Help promoting Ubuntu Global Jam

Sun Sep 20 22:45:04 BST 2009

2009/9/20 Leandro Gómez <leo.telsen at gmail.com>:
> 2009/9/20 Søren Bredlund Caspersen <soeren.b.c at gmail.com>
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Greg Grossmeier <greg at grossmeier.net>
>> wrote:
>> > <quoting name="Søren Bredlund Caspersen" date="2009-09-20"
>> > time="11:22:57 +0200">
>> >
>
> Hi all,
>
>>
>> >> I don't want to be a pain, and if I'm interpreting the CC-BY-SA
>> >> licence wrong, please correct me.
>> >
>> > I will/would, don't worry :)
>>
>> Glad to hear it :)
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> But I don't think a CC-BY-SA license is optimal for these graphics.
>> >>
>> >> If I understand the license correctly, every blog, forum post, wiki
>> >> page etc. including these graphics, need to have a line informing who
>> >> made the graphics. I can quickly come up with a hand full, if not
>> >> more, pages that do include these graphics, but not the required
>> >> attribution.
>> >
>> > That is correct. And it can be as simple as
>> > <link to author's homepage or work>Name</link> <link to
>> > license>CC:BY-SA</link>
>> > Which would look like "Name CC:BY-SA"
>> >
>> > (excuse the non-standard link notation)
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but if the original author of
>> >> the graphics felt that was the right license, should we not follow it?
>> >
>> > We should, as that is the Good Thing (TM) to do.
>>
>> So, to have a concrete example, the much advertised Global Jam wiki
>> page, artwork section:
>> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuGlobalJam#Artwork
>>
>> The information right now is:
>> "All artwork is CC-BY-SA"
>> with no info of who the author actually is or how (s)he would like to
>> be attributed.
>
> The attribution information is included in the source files.

Upon closer inspection, I see that now.
However, to make the use of these buttons more easy, maybe it should
be more explicit at the wiki page - but that is a minor issue.

>> That page right now doesn't really live up to the license, does it?
>> And really should be fixed? Pleas correct me if I'm wrong.
>>
>> >> If it was really meant to be used in a way where attribution was not
>> >> required, why not choose the right license from the start?
>> >
>> > There is no CC license (or FSF license) that does not require
>> > attribution
>> > (ie: they all do). However, I could argue that material like this should
>> > have all rights waived (using the CC0 waiver[0], or similar). That way
>> > they can be used/adapted most easily and people wouldn't have to worry
>> > about adding (possibly ugly) attribution information to an otherwise
>> > pretty advertisement/marketing material. But I could also argue that
>> > using the copyleft CC license (BY-SA) or attribution only (BY) is
>> > correct
>> > as those are most analogous to the software licenses used in the
>> > community.
>>
>> The big difference between the license of the software on the one side
>> and graphics and posters on the other, is that including a relatively
>> small text document with some software doesn't really make
>> distribution that much harder. With limited screen / paper space on
>> what ever webpage / flyer you may be producing, even a few words about
>> the license can become unhandy.
>
> If you have limited space, please don't use this graphics. It's as simple as
> that... ok... I'm the original author of the artwork, but if I weren't I
> would always think the same way:

Don't get me wrong here. I brought up the issue because the licensed
work is being miss used. I don't want to throw any specific links out
there, but go surfing planet ubuntu, and you will find people using
these graphics, but not attributing you as the original author. That
to me is a clear violation of the license, and I wanted to shine some
light on the issue - and possibly figure out if I had misunderstood
the license at some point.

If we as a community can't respect the license imposed by people
inside our own community on artwork, how can we the expect others
respect the license of the software, that seems to be so central to
the whole Free Software movement?

> It doesn't matter if it's code, artwork, literature or music; the author
> must always be acknowleged... just because they've made the software, book,
> web banner or song available to the public for free, does'nt mean they don't
> deserve to be acknowledged for their hard work.
>
> If I follow your logic correctly, we should be removing all the copyright
> notices from the software we use, because it takes more disk space and can
> become unhandy.

In my other mail I specifically tried to argued that those two can't
be compared. A few lines of text on one piece of paper take up a much
bigger fraction of the face of the paper, than a text document on a
harddisk.

> I don't want to be harsh, but if you're not going to respect the license, do
> your own artwork and publish it as PD or CC0.

I think you miss understand me. I _do_ want to respect the license
chosen by you (and other publishers). That is the whole reason why I
bring up this subject.

However I think more people would be able to use the graphics if
another license was chosen. But of course the choice of license is
solely for the author!

Cheers
Søren

>
> Cheers,
>
>>
>> The loco mailing list may not be the right forum for it, but maybe
>> there needs to be a general discussion of what license to use for
>> marketing material? Or it has already been had, and I have missed it?
>>
>> Cheers
>> Søren
>>
>> >
>> > Best,
>> >
>> > Greg
>> >
>> >
>> > [0] http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Cheers
>> >> Søren
>> >>
>> >> 2009/8/21 Leandro Gómez <leo.telsen at gmail.com>:
>> >> > 2009/8/21 Jono Bacon <jono at ubuntu.com>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 08/21/2009 12:10 PM, Leandro Gómez wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >     Corrales to weave his magic? ;-)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Yes indeed! Would anyone like to do these? Adolfo, could you ask
>> >> >> > Byron
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Made some badges based on Byron's artwork... threw in a couple of
>> >> >> > web
>> >> >> > banners as well... download (including sources) here:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > http://www.mediafire.com/?gii7ghtym1y
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Those images look awesome! Good you attach them and add them to
>> >> >> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuGlobalJam - thanks!*
>> >> >
>> >> > Done! :)
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> *
>> >> >>     Jono
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Jono Bacon
>> >> >> Ubuntu Community Manager
>> >> >> www.ubuntu.com / www.jonobacon.org
>> >> >> www.identi.ca/jonobacon www.twitter.com/jonobacon
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> loco-contacts mailing list
>> >> >> loco-contacts at lists.ubuntu.com
>> >> >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/loco-contacts
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > loco-contacts mailing list
>> >> > loco-contacts at lists.ubuntu.com
>> >> > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/loco-contacts
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> loco-contacts mailing list
>> >> loco-contacts at lists.ubuntu.com
>> >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/loco-contacts
>> >
>> > --
>> > loco-contacts mailing list
>> > loco-contacts at lists.ubuntu.com
>> > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/loco-contacts
>> >
>>
>> --
>> loco-contacts mailing list
>> loco-contacts at lists.ubuntu.com
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/loco-contacts
>
>
> --
> loco-contacts mailing list
> loco-contacts at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/loco-contacts
>
>