[Opensim-users] Free objects (dmu1 and dmu2 .IAR files)

[Karen Palen]

--- On Thu, 12/10/09, Dickson, Mike (ISS Software) <mike.dickson at hp.com> wrote:

> From: Dickson, Mike (ISS Software) <mike.dickson at hp.com>

> The repository idea as a means of
> classification is a good one.  I like that.

Thank you. 

I see it as being about as close as we are likely to come to a solution in the present environment.

I would be delighted to see this suggestion inspire something better though.
 
> It doesn't address what criteria are used regarding what
> gets into them.  In the Ubuntu case everything has a
> known license that's been asserted for the content. 

The point is that the criteria differ widely for each repository. What you are saying is true for the main repository (Canonical supported). However in some of the repositories the licensing is far from clear. Much of the older code (pre GPL era) never did have any explicit license for example.

Much of the code I wrote for the 8008 and 8080 (1972-76) was never explicitly licensed. A simple copyright of the printed publication was considered sufficient even with corporate sponsorship. That was often ignored by both originator and users alike with no thought of objecting (the company was delighted to actually see real users!)

Obviously explicit licensing is a consideration for many users. How serious a consideration all depends on your situation and how you use the code/content.

> I'm far less comfortable with your earlier assertion that
> in the absence of a license its safe to assume something is
> in the public domain.  

This has always been the presumption in any form of ownership dispute. It is up to the person who claims ownership to assert those rights before they can even be considered. There really is no such thing as the "IP police" unless outright counterfeiting and fraud is going on.

Naturally every owner would be happy to have the taxpayer assume this burden, but it simply is not workable.

> Especially since you cited
> patent law which really doesn't apply to electronic content
> anyway. 

I was actually referring to the general principles involved rather than the laws of any one country.

However since you raise the issue, the US Supreme Court has defined patent laws as applying to "anything under the sun which is made by man". Electronic content certainly falls into this category.

In practice almost every country has similar provisions. When I was in active practice I had software patents allowed in just about every country of the world. What was claimed obviously was vastly different in each case, but the intent and the practical effect was exactly the same.

> Personally I'd prefer that if a repository
> mechanism is set up it require that a license is asserted
> for anything that goes into it.  If I put something up
> I'm stating that I have the right to do so and under what
> terms.  

Yes clearly that is one dimension that is needed. Another dimension would be the common requirement for pure FOSS type material - typically GPL, CC or BSD licensed.

> I suppose you could have a "use at your own
> risk" repository for things where the creator is
> unknown. 

About 90% of classical music and literature falls into this category at least to some extent, likewise just about every "Holy Book". 

It is not too much of a stretch to forsee "digital classics" of this sort someday.

I even have a few candidates like the venerable "moon lander" game distributed by DECUS (Digital Equipment Corp. User Group) for many years. My copy never had any claim to ownership or licensing, only a disclaimer from DECUS!

> I'd personally never use something from such a repo...

Others only use FOSS material and others have still other requirements - like no crypto in some countries!

The point here is that this must be a choice for each user to make based on the best information we have. It is certainly NOT the role of the OpenSim community to act as some form of censorship board for "acceptable" content!

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

> This is a case where we can build some goodwill with the
> content creation community by being careful how content is
> classified and shared.  

Certainly this is needed, but lets not try to deceive anyone into thinking that this is more than it is - a classification based on "best available" information. Even a claim of ownership and an included "license" is hardly foolproof except as corporate "CYA". 

Also we all need to be aware that PirateBay and its successors will not go away any time soon.

We also need to maintain a balance and remember that the very small number of "professional content creators" are not the only ones with interests to be protected!

We do need to raise some barriers, but no barrier will be foolproof and every form of barrier has a cost in terms of extra effort, bugs, and user inconvenience.

Karen