Tagging of UNCOPYRIGHTABLE material
|
michael.kaelbling@...
How should I correctly tag uncopyrightable material?
The U.S. Copyright Office states in https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf that some materials are "uncopyrightable because they contain an insufficient amount of authorship." Examples they give include: names, titles, and blank forms. Also uncopyrightable are "mere" lists of contents and simple sets of directions. Currently I have a project that includes empty files as placeholders and markers. Because such files are uncopyrightable, I am not sure how to tag them. "NONE" and "NOASSERTION" seem inappropriate. "NONE" does not imply that none is possible, and "NOASSERTION" is not the same as an assertion of the uncopyrightablility of an object. It seems inappropriate to claim an unenforceable copyright and license it. Can we add an UNCOPYRIGHTABLE keyword or license to SPDX? An UNCOPYRIGHTABLE keyword, like NONE, would not the name of a license file. While an UNCOPYRIGHTABLE.txt license file could contain text like "this file is inherently uncopyrightable, but you may replace it with copyrightable content". As a bonus, REUSE.software scans would then be free of false-positives about "missing" copyrights. SPDX-FileCopyrightText: UNCOPYRIGHTABLE is very different from SPDX-FileCopyrightText: NONE |
|
|
|
Max Mehl
Hi Michael,
~ michael.kaelbling@... [2020-03-09 10:45 +0100]: Currently I have a project that includes empty files as placeholdersActually, that's one of the two options REUSE suggests: * Add a copyright and licensing header anyway * Use CC0-1.0 as a license to waive your copyright (I know, the concept of public domain can become complicated depending on the legislation) The full FAQ item on this issue: https://reuse.software/faq/#uncopyrightable Best, Max -- Max Mehl - Programme Manager - Free Software Foundation Europe Contact and information: https://fsfe.org/about/mehl | @mxmehl Become a supporter of software freedom: https://fsfe.org/join |
|
|
|
michael.kaelbling@... [2020-03-09 10:45 +0100]:
Currently I have a project that includes empty files as placeholdersMax Mehl - Programme Manager - Free Software Foundation Europe Contact and information: Actually, that's one of the two options REUSE suggests:As Creative Commons says, "CC0 should not be used to mark works already free of known copyright and database restrictions and in the public domain throughout the world." https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/ The CC0 is intended for the *release* of items to the public domain that would otherwise be copyrighted. Years ago Creative Commons created a separate item, the "Public Domain Mark", to identify works that were *already* in the public domain: https://creativecommons.org/choose/mark/ This discussion reveals an important omission: The SPDX license list needs to add the Creative Commons "public domain mark". Yes, from some points of view it's technically not a license, but when you're trying to figure out what rights the recipient has, it is *definitely* a license.... it's just a license (permission) granted directly through the application of law. The SDPX license currently includes the "Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication and Certification" https://spdx.org/licenses/CC-PDDC.html which combined the features of both, but that was retired years ago and split up into the CC0 and the public domain mark. --- David A. Wheeler |
|
|
|
Steve Winslow
Hi Michael, David and Max, Thanks for your emails. A couple of comments: Regarding the Creative Commons Public Domain Mark: For items to be added to the SPDX License List, among other requirements there needs to be a corresponding "matching text" that represents the entry that actually goes on the list. You can see these in the texts that are used at https://spdx.org/licenses/CC0-1.0.html and https://spdx.org/licenses/CC-PDDC.html. Is there a corresponding text that is associated with Creative Commons' Public Domain Mark? From some brief searching I'm not coming across one. If there is one then I would encourage adding an issue at https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues with a link to the text, so that it can be reviewed and considered. Regarding a more general UNCOPYRIGHTABLE identifier, I would suggest reading the Legal Team's comments on this from April 2013 at https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Decisions/Dealing_with_Public_Domain_within_SPDX_Files Best, Steve On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 10:41 AM David A. Wheeler <dwheeler@...> wrote: michael.kaelbling@... [2020-03-09 10:45 +0100]: |
|
|
|
> Regarding the Creative Commons Public Domain Mark: For items to be added to the SPDX License List, among other requirements there needs to be a corresponding "matching text" that represents the entry that actually goes on the list. You can see these in the texts that are used at https://spdx.org/licenses/CC0-1.0.html and https://spdx.org/licenses/CC-PDDC.html. Is there a corresponding text that is associated with Creative Commons' Public Domain Mark? From some brief searching I'm not coming across one. If there is one then I would encourage adding an issue at https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues with a link to the text, so that it can be reviewed and considered.
Re: the "Public Domain Mark”, to retrieve the “matching text” you start from here: https://creativecommons.org/choose/mark/
Unfortunately, what they’ve chosen to do is to “auto-fill” the matching text. So what happens is that you get the matching text by retrieving this URL with various fields filled in: https://creativecommons.org/choose/mark/results
So for example, https://creativecommons.org/choose/mark/results?work_title=WORK_NAME&author_title=AUTHOR_NAME&author_href=AUTHOR_URL&curator_title=INDIVIDUAL_NAME&curator_href=INDIVIDUAL_URL&lang=en_US&field1=continue ends up being displayed as: This work (WORK_NAME, by AUTHOR_NAME), identified by INDIVIDUAL_NAME, is free of known copyright restrictions.
While just retrieving https://creativecommons.org/choose/mark/results reports: This work is free of known copyright restrictions.
It’s pretty obvious how this works. I suspect the Creative Commons folks would be happy to reveal the full template, they probably have just never been asked.
From: Steve Winslow <swinslow@...>
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 10:57 AM To: Spdx-legal@... Cc: Max Mehl <max.mehl@...>; michael.kaelbling@...; Wheeler, David A <dwheeler@...> Subject: Re: Tagging of UNCOPYRIGHTABLE material
Hi Michael, David and Max,
Thanks for your emails. A couple of comments:
Regarding a more general UNCOPYRIGHTABLE identifier, I would suggest reading the Legal Team's comments on this from April 2013 at https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Decisions/Dealing_with_Public_Domain_within_SPDX_Files
Best, Steve
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 10:41 AM David A. Wheeler <dwheeler@...> wrote:
Steve Winslow |
|
|
|
Steve Winslow
Thanks David, this is helpful. I've added relevant portions to a new issue at https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/988 for discussion and review. On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 11:07 AM Wheeler, David A <dwheeler@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Philippe Ombredanne
Dear David:
David A. Wheeler <dwheeler@...> wrote: So for example, https://creativecommons.org/choose/mark/results?work_title=WORK_NAME&author_title=AUTHOR_NAME&author_href=AUTHOR_URL&curator_title=INDIVIDUAL_NAME&curator_href=INDIVIDUAL_URL&lang=en_US&field1=continueI think these are generated by this fine Python code [1] [1] https://github.com/creativecommons/cc.license/blob/a134299fdb0e882b84a2c181afc5588e13ae32df/cc/license/formatters/classes.py#L324 -- Cordially Philippe Ombredanne |
|
|
|
J Lovejoy
Hi all,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Going back to Michael’s original post as seems like we got on a tangent regarding CC public domain mark (which seems like an easier discussion). I think we need to be clear on what we are talking about: license short identifiers which correspond to an actual license or public domain text, e.g., Apache-2.0, or data for use in SPDX specification fields related to licensing (e.g., 3.15 Declared License) which may use an SPDX license expression or NONE (no license info at all) or NOASSERTION. In the case of no license info you describe below, NONE would be appropriate. In terms of definitively declaring something as UNCOPYRIGHTABLE - I think that is a very dangerous proposition. While there may be some clear cases where copyright does not attach, only a judge can make that determination. To have an option to use in an SPDX document like this would invite incorrect use or people making legal determinations that could very well be incorrect. I believe we may have discussed this topic in the past, but have not dug into the archives to find evidence. I do think there is some similarity to repeated requests for a generic public domain tag - we wrote up a rationale for not having that so we’d remember. That rationale write-up is here: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Decisions/Dealing_with_Public_Domain_within_SPDX_Files_(DRAFT) (it’s not a draft, but I can’t seem to change the URL…) I’m not entirely clear on the exact use case here, so please do let me know if I’ve missed something! Thanks, Jilayne
|
|
|
|
J Lovejoy
oh geez, sorry all - Steve already pointed you all to that discussion! I missed that URL - my bad!
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
|
|
|
|
michael.kaelbling@...
I worry that I did not describe my use-case well. Let me try again.
Rule: in my organization, all our OSS must have have explicit clearance based on SPDX-License-Identifier and SPDX-FileCopyrightText tags. Our OSS should pass REUSE.software scans without complaints of missing copyright information, etc. If this automatic scan fails, then humans have to get involved, which is annoying and time-consuming for each release. Therefore, I was looking for the way to add "copyright" and licensing information for uncopyrightable materials that is both correct and passes automatic scans. I definitely want to avoid very dangerous propositions! I perhaps naively thought that claiming an unenforceable copyright was even more dangerous than claiming that something is uncopyrightable. I have no legal training and got a bit worried after browsing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud which talks of fines for "false claims of copyright". The chances of losing such a suit would be negligible, but a new avenue for a nuisance lawsuit would be opened -- that was my thinking. My "proposal" of an UNCOPYRIGHTABLE keyword, which I abandon, aimed to cover the special case of licensing material that could not be copyrighted. I have learned that the CC Public Domain Mark can be used for the FileCopyrightText and that something like CC-PDDC can be used for the License-Identifier, with a corresponding text file in LICENSES/... |
|
|
|
Just to clarify … your question is solely about marking your own works – i.e. stuff that if it were copyrightable, you would hold copyright it?
If so, I would still suggest marking it with CC0-1.0 as explained in REUSE: 1) if it is not copyrightable, you have clearly marked it as such, and the SPDX-FileCopyright tag is merely used as a contact for anyone requiring extra info 2) even if it can be deemed copyrightable, you have released it as CC0-1.0, and the SPDX-FileCopyright tag fulfils all its roles. If you planning to mark files that other people (would) hold copyright in (if they were copyrightable), than that is different and more touchy question. cheers, Matija -- gsm: tel:+386.41.849.552 www: https://matija.suklje.name xmpp: matija.suklje@... sip: matija_suklje@... |
|
|
|
Carmen Bianca Bakker
Je mar, 2020-03-10 je 10:04 +0100, Matija Šuklje skribis:
If so, I would still suggest marking it with CC0-1.0 as explained in REUSE:I would counter that marking something as CC0-1.0 does not clearly communicate something as uncopyrightable. Even so, slapping a license on an uncopyrightable thing doesn't get you in any legal trouble, so it's fine. Kindly, Carmen |
|
|
|
On torek, 10. marec 2020 14:55:17 CET, Carmen Bianca Bakker wrote:
You’re correct. Lapsus calami due to writing before finishing my morning tea. CC0-1.0 marks it that whatever that thing is, its author either waives all their rights, or if they can’t do that (e.g. in most of EU) gives you a very permissive right and promisses not to enforce any of the rights that they could not waive. Which is as close to something being in public domain as possible.1) if it is not copyrightable, you have clearly marked it as such, and the SPDX-FileCopyright tag is merely used as a contact for anyone requiring extra infoI would counter that marking something as CC0-1.0 does not clearly As such, ad 1) I meant that if you mark something as CC0-1.0 and that thing is not copyrightable, you have clearly communicated to the public that they should act as if it is in public domain – regardless whether a) it trully is (i.e. uncopyrigtable from the start) rendering the CC0 moot, you b) hereby waived your rights, or c) you hereby gave a very permissive license. cheers, Matija -- gsm: tel:+386.41.849.552 www: https://matija.suklje.name xmpp: matija.suklje@... sip: matija_suklje@... |
|
|
|
Mark D Baushke <mdb@...>
Hi Matija,
Wouldn't that have been lapsus digiti rather than lapsus calami? I will admit that my latin is mostly self-taught. But a slip of the finger might be a miskeying rather than the pen, unless you were scribing with a digital pen or something... Curious, -- Mark |
|
|
|
Karsten Klein
Hi there,
just our two cents... When looking at a linux distribution we recently ran into the following package text: "The contents of this package are ineligible for copyright protection." We decided to identify this explicitly as license 'none'. It would be great to have an SPDX-ID for such a case. A tool that matches this text can identify the non-existent license with such id. One would also be able to mark the own files (i.e. config files) with such an identifier. Connecting such a case to the public domain appears inappropriate to us. It's not quite what the author intended to say. Regards, Karsten |
|
|
|
Richard Fontana
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 9:58 AM Carmen Bianca Bakker
<carmenbianca@...> wrote: Except, apparently, if you're a conservative lawyer at certain U.S. federal government agencies! Richard |
|
|
|
michael.kaelbling@...
yes to your clarification, Matija -- I was talking about my/our own works.
However ... What about cases that have been adjudged by the court as uncopyrightable or public domain contrary to a claim within the source? What would one expect to see in the License-Identifier, LicenseConcluded, and LicenseComment fields? Would one expect an Annotation? |
|
|
|
On sreda, 11. marec 2020 09:42:15 CET, michael.kaelbling@... wrote:
I would say that CCM would be the best way to go right now, as David Wheeler already explained in detail before. Unless someone knows of a better commonly used/tested suggestion for a public domain mark. I also agree with David that it would make sense to include CCM into the SPDX License List and finally deprecate CC-PDDC. https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/pdm/ Until then you can still create a SPDX-compliant name for it – e.g. `LicenseRef-CCM` and use that. cheers, Matija -- gsm: tel:+386.41.849.552 www: https://matija.suklje.name xmpp: matija.suklje@... sip: matija_suklje@... |
|
|