[Opensim-dev] Legal Issues was RFC Profiles

[Melvin Carvalho]

On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Dahlia Trimble <dahliatrimble at gmail.com> wrote:
> Agreed that there should be a way to attach a license to an asset. Prim
> assets can have a notecard included which might be useful as a way to convey
> license, but other assets such as textures, animations, and even closed
> source scripts are unable to have any additional attributes associated with
> them using this method.
> I'm not sure I would support having Creative Commons be the default
> though... while it is an excellent option for some work and I have used it
> for some content I have developed, it does reduce the creator's rights that
> are normally assumed by the Berne convention or US copyright laws. I think
> it would be nice to have a few boilerplate licenses such as Creative Commons
> of GPL or BSD or whatever available, but only as an addition to the ability
> to add free-form license text.
> Then again, I really think we need some kind of asset metadata storage
> capability, and license could be one metadata attribute.

Any help? http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CcREL

> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 8:30 AM, Michael Cortez <mcortez at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> James Stallings II wrote:
>> > Perhaps So Mel, But....
>> > ....Where is the similar licensing or release from obligation under
>> > license for the OS grid content?
>> >
>> > It seems to me there's a double standard in the offing here, whereby
>> > content from the Linden Grid is hands-off for legal reasons, but not
>> > so much as a tip of the hat in that direction when it comes to content
>> > from an OS grid.
>> Depending on your interpretation of Linden Lab's legal documents
>> including their ToS, one may come to the conclusion that the only person
>> who is being granted a copyright license (regardless of what permissions
>> check boxes you click) is Linden Labs, who is being granted a right to
>> use a creators content as intended by the creator within their system.
>>
>> Now of course this is just one interpretation, and I'm sure if you get
>> two different lawyers in the same room looking at those documents you
>> may get two completely different answers as well.
>>
>> This in my humble opinion is a good reason why I believe the asset
>> system should be extended in such a way that every asset can have a text
>> blob attached to it that includes actual licensing terms -- perhaps with
>> the default check box permissions being assigned to various creative
>> commons licensing attributes.  Or allow the user to decide what those
>> check boxes mean for themselves and when they encounter an item where
>> they're different, they're informed via blue message box (for legacy
>> integration) -- but even better would be to talk to the Hippo and other
>> alternative viewer creators, to see if something can be integrated to
>> display the creators licensing terms directly.
>>
>> Just a few random thoughts,
>> --
>> Michael Cortez
>> _______________________________________________
>> Opensim-dev mailing list
>> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
>> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>
>