Flowstone Guru Download area

[Exo]

I think having these modules in the public domain under some (poorly written) "legal" claims opens the door to all kinds of misunderstandings. It's like a present with conditions. For instance look what we did years ago, we know what good syntax is, we collectively made it. It certainly is out of my hands now, and I don't have a care in the world about the subject.
The other thing is that for basic things your contract forces people to claim legal rights, while generally accepted formats are public domain already. For example you did not invent the phaser, if you make a phaser that is yours in a quirky way, why share it's parts and expect something. And do these parts invent anything other than parts to a phaser?

I am not forcing anyone to claim legal rights, they already have them. What this license does is explicitly states what rights and in what manner they are prepared to give them up.

In England when you create something it is automatically copyrighted and you have the sole right to copy your work nobody else.

The 1911 Act provides that an individual's work is automatically under copyright, by operation of law, as soon as it leaves his mind and is embodied in some physical form: be it a novel, a painting, a musical work written in manuscript, or an architectural schematic. This remains the legal position under the Schedules of 1956 Act and of the 1988 Act.

Once reduced to physical form, provided it is an original work (in the sense of not having been copied from an existing work), then copyright in it vests automatically in (i.e. is owned by) the author: the person who put the concept into material form. There are exceptions to this rule, depending upon the nature of the work, if it was created in the course of employment.

Copyright law was invented in the UK, so I am assuming most over countries Copyright laws will be similar or based on the UK's.

The legal position is that if somebody releases their work without any form of license then the original author retains full copyrights. This in practice actually means nobody is allowed to copy or even use their work! (Unless you recreate it from scratch) The license I wrote is the author agreeing to give up certain rights on certain common sense conditions. For instance the author retains the right to copy the module unless you make significant changes, if you don't then the author (Copyright holder) refuses that right, in any case the work is always the copyrighted work of the author.

There is a big difference between IN the public domain and BEING public domain. Just because something is in the public domain doesn't mean it IS public domain. Public domain usually comes about when copyright expires.

Public domain means that no one individual has the copyrights to the work and anybody can freely copy it and incorporate it into there work and sell it with or without modification (think reprinting and selling books that have lost there copyright). It is owned by the public. The modules people share on Flowstone Guru fall under copyright and are not public property.

Copyright is also not even about inventing something new it is about turning your idea into physical form and then you retaining the rights to copy that and redistribute it. Now we could get philosophical and say that a module is not "physical" and so is not able to copyright but that falls flat on it's face when you consider music which is also not physical but clearly is and should be copyrighted.

[tulamide]

I confirm that for germany it is just the same regarding copyright.

Besides, all modules I post here on DSPR (past and future) may be used by anybody in any legal way, without the need to credit me. And if someone thinks there's something worth mentioned on your blog, link to it or grab it to host it on your site, just as you see fit.

[mHz]

Was trying to say much things don't count as invented by the user, so you may be better off leaving legal options to the user.
But I am interested in reading what you have posted about 1911, looks valid. But does not include your jurisdiction over other countries. And even so, To say you claim "copy right" is false in my country, you should be thinking along the lines of plagairism. And expect to end up in a civil lawsuit against someone you need to go and get into a courtroom first. To me creative commons seems more accepted globally, maybe a good CC notice will get the right response.

If it was me I would try to get as little information out as needed, so the proprietary legal construct requires things to actually be cracked. But when I'd choose to give it out I don't really mind that it gets chewed up by the world, it's a nice feeling.

[Xtinct]

I think MHz has a point leave it to the uploader to define in which way their modules can be used.

[KG_is_back]

I think MHz has a point leave it to the uploader to define in which way their modules can be used.

True, but still we should have some "default" license that applies "unless otherwise stated by uploader". We are planing to have a default uploader account that will be used for uploading useful schematics of inactive forum members (and members that allow to upload their schematics but refuse to sign in FSguru on their own).

[Xtinct]

That's a tricky one just because a member is inactive does not mean they have ceded their copy write so would be difficult to impose a license on someone else's work, hope you find a solution.

[Exo]

That's a tricky one just because a member is inactive does not mean they have ceded their copy write so would be difficult to impose a license on someone else's work, hope you find a solution.

Yes I'm hoping in them cases where the member is inactive we can still get hold of them for explicit permission.

I'm wondering that in the case of schematics that are based on public domain sources and are clearly already majorly prevalent among the community it would be safe to assume public domain? For example RBJ filters.

But I agree that the uploader should be able to choose there own license. I do believe giving that option will result in more explicit public domain works as opposed to people choosing a stricter license.
But if people want to use creative commons go ahead but those that do not state a license get the default one, for public domain people should simply say public domain, so we know you have giving up every right you had to the work.

Maybe adding a marker to the Tooltip will help distinguish the license of individual modules. For example just "CC" for creative commons "FSML" for FS Guru Module License then obviously just "Public domain".

I don't think it is feasible or desirable to include the license or even a link to it in every module. I think that the license or a link to it should just be included in the top level of the schematic download.

Anyway this is a good discussion to have, copyright is a bit of a minefield. We may be sure that someone has given up all right but unless they have explicitly said so we can't just copy and redistribute their work especially under a new license. We are effectively attempting to strip them of any rights they had. This is why it is important to get permission.
On the flip side that is why having a default license is so important because then there doesn't need to be a discussion about what can and cannot be done with the modules, it is all there in the license.

[mHz]

There is thing where you can waive your rights good bye, so you can have a restrictive CC notice by default.

But it is kind of a logistical nightmare of proper registration vs street credit. Nevermind the format itself is very important.

[JB_AU]

In a nutshell copyright is universal, in the understanding that the original author owns the rights.

I the author have copyright to formulae i have published, without amendments to original copyright laws, the formulae are my "Intellectual Property".
If my literary works where conceived & published in Germany, & i wish to sell my IP then by attribution, i become the licensor of my works, the buyer becomes the licensee & i am still the original owner.
As i am not a citizen of Germany, my IP stops being mine after it is sold.

This is a double edged sword & in either case stifles the purpose of creativity!

Any derivative works can not be published without consent of the owner or author.
If the derivative work , which is based on the "Intellectual Property" , hypothetically could cure cancer.
It is almost impossible to acquire your rights without divulging the contents of that work.

Therefore the only viable solution is to wait until the copyright expires & hope it is not renewed.

It is this monument to pride & money that millions will die in order to save the rights of an individual(s).

My bad!

[mHz]

I dont understand why you people all keep saying it's about copyright
You void the copyright by posting it for the world to see, and copy.
Plagiarising a work is the thing that happens when someone claims it as his own produce.
(That being said these things do tend to blend into eachother, "so dont pin me stuck on it")

The hypothetical cure for cancer is probably a pattent, those will expire. So there is something odd happening between CC and a pattent which makes me think it might not always be secure to have it CC.