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 [email protected] wrote:

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

I'm interested (maybe related to #18 https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/hippocratic-license/issues/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 https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/hippocratic-license/issues/35?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAAFODFDW7DNEIHDJZ5DPULQ6DJR3A5CNFSM4KH3HKVKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFUVEXG43VMWVGG33NNVSW45C7NFSM4IGYY6LQ, 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 [email protected] 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 https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/hippocratic-license/issues/35?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAA2HSSHHL2JKYUAPYVPTSTQ7CV65A5CNFSM4KH3HKVKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEJVBIUI#issuecomment-577377361, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAA2HSTK6TAWDLRYYYZ67O3Q7CV65ANCNFSM4KH3HKVA .