Licensing other types of content

[jywarren]

Hi, i love this license, thank you so much! 👋 🎉

I'm interested (maybe related to #18?) in how this could be adapted to other creative works, like just text, or video and audio? Was talking with folks at Public Lab about it. (cc @steviepubliclab)

Would some small text substitutions be sufficient?

Also, would this be better achieved through a derivative license based on this? I wouldn't want to dilute the scope or specificity of this license if other creative works are out of scope.

Thank you again!

[CoralineAda]

Feel free to adapt it!

…

On Jan 16, 2020, at 3:54 PM, Jeffrey Warren ***@***.***> wrote: Hi, i love this license, thank you so much! 👋 🎉 I'm interested (maybe related to #18 <#18>?) in how this could be adapted to other creative works, like just text, or video and audio? Was talking with folks at Public Lab about it. (cc @steviepubliclab <https://github.com/steviepubliclab>) Would some small text substitutions be sufficient? Also, would this be better achieved through a derivative license based on this? I wouldn't want to dilute the scope or specificity of this license if other creative works are out of scope. Thank you again! — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#35>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAFODBJLDTO4ZQRUUHOVRDQ6DJR3ANCNFSM4KH3HKVA>.

[jywarren]

Great. I'm thinking of how this phrase/definition could be changed or broadened:

this software and associated documentation files (the “Software”),

perhaps to say (the "Content") or (the "Work") --

then, we can replace the Software throughout the rest of the license.

I'm thinking about what terms other broader licenses use.

• Creative Commons uses "the material"
• the CERN Open Hardware License refers to "the Documentation"

Thanks! Made a gist to track diffs on an adaptation, here: https://gist.github.com/jywarren/878209580f0f180097b79cd405aedd41

[paulyc]

US Code title 17 seems to prefer "work"as a generic term for anything covered under it. See section 106, enumeration of exclusive rights https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106

…

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020, 3:45 PM Jeffrey Warren ***@***.***> wrote: Great. I'm thinking of how this phrase/definition could be changed or broadened: this software and associated documentation files (the “Software”), perhaps to say (the "Content") or (the "Work") -- then, we can replace the Software throughout the rest of the license. I'm thinking about what terms other broader licenses use. - Creative Commons <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/> uses "the material" - the CERN Open Hardware License <https://publiclab.org/wiki/cern-ohl-11> refers to "the Documentation" Thanks! Made a gist to track diffs on an adaptation, here: https://gist.github.com/jywarren/878209580f0f180097b79cd405aedd41 — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#35>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAA2HSTK6TAWDLRYYYZ67O3Q7CV65ANCNFSM4KH3HKVA> .