Apache licence vs cc-by-sa

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Apache licence vs cc-by-sa

Guy Waterval
Hello all,

I have decided since for a while, to publish only under an Apache license
all the photos that I upload to Wikimedia Commons, because they are
destinated to an uni which will select those to integrate to its internal
photographic collection. For this reason, I wish delivery the material with
a maximum reusability, without any problem..
For instance, I want to avoid that if some of my images shoud be inserted
in a document (thesis or other works), they couldn't influence the
conditions of use of the created document. I want to allow the author of
the final document to choose whether to publish his document under a free
license or not. Of course the internal parts under ALV2.0 are to be
announced by a notice in the global document.
Others tell me that it's also possible to do that with internal parts
(texts or images) licenced under a cc-by-sa. But for me, a composite
document integrating parts (images or texts) under a cc-by-sa license has
to be licensed globally under cc-by-sa only, because this licence is not a
permissive one. To be OK, a cc-by and not a cc-by-sa should be used in this
case.

Thanks for your advices
gw

<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Garanti
sans virus. www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Apache licence vs cc-by-sa

Dave Fisher
Hi Guy,

I see that you found that the Apache License 2.0 is very permissive.

If use of your images in Apache projects like OpenOffice are desired then you may want to see https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html to understand how various other Open Source licenses may or may not be used within an Apache release.

Of course you are free to release your material under as many licenses as you wish which allows others to reuse under the license of their choice.

Best Regards,
Dave

> On Jun 16, 2017, at 1:39 PM, Guy Waterval <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> I have decided since for a while, to publish only under an Apache license
> all the photos that I upload to Wikimedia Commons, because they are
> destinated to an uni which will select those to integrate to its internal
> photographic collection. For this reason, I wish delivery the material with
> a maximum reusability, without any problem..
> For instance, I want to avoid that if some of my images shoud be inserted
> in a document (thesis or other works), they couldn't influence the
> conditions of use of the created document. I want to allow the author of
> the final document to choose whether to publish his document under a free
> license or not. Of course the internal parts under ALV2.0 are to be
> announced by a notice in the global document.
> Others tell me that it's also possible to do that with internal parts
> (texts or images) licenced under a cc-by-sa. But for me, a composite
> document integrating parts (images or texts) under a cc-by-sa license has
> to be licensed globally under cc-by-sa only, because this licence is not a
> permissive one. To be OK, a cc-by and not a cc-by-sa should be used in this
> case.
>
> Thanks for your advices
> gw
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> Garanti
> sans virus. www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>


signature.asc (817 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Apache licence vs cc-by-sa

Guy Waterval
Hi Dave,

Thank you for your answer.

2017-06-16 23:32 GMT+02:00 Dave Fisher <[hidden email]>:

> Hi Guy,
>
> I see that you found that the Apache License 2.0 is very permissive.
>
> If use of your images in Apache projects like OpenOffice are desired then
> you may want to see https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html to
> understand how various other Open Source licenses may or may not be used
> within an Apache release.
>

This is an educational project aiming to produce OER, Open Educational
Resources : images under  ALv2.0 and articles made with AOO and delivered
in PDF format, licensed under ALv2.0 whenever possible (I didn't kwown
there was a possibility to  include cc-by-sa media in Apache products). The
new articles will be designed to be easily converted into Wikipedia
articles when they meet the eligibility criteria of this encyclopedia.
Other articles will be imported from wikipedia to be rework independently,
the modifications can then be recovered by the wikipedians, if they wish.
The idea is to recover publishers who do not wish to produce directly in
the encyclopedia for various reasons and to have educational contents that
can be stored locally and therefore also being usable offline. It isn't a
code activity, and so, such a project will probably not have a really
direct impact on the AOO project. But it can help to make it known.

Regards
--
Guy Waterval

>
>
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Garanti
sans virus. www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
Loading...