An implicit license to encourage open-source use

An implicit license to encourage open-source use

Postby Robin » 21 Mar 2010, 16:32

One thing that stifles innovation is the fact that full copyright is the default when you create something, be it a game or something else.

On the other hand, you don't want to choose a free/open license for every little thingy you put on your website/blog/whatever.

And not many are comfortable with releasing an entire portfolio under CC0 or WTFPL. And sometimes you do want to choose a specific license

Wouldn't it be great if you could just say “You can use any content on this website/blog/... that does not have a specific license attached freely for private or open-source use. For anything else, full copyright conditions apply”?

We could have a standard boilerplate for such an “implicit license”, one that encourages sharing, but is overridable on a project-by-project basis.

A while ago, I tried to do just that, as you can read on my blog. I've also written a few follow-ups. You can find everything posted on that topic under the tag implict-license on Wordpress.com.

I hope to start some serious discussion about this, because this could help open up a ton of creative content or code for existing open-source projects. Do you feel the same way? Do you think it is impractical, impossible to execute, unlikely to spread? Please comment.
User avatar
Robin
 
Posts: 6
Joined: 18 Mar 2010, 22:43
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: An implicit license to encourage open-source use

Postby kiba » 21 Mar 2010, 20:31

Robin {l Wrote}:One thing that stifles innovation is the fact that full copyright is the default when you create something, be it a game or something else.

On the other hand, you don't want to choose a free/open license for every little thingy you put on your website/blog/whatever.

And not many are comfortable with releasing an entire portfolio under CC0 or WTFPL. And sometimes you do want to choose a specific license

Wouldn't it be great if you could just say “You can use any content on this website/blog/... that does not have a specific license attached freely for private or open-source use. For anything else, full copyright conditions apply”?

We could have a standard boilerplate for such an “implicit license”, one that encourages sharing, but is overridable on a project-by-project basis.

A while ago, I tried to do just that, as you can read on my blog. I've also written a few follow-ups. You can find everything posted on that topic under the tag implict-license on Wordpress.com.

I hope to start some serious discussion about this, because this could help open up a ton of creative content or code for existing open-source projects. Do you feel the same way? Do you think it is impractical, impossible to execute, unlikely to spread? Please comment.


What you're doing is encouraging license profliberation, which is a bad thing.

Plus, you should experiment more with CCO and WTFPL. You may find that it have no impact whatsoever, or a positive impact.

It's not good to live in hypothetical fear. It's much better to live based on actual, hard-earned experience.
I run the Libregamewiki.

I also make games at Kibabase.
kiba
LGW Moderator
 
Posts: 39
Joined: 05 Dec 2009, 18:38

Re: An implicit license to encourage open-source use

Postby Robin » 22 Mar 2010, 09:24

Thanks for the feedback.
kiba {l Wrote}:What you're doing is encouraging license profliberation, which is a bad thing.

How so? The IL is by no means meant as a new license (it is just a statement of intent covering a range of unlicensed content), and version after the first only allow for a small amount (5-10) of licenses to be used. That lists needs tweaking, but they are mostly licenses that are very popular already.
kiba {l Wrote}:Plus, you should experiment more with CCO and WTFPL. You may find that it have no impact whatsoever, or a positive impact.

I have no problem with those, it's just that I don't think they are fit for every situation, which is why I don't want to use them by default. Just like using the GPL by default isn't a very good idea.
kiba {l Wrote}:It's not good to live in hypothetical fear. It's much better to live based on actual, hard-earned experience.

Could you explain that last one? The IL wasn't meant to protect me from some kind of fear, but rather to encourage open-source use, to encourage sharing.
User avatar
Robin
 
Posts: 6
Joined: 18 Mar 2010, 22:43
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: An implicit license to encourage open-source use

Postby Robin » 31 Mar 2010, 17:04

In case I wasn't clear enough: the Implicit License is not a license. For specific works, it is temporary.

Some little things you put on the web might just stay that: little things. For those, it doesn't make sense to have something more restrictive than BSD/MIT/CC-BY -- or maybe even CC0/PD.

But some things you might want to release under a copyleft license, depending on your philosophical/political stance. Projects that have grown, projects worth keeping free.

It's often hard to tell on beforehand how it will turn out.

In my case, that meant keeping full copyright until I was sure what license to use. (If anyone uses a different strategy here, please tell me.)

The IL is to allow sharing in that critical period between initial release and the choice of a license. It is also there to ensure availability of old forgotten one-shots.
User avatar
Robin
 
Posts: 6
Joined: 18 Mar 2010, 22:43
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: An implicit license to encourage open-source use

Postby qubodup » 31 Mar 2010, 17:18

Robin {l Wrote}:In my case, that meant keeping full copyright until I was sure what license to use. (If anyone uses a different strategy here, please tell me.

If you know that you want a free license, then I would suggest using the least permissive (AGPL or GPL) and later move to LGPL or 3BSD/MIT/zlib.

This would of course require contributors to agree to re-licensing of their work.
User avatar
qubodup
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: 08 Nov 2009, 22:52
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: An implicit license to encourage open-source use

Postby Robin » 31 Mar 2010, 17:22

qubodup {l Wrote}:This would of course require contributors to agree to re-licensing of their work.

Which can give problems if -- for some reason -- one of the contributers is unreachable (or makes a fuss about it).
User avatar
Robin
 
Posts: 6
Joined: 18 Mar 2010, 22:43
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: An implicit license to encourage open-source use

Postby qubodup » 31 Mar 2010, 18:14

Robin {l Wrote}:
qubodup {l Wrote}:This would of course require contributors to agree to re-licensing of their work.

Which can give problems if -- for some reason -- one of the contributers is unreachable (or makes a fuss about it).

Absolutely. this is something that needs to be arranged before contributions are accepted.

There is a discussion about this on our forums.
User avatar
qubodup
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: 08 Nov 2009, 22:52
Location: Berlin, Germany

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest