinating issue (to me.)  You can register your copyright using a pseudonym.  It's not a problem.  Well, later on it may be a problem to establish your are some other name.  So maybe the WIKI shows the content was uploaded by Agent4u2find2sue Resident.  Maybe the scripts lists another name as the author.   Puzzles.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-register.html#realname

Before the current WIKI the licensing situation was very out of control.  Now there is cover for the LL. They have a TOU that states the licensing of the content.  There is still plenty of confusion of course.  The WIKI script library is still being updated now.  However for some years there has also been an 'LSL Library' in these forums.  Things go in cycles.

What is the licensing situation for content of the 'LSL Library?'  There is a Community Guidelines and the TOS.  They don't seem to address the issue.  Some of what's there is from well know scriptors who I assume only post their own work.  Some is cut and pasted from various sources.  Some has no indication of who the author is.  Some has multiple authors listed.  Some have no licensing information.  Some include some licensing language in the comments.  I'll find some samples to illustrate. 

[Qwalyphi Korpov]

Well Qwal I certainly hope today's posting is a bit more interesting than yesterday.

Of course time has gone by - & time goes by so slowly & time can do so much....

Anywhatever here's the first example of 'licensing' copied from a post to this forums 'LSL Library'  Per usual it's not entirely clear what was included in the script by the creator v/s what was added or changed by the poster.  I've color coded to indicate what I think was original, removed, or added. The content found at the weblink has changed recently so it's likely some of my color coding is wrong.  Also keep in mind that the poster could actually be the scripts creator (although they don't say one way or the other.)  I remove some specifics in the interest of obscuring some stuff. 

Some questions to keep in mind -

• Who has the copyright to the posted script?
• What license terms apply to the script if you were to use it?
• What items raise issues that will be addressed in later posts?

Color coding to indicate items added, removed or original

***Original*** ***Added*** ***Text Here Removed*** ***Anonymization***

 

// Downloaded from : ***Some WEB Link****

// This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it.
// Additional Licenes may apply that prevent you from selling this code

// and these licenses may require you to publish any changes you make on request.
//
// There are literally thousands of hours of work in these scripts. Please respect
// the creators wishes and follow their license requirements.
//
// Any License information included herein must be included in any script you give out or use.
// Licenses are included in the script or comments by the original author, in which case
// the authors license must be followed.

// A GNU license, if attached by the author, means the original code must be FREE.
// Modifications can be made and products sold with the scripts in them.
// You cannot attach a license to make this GNU License
// more or less restrictive.  see http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

// Creative Commons licenses apply to all scripts from the Second Life
// wiki and script library and are Copyrighted by Linden Lab. See
// http://creativecommons.org/licenses/

// Please You mustleave any author credits and headers intact in any script you use or publish.
// If you don't like these restrictions, then don't use these scripts.

[Qwalyphi Korpov]

Well crap Qwal your post yesterday was way complicated.  You're not a lawyer so you don't understand stuff anyway.  Plus - nobody pays attention to all that license mumbo jumbo anyway.

Hahah.. you said "anyway" in consecutive sentences.  Dats poor writing style.

Yeah - I guess it was way complicated.  I'll zero in on one bit.

// Creative Commons licenses apply to all scripts from the Second Life
// wiki and script library and are Copyrighted by Linden Lab. See
// http://creativecommons.org/licenses/

I would say this: Creative Commons licenses (specifically BY-SA) should apply to the scripts in the WIKI.  But that assumes everyone is playing by the rules.  Now the script library, that's very unclear what it refers to.  There are the pre-WIKI script libraries.  Then there is the script library in the WIKI itself.  Finally there is the LSL Library here in the forums. They're not all covered by a single TOU policy.  I believe that items posted here in the forums are covered by the Terms Of Service.  There is some licensing language there.  It does not refer to Creative Commons.   In any case, a statement that Creative Commons licenses apply to all scripts leaves open the question what Creative Commons license?

The 'and are copyrighted by Linden Lab' bit is a curious item.  The copyright of a script is normally held by it's author.  A copyright holder can transfer ownership to another party.  That isn't being done when people post scripts in the WIKI or here in the forums.  So Linden Lab doesn't have the copyright on contributed scripts.  They do have a right to copy them for specific purposes though.  Per the TOS.  Also, the Linden Lab does hold the copyright for their websites content.  But that doesn't mean they hold the copyright for everything their websites contain.  See?

 

[Qwalyphi Korpov]

I think you missed my point there.  Don't you have a less convoluted, self conflicting example of a license assertion from the forums?

Hmmm.... okays - I'll get one.

//this code is free to use under the//GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 3, 29 June 2007//~SOME.NAME~ SOME-DATE-2013

Very simple.  No conflicts.  It's a little awkward in that there is no link to the license version referenced.  A simple web search will find it though.  It's currently the latest version so it's not a problem that it's six years old.

Some.Name doesn't explicitly claim a copyright for the script.  Some.Name also doesn't explicitly state that they are the creator of the script.  Probably would be better to do those things based on what I read at the licensing websites.

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

I admire the efficiency of taking yourself to task in a single avatar, Qwal. I seem to need Snugs for that purpose.

[Snugs McMasters]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

I admire the efficiency of taking yourself to task in a single avatar, Qwal. I seem to need Snugs for that purpose.

---

Need? That's a welcome admission, though it doesn't explain why you're always trying to get rid of me.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Snugs McMasters wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

I admire the efficiency of taking yourself to task in a single avatar, Qwal. I seem to need Snugs for that purpose.

---

Need? That's a welcome admission, though it doesn't explain why you're always trying to get rid of me.

---

See what I mean, Qwal?

Now I'm wondering, is Snugs the chicken or the egg?

[Qwalyphi Korpov]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Snugs McMasters wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

I admire the efficiency of taking yourself to task in a single avatar, Qwal. I seem to need Snugs for that purpose.

---

Need? That's a welcome admission, though it doesn't explain why you're always trying to get rid of me.

---

See what I mean, Qwal?

Now I'm wondering, is Snugs the chicken or the egg?

---

Yes.  It feels like it should be efficient. Cuz I'm usually pretty good at anticipating what Qwal will say next.  Although he sometimes takes an unexpected turn.  I guess the rule of thumb is never trust yourself to follow a plan.  Which anyone should know after a few New Years resolutions.

Copyright 2013 - Qwalyphi Korpov (author and co-author)

[Madelaine McMasters]

Welcome to the world of legal conundrums surrounding "software", the pinnacle of which appears to be software patents. All this licensing lingo could be seen as pointless posturing given the exceptional ease with which one can do whatever the hell one wants with code and go absolutely undetected.

I think you're also witnessing that most people have far less understanding of the law than lawyers, if that's possible.

;-)

[Perrie Juran]

 

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

---

---

Yes.  It feels like it should be efficient. Cuz I'm usually pretty good at anticipating what Qwal will say next.  Although he sometimes takes an unexpected turn........

Copyright 2013 - Qwalyphi Korpov (author and co-author)

---

[Qwalyphi Korpov]

LOL

Dats a nice self-conflicted example.

[Qwalyphi Korpov]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Welcome to the world of legal conundrums surrounding "software", the pinnacle of which appears to be software patents. All this licensing lingo could be seen as pointless posturing given the exceptional ease with which one can do whatever the hell one wants with code and go absolutely undetected.

I think you're also witnessing that most people have far less understanding of the law than lawyers, if that's possible.

;-)

---

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this Madelaine.  And I'm sharing them here again - by attribution.  And I'm about to share some of mine in a similar manner.  Which is pretty much what the Creative Commons By Attribution Share Alike license is all about. 

I must say though I'm a bit unsettled to not be speaking exclusively to myself.

Like you said - it's so easy to do whatever you want with the code and go undetected.  For example - suppose I was to get a script out of the WIKI.  Easy to do.  Per the WIKI TOU it's licensed under CC-BY-SA.  Source is available.  I can use it to create a derivative work (modified script.)  Because the original script was licensed CC-BY-SA I'm required to license the derivative using the same or a similar license. 

Quick reminder in simple terms of what CC-BY-SA license provides

You are free:

• to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
• to Remix — to adapt the work
• to make commercial use of the work

 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/

That's simple in a way.  Now suppose I make a prim product and include in the contents my derivative script.  Per the CC-BY-SA the script must be free to copy, modify & transfer,  So any products sold in SL that use scripts from the SL WIKI Script Library (or derived from those scripts) must set the attributes to COPY/MOD/TRANSFER.  LOL.  Now I suppose some reading this are thinking that's all BS.  No - it's CC-BY-SA.

I hope I've provided a good example of the hopelessly unenforceable aspect of the whole software licensing situation.

It's a bit difficult to chase down the language in the CC licenses that apply to scripts (software.)  That's because the CC licenses are not designed to be used with software.  The people at Creative Commons in fact say their licenses should not be used for software.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Welcome to the world of legal conundrums surrounding "software", the pinnacle of which appears to be software patents. All this licensing lingo could be seen as pointless posturing given the exceptional ease with which one can do whatever the hell one wants with code and go absolutely undetected.

I think you're also witnessing that most people have far less understanding of the law than lawyers, if that's possible.

;-)

---

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this Madelaine.  And I'm sharing them here again - by attribution.  And I'm about to share some of mine in a similar manner.  Which is pretty much what the Creative Commons By Attribution Share Alike license is all about. 

I must say though I'm a bit unsettled to not be speaking exclusively to myself.

Like you said - it's so easy to do whatever you want with the code and go undetected.  For example - suppose I was to get a script out of the WIKI.  Easy to do.  Per the WIKI TOU it's licensed under CC-BY-SA.  Source is available.  I can use it to create a derivative work (modified script.)  Because the original script was licensed CC-BY-SA I'm required to license the derivative using the same or a similar license. 

Quick reminder in simple terms of what CC-BY-SA license provides

You are free:

• to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
• to Remix — to adapt the work
• to make commercial use of the work

 

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/

That's simple in a way.  Now suppose I make a prim product and include in the contents my derivative script.  Per the CC-BY-SA the script must be free to copy, modify & transfer,  So any products sold in SL that use scripts from the SL WIKI Script Library (or derived from those scripts) must set the attributes to COPY/MOD/TRANSFER.  LOL.  Now I suppose some reading this are thinking that's all BS.  No - it's CC-BY-SA.

I hope I've provided a good example of the hopelessly unenforceable aspect of the whole software licensing situation.

It's a bit difficult to chase down the language in the CC licenses that apply to scripts (software.)  That's because the CC licenses are not designed to be used with software.  The people at Creative Commons in fact say their licenses should not be used for software.

---

Yes, and this has been a common complaint about the "free as in speech" interpretation of software licenses. It's as if producing an algorithm, then applying CC licensing to it, makes it impossible for anyone to ever again use that algorithm (in any form, as you could presumably claim it traces back to the original, even if it was derived independently), without being encumbered by the license.

When I worked for a medical instrument manufacturer, there were internal discussions about using open-source software. Some licenses stated that inclusion of the code required us to publish ALL source code for the product it was used in, not just the licensed bits. When I moved out on my own, I had a client who did work for the Defense Department. They had a product that used algorithms produced by researchers working under an NSF grant. The algorithms were published under a license that required any modifications of the code to be made public. Making the source code of the product public would have been a violation of federal law.

There are Creative Commons licensed implementations of virtually every popular algorithm, from "quicksort" to "Bresenham's line drawing algorithm" (which is Bresenham's!)  to libraries of code to implement FAT32 on memory cards. Since the license allows "remix", how does anyone prove that their particular implementation of an algorithm was not a modification of something with a CC license?

It's been more than ten years since I left that company, but at the time the recommended solution was to avoid any code snippet containing any licensing verbiage. Of course it was often easy to find versions of almost anything that had been modified and posted online with all licensing verbiage removed, so plausible deniability was generally within reach.

It takes only moments to pass an algorithm through a scriptable text editor to render it unrecognizable as a copy of the original, and most products do not ship with source code. Catch me if you can?

ETA: It's been years since I've thought about CC stuff, but I do recall conversations in which we wondered whether "distribution" of the code meant in source form. If so, taking a CC-BY-SA script and embedding into a prim set to no-mod might be allowed, as you have distributed only the compiled algorithm, not the source code. You'd only be confined by the source license if you distributed the source. This may have been wishful thinking. I do that.

[Qwalyphi Korpov]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Welcome to the world of legal conundrums surrounding "software", the pinnacle of which appears to be software patents. All this licensing lingo could be seen as pointless posturing given the exceptional ease with which one can do whatever the hell one wants with code and go absolutely undetected.

I think you're also witnessing that most people have far less understanding of the law than lawyers, if that's possible.

;-)

---

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this Madelaine.  And I'm sharing them here again - by attribution.  And I'm about to share some of mine in a similar manner.  Which is pretty much what the Creative Commons By Attribution Share Alike license is all about. 

I must say though I'm a bit unsettled to not be speaking exclusively to myself.

Like you said - it's so easy to do whatever you want with the code and go undetected.  For example - suppose I was to get a script out of the WIKI.  Easy to do.  Per the WIKI TOU it's licensed under CC-BY-SA.  Source is available.  I can use it to create a derivative work (modified script.)  Because the original script was licensed CC-BY-SA I'm required to license the derivative using the same or a similar license. 

Quick reminder in simple terms of what CC-BY-SA license provides

You are free:

• to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
• to Remix — to adapt the work
• to make commercial use of the work

 

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/

That's simple in a way.  Now suppose I make a prim product and include in the contents my derivative script.  Per the CC-BY-SA the script must be free to copy, modify & transfer,  So any products sold in SL that use scripts from the SL WIKI Script Library (or derived from those scripts) must set the attributes to COPY/MOD/TRANSFER.  LOL.  Now I suppose some reading this are thinking that's all BS.  No - it's CC-BY-SA.

I hope I've provided a good example of the hopelessly unenforceable aspect of the whole software licensing situation.

It's a bit difficult to chase down the language in the CC licenses that apply to scripts (software.)  That's because the CC licenses are not designed to be used with software.  The people at Creative Commons in fact say their licenses should not be used for software.

---

Yes, and this has been a common complaint about the "free as in speech" interpretation of software licenses. It's as if producing an algorithm, then applying CC licensing to it, makes it impossible for anyone to ever again use that algorithm (

in any form, as you could presumably claim it traces back to the original, even if it was derived independently), 

without being encumbered by the license.

When I worked for a medical instrument manufacturer, there were internal discussions about using open-source software. Some licenses stated that inclusion of the code required us to publish ALL source code for the product it was used in, not just the licensed bits. When I moved out on my own, I had a client who did work for the Defense Department. They had a product that used algorithms produced by researchers working under an NSF grant. The algorithms were published under a license that required any modifications of the code to be made public. Making the source code of the product public would have been a violation of federal law.

There are Creative Commons licensed implementations of virtually every popular algorithm, from "quicksort" to "Bresenham's line drawing algorithm" (which is Bresenham's!)  to libraries of code to implement FAT32 on memory cards. Since the license allows "remix", how does anyone prove that their particular implementation of an algorithm was not a modification of something with a CC license?

It's been more than ten years since I left that company, but at the time the recommended solution was to avoid any code snippet containing any licensing verbiage. Of course it was often easy to find versions of almost anything that had been modified and posted online with all licensing verbiage removed, so plausible deniability was generally within reach.

It takes only moments to pass an algorithm through a scriptable text editor to render it unrecognizable as a copy of the original, and most products do not ship with source code. Catch me if you can?

ETA: It's been years since I've thought about CC stuff, but I do recall conversations in which we wondered whether "distribution" of the code meant in source form. If so, taking a CC-BY-SA script and embedding into a prim set to no-mod might be allowed, as you have distributed only the compiled algorithm, not the source code. You'd only be confined by the source license if you distributed the source. This may have been wishful thinking. I do that.

---

OMG... instead of getting closer to understanding it all I just get dizzier.

The CC licenses don't address the source/object software issue directly.  I suspect a key reason the CC people recommends a GNU license for software.  Quote from the CC website follows.

----------

"Creative Commons recommends and uses free and open source software licenses for software.

 

To use the Free Software Foundation’s GNU General Public License, see how to use GNU licenses for your own software."

---------------

Regarding algorithms - the U.S. Copyright Office says an algorithm (, program logic, method or layout) cannot be copyrighted.  Only the copyrightable expression embodied in the program will get protection.  Of course this leaves me mystified as to what is being protected via the GNU license.  Just kidding - it's all of the copyrightable expression - obviously.

 

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ61.pdf

 

Really it's not clear at all.  Here's some real world info:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&ved=0CFYQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Feuro.ecom.cmu.edu%2Fprogram%2Flaw%2F08-732%2F2012Slides%2Fcopyright14.ppt&ei=5HrMUaKCMsepyAHf8oHYCQ&usg=AFQjCNHsaQojgiQmy2HsMMvlWkh5XX4nJA&sig2=CLVHRQWbsOH7LC4N99eP9Q&bvm=bv.48572450,d.aWc

 

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

OMG... instead of getting closer to understanding it all I just get dizzier.

The CC licenses don't address the source/object software issue directly.  I suspect a key reason the CC people recommends a GNU license for software.  Quote from the CC website follows.

----------

"Creative Commons recommends and uses free and open source software licenses for software.

 

To use the Free Software Foundation’s GNU General Public License, see how to use GNU licenses for your own software."

---------------

Regarding algorithms - the U.S. Copyright Office says an algorithm (, program logic, method or layout) cannot be copyrighted.  Only the copyrightable expression embodied in the program will get protection.  Of course this leaves me mystified as to what is being protected via the GNU license.  Just kidding - it's all of the copyrightable expression - obviously.

 

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ61.pdf

 

Really it's not clear at all.  Here's some real world info:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&ved=0CFYQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Feuro.ecom.cmu.edu%2Fprogram%2Flaw%2F08-732%2F2012Slides%2Fcopyright14.ppt&ei=5HrMUaKCMsepyAHf8oHYCQ&usg=AFQjCNHsaQojgiQmy2HsMMvlWkh5XX4nJA&sig2=CLVHRQWbsOH7LC4N99eP9Q&bvm=bv.48572450,d.aWc

 

 

---

It was primarily the GNU (Stallman) licensing that drove us batty, I'm probably confusing that with CC stuff that also drove us batty. We had the algorithm/expression discussions as well, and found it sometimes difficult to sense the boundary and often easy to blur it.

I remember reading of a novel way that Nintendo used to prevent third parties from producing unlicensed games for their Gameboy handheld system. At turn-on, the Gameboy would look into the game cartridge for a specific sequence of instructions that (If I recall correctly) spelled out "Nintendo" on the screen when executed. If the sequence was not there, the game would not run. Because the algorithm contained the trademarked name "Nintendo", wrote it to the screen, and had to be expressed in exactly the right way (because the toy matched the algorithm byte for byte with the copy it maintained), Nintendo covered every angle a third party might use to produce games for the toy without paying Nintendo the royalty on the little verification algorithm.

As with patents, what's ultimately copyrightable is determined not by the copyright registration, but by the courts.

[Qwalyphi Korpov]

So.  A number things are unclear.  The situation is often ambiguous.  Great effort going into licensing may result in little protection.  It's no wonder the LL has stepped away from making any great effort regarding licensing of this forums LSL Library content.

So let's wonder why LL has stepped away from making any great effort regarding licensing of this forums LSL Library.  Going back to my earlier example.

...suppose I make a prim product and include in the contents my derivative script.  Per the CC-BY-SA the script must be free to copy, modify & transfer,  So any products sold in SL that use scripts from the SL WIKI Script Library (or derived from those scripts) must set the attributes to COPY/MOD/TRANSFER.  LOL.  Now I suppose some reading this are thinking that's all BS.  No - it's CC-BY-SA.

Now I'll add this: Under a CC-BY-SA license you are free to copy, distribute and transmit the work.  That copying and distributing isn't limited to Second Life.  Which seems a bit conflicted for the LL.  Why would the LL require scripts in their own WIKI to be licensed in a way that assures they can be moved/copied off to other competing grids?  Which I suppose raises the companion question: Why would the LL put in place Terms of Service which block the moving/porting of CC-BY-SA licensed items out of SL.  Not their problem?  Nothing is simple?

Then again the Creative Commons people said not to use their licenses for software & the LL just went with that advice.

 

 

[Qwalyphi Korpov]

What does the LL do to deal with Intellectual Property(IP)/Copyright regarding these forums LSL Library?  How does the LL deal with Intellectual Property(IP)/Copyright regarding contributions to the SL viewer?

To use the forums and contribute code to the LSL library:

• Provide a birthdate to the SL registration process
• Provide an email address to the SL registration process
• Pick a unique account name
• Select a password
• Register on the forums using your unique account name and password
• Accept the forum Community Guidelines (which folds in the SL Terms of Service by reference)

To contribute code to the SL viewer project:

Complete, sign, date and convey via mail, fax or email a Contributors Agreement which includes

• Your full name
• Second Life Account Name (if applicable)
• Your E-Mail Address
• Your mailing address
• Your telephone number
• Facsimile information
• Employer name and supervisor name if you are employed as a software engineer or... (more stuff like that)

The agreement states among other things that

• You assign to Linden Lab joint ownership of the contribution
• The Linden Lab may register a copyright in your contribution
• You represent and warrant that you are legally entitled to grant assignment of copyright and the various licenses...
• You represent and warrant that the contribution is your original work....
• and more

The complete (& more accurate) agreement terms can be seen here and includes a link to the agreement 'form':

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Contribution_Agreement

Clearly the LL wants a great deal before they're willing to make use of a contribution.  Meanwhile they provide you with the unique SL account name of the contributor.  In both cases the LL does what it needs to do to protect itself. Nothing wrong with that.  Well.... it does leave you without much assurance that you can safely make use of a contribution.

What we do have (I think - no known examples) is a DCMA take down available.  If a copyright holder discovers their work improperly posted in the LSL Library they could get it removed.  Of course everyone is free to communicate with the anonymous forum contributors to obtain their signed and dated representations and warrants.

In hunting around for the above I found an insight regarding the LL view of the ability of anonymous persons or virtual avatars to form contracts (enter into agreements.)

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Contribution_Agreement_FAQ

I'll quote a relevant portion here. (Even though it's not allowed per the FAQ document itself.  I've been assured here in the forums that even though the LL says you can't do something it's really okay to do it unless the LL also stops you from doing it.  Although I've also seen it said that it's not okay to do something that the LL already told you not to do even if you also see other people doing that thing and not getting stopped by the LL... see?)

• Do I really have to provide all my real life identity information, and will that be made public?
  Yes, you must provide your real life identity. This agreement is a contract, and one cannot enter into a contract with an anonymous party or a virtual world avatar (at least not yet, and as enthusiastic as we are about the future of Virtual Reality, we're not ready to pioneer that aspect at this time).
  Your identity is handled as "personal information" in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

So when your virtual world avatar agrees to the TOS you're doing the impossible.  Amazing isn't it?

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

What does the LL do to deal with Intellectual Property(IP)/Copyright regarding these forums LSL Library?  How does the LL deal with Intellectual Property(IP)/Copyright regarding contributions to the SL viewer?

To use the forums and contribute code to the LSL library:

• Provide a birthdate to the SL registration process
• Provide an email address to the SL registration process
• Pick a unique account name
• Select a password
• Register on the forums using your unique account name and password
• Accept the forum Community Guidelines (which folds in the SL Terms of Service by reference)

To contribute code to the SL viewer project:

Complete, sign, date and convey via mail, fax or email a Contributors Agreement which includes

• Your full name
• Second Life Account Name (if applicable)
• Your E-Mail Address
• Your mailing address
• Your telephone number
• Facsimile information
• Employer name and supervisor name if you are employed as a software engineer or... (more stuff like that)

The agreement states among other things that

• You assign to Linden Lab joint ownership of the contribution
• The Linden Lab may register a copyright in your contribution
• You represent and warrant that you are legally entitled to grant assignment of copyright and the various licenses...
• You represent and warrant that the contribution is your original work....
• and more

The complete (& more accurate) agreement terms can be seen here and includes a link to the agreement 'form':

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Contribution_Agreement

Clearly the LL wants a great deal before they're willing to make use of a contribution.  Meanwhile they provide you with the unique SL account name of the contributor.  In both cases the LL does what it needs to do to protect itself. Nothing wrong with that.  Well.... it does leave you without much assurance that you can safely make use of a contribution.

 

What we do have (I think - no known examples) is a DCMA take down available.  If a copyright holder discovers their work improperly posted in the LSL Library they could get it removed.  Of course everyone is free to communicate with the anonymous forum contributors to obtain their signed and dated representations and warrants.

In hunting around for the above I found an insight regarding the LL view of the ability of anonymous persons or virtual avatars to form contracts (enter into agreements.)

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Contribution_Agreement_FAQ

I'll quote a relevant portion here. (Even though it's not allowed per the FAQ document itself.  I've been assured here in the forums that even though the LL says you can't do something it's really okay to do it unless the LL also stops you from doing it.  Although I've also seen it said that it's not okay to do something that the LL already told you not to do even if you also see other people doing that thing and not getting stopped by the LL... see?)

• Do I really have to provide all my real life identity information, and will that be made public?
  Yes, you must provide your real life identity. This agreement is a contract, and one cannot enter into a contract with an anonymous party or a virtual world avatar (at least not yet, and as enthusiastic as we are about the future of Virtual Reality, we're not ready to pioneer that aspect at this time).
  Your identity is handled as "personal information" in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

So when your virtual world avatar agrees to the TOS you're doing the impossible.  Amazing isn't it?

---

It's also the case that minors generally can't enter into contracts, which makes you wonder how the teen grid legalities worked. That said, many online services are used by anonymous individuals, so there is probably some real legal value in having a TOS.

Qwal, you've probably put more effort into understanding all this legal prose than those who wrote it!