Creative Commons - User contributions [en]

Case Studies/GlaxoSmithKline

2012-10-15T18:20:59Z

Jimmy92: /* Media */

{{Case Study
|Description=GlaxoSmithKline is a major pharmaceutical company that has surrendered all copyrights in its malarial data set, which includes more than 13,500 compounds known to be active against malaria.
|Mainurl=http://www.ebi.ac.uk/chemblntd/#tcams_dataset
|Author=ChEMBL-NTD, GlaxoSmithKline
|User_Status=Curator, Creator
|Tag=GSK, GlaxoSmithKline, malaria, disease
|License short name=GNU GPL
|Format=Image, Sound, Text, MovingImage, InteractiveResource, Other, Geodata, Data
|Country=United Kingdom
|Quote=Providing access to this level of information sees GSK set what I would hope to be a new trend that could revolutionise the urgent search for new medicines to tackle malaria. By sharing data, we start to build up a public database of knowledge that should be as powerful as the human genome databases.
|Quote_Attribution=Timothy Wells, Chief Scientific Officer of the Medicines for Malaria Venture (http://www.gsk.com/responsibility/access/rnd-neglected-tropical-diseases.htm)
|Image_Header=http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/0/04/Logo-gsk.gif
|Image_attribution=(c) GSK
|Image_license=http://www.gsk.com/terms.htm
|importance=High
|quality=B-Class
|License_short_name=CC0
}}
== Overview ==
One of the leading pharmaceutical [http://jogos-decarros.org jogos de] companies in the world, GlaxoSmithKline has surrendered all copyrights in its malarial data set, which includes more than 13,500 compounds known to be active against malaria. The data set is called Tres Cantos Antimalarial (TCAMS), and is available from the ChEMBL-NTD database, "a repository for Open Access primary screening and medicinal chemistry [http://jogos-demoto.org jogos de motos] data directed at neglected diseases - endemic tropical diseases of the developing regions of the Africa, Asia, and the Americas [http://shockbright.com/ Home teeth whitening]."

== License Usage ==

GlaxoSmithKline has surrendered all [http://jogos-de-tiro.org tiros] copyright in its malaria data set under the CC0 public domain dedication.

== Motivations ==
From GSK's http://www.gsk.com/responsibility/downloads/GSK-CR-2009-full.pdf

<blockquote>"By [http://jogos-decozinhar.org cozinhar] making this information publicly available, GSK hopes that many other scientists will review this information and analyse the data faster than we could on our own. Hopefully, [http://jogos-detiro.org jogos de tiros] this will lead to additional research that could help drive the discovery of new medicines. We would also encourage other groups, including academics and pharmaceutical companies, to make their own compounds and related information publicly available.

 This is essentially an example of ‘open source’ being applied to drug discovery. We know that data increases in value when connected with other data and that the more eyes looking at a [http://jogos-de-princesas.org jogos de princesas] problem, the more potential solutions may arise."</blockquote>

Research and development (R&D) for diseases prevalent in the developing world are costly [http://jogosdomario3.org jogo do mario] and time-consuming and carry less return on investment than R&D for diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, which have a market in the developed world. Since malaria is a disease that primarily affects the [http://jogosdemeninas2.org meninas] developing world, GSK has released malarial data in order to speed the process of R&D, while providing resources that nonprofits and academic institutions don't necessarily have wide access to, such as advanced technologies, facilities for medicinal drug discovery, and manufacturing and distribution expertise. For more information, see GSK's 2009 report on

== Media ==
[http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100120/full/news.2010.20.html Nature - GlaxoSmithKline goes public with malaria data]
 
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jan/20/glaxo-malaria-drugs-public-domain The Guardian - Glaxo offers free access to potential malaria cures]
 
[http://www.gsk.com/media/malaria.htm GSK's commitment to fighting Malaria]
 
[http://www.medicare-supplement-advisor.org/ Florida Medigap Rates]
 
[http://www.gsk.com/media/pressreleases/2010/2010_pressrelease_10009.htm press release]

4.0/Games 3d printing and functional content

2012-10-13T21:10:13Z

Jimmy92: /* Increasing/clarifying scope of what's a derivative */

= Background =

The purpose of this page is to collect thoughts on issues that affect
games and projects that span the domains of cultural and
functional/software works. There are actually quite a few categories
of works that cross this domain, but games, as creative works that *by
necessity* combine code and artwork together, perhaps expose and
encounter some of these issues the most clearly. However games are
not the only area that contain this overlap; for example, 3d printing
is an emerging medium where the line between funtional and cultural is
either blurred or interwoven. It's likely that as the spaces of free
software and free culture (ideally) grow, we'll continue to see more
and more examples of this overlap.

Most of this wiki page will involve issues of the code/functional and
cultural works overlap, but some bits at the end will cover some other
issues raised by speaking with members of the free software gaming
community.

== Background on separation of functional/software and cultural layers ==

As further background, traditionally we've held a fairly clear
division between the free culture and free software spaces. This
division is partly because it's a useful distinction, and partly a
historic one. (The FSF has held this position or something like it
for a long time; alluded to slightly on their
[http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html#non-functional-data distribution guidelines about non-functional data].)

It looks something like:

.----------.
| CONTENT |
+----------+
| CODE |
'----------'

In a game context, content might be art, music, story, plain character
descriptions. Code would be the game engine, game scripting, etc.

In a free-as-in-freedom type environment the former would be under
free culture and the user freedom respecting subset of Creative
Commons licenses, and code would be free software licenses such as
MIT/BSD or the GPL.

One of the other results of this (licensing) division though is that
you can also have one half of this layer be proprietary and the other
be free-as-in-freedom. So, for example, the first person shooter
Quake was released under the GPL but the game content was kept
proprietary. Likewise, it's possible that someone could have a game
whose assets were released completely as free cultural works but the
software wasn't; this hasn't seemed to have happened (but some artists
have expressed concern about it). But outside of games, people play
CC licensed content in proprietary media players or view them in
proprietary browsers all the time.

In general, the software/content division in many areas works just
fine as separate layers. But sometimes there is a certain kind of
content that spans both. For example say you have a game that's using
CC BY-SA content and the GPL for the engine. In this you have level
files or character description files saying this is placed here, that's
there, and here's a cute block of text describing this creature if you
look at them in info mode. At this point, that sounds like content,
and so falls into the CC licensing. But what happens if in this same
file there's a certain amount of scripting? It has logic, it assigns
variables, but it also has some programming code.

.----------------.
|CONTENT.--------.|
| |scripted||
+-------| level |+
|CODE '--------'|
| |
'-----------------'

This actually happens all the time in games (both Wesnoth and Frogatto
use an engine that's a bunch of config files that describe maps,
scenarios, storylines, and creatures but which contain a functional
programming language embedded inside them also; see
[http://svn.gna.org/viewcvs/wesnoth/trunk/data/campaigns/Heir_To_The_Throne/scenarios/05b_Isle_of_the_Damned.cfg?view=markup this wesnoth level file which looks like mostly data]
and
[https://github.com/frogatto/frogatto/blob/master/data/objects/enemies/bosses/moth_boss.cfg this boss file from Frogatto that looks like code].
<ref>Technically Frogatto developers consider this to be all content,
but it's also an interpreted language. The intention here isn't to
pass judgement on their interpretation (if the developers don't intend
to enforce the copyleft on the scripting layer, they're the only ones
that can do that anyway) but their files provide pretty clear examples
despite them drawing a line somewhere else.</ref> If for example we
consider a game engine that uses Python as an interpreted language but
which has a backend bound by the GPL to have to follow the GPL, surely
combo content/code files like this might provide an "intertwined data
and code" scenario.
<ref>In fact, this issue comes up with Blender all the time, which
*does* have a backend which is scriptable with Python; see Blender's
[http://www.blender.org/education-help/faq/gpl-for-artists/ GPL for
artists page]... although I'm somewhat unconvinced that all of the
statements on that page make sense, it does demonstrate the complexity
of things.</ref>

This might seem like a very one-off type of consideration, something
not worth considering generally with CC, but I don't think it is.
Surely we want to see more free software and free culture overlapping,
and it is likely that when that happens there may be scenarios when
that happens where some sort of difficult intertwining of code and
content will happen and we'll have to consider what to do about
copyleft incompatibility.

Here's another example not game related, rooted in the physical space:
3d printing. There's a potential that 3d printing could become (and
actually, it's already starting to become) the type of revolution for
physical things what computers and the internet have been for
information.

The most popular 3d printer is something called the
[http://reprap.org/wiki/RepRap RepRap], which has been released under
the GPL. Arguably because of the strength of this copyleft, several
commercial versions have been released such as the
[http://store.makerbot.com/thing-o-matic-kit-mk7.html MakerBot Thing-O-Matic].
But here's an iteration of the 3d printer called the
[http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:14111 Ronthomp Mendel]
which is labeled as being BY-SA, even though it uses a GPL'ed design.

Now, technically the BY-SA and the GPL are not compatible, and it's
probable that this is an issue of education because maybe the Ronthomp
Mendel should simply be under the GPL as well. But here's a
question... what if the Ronthomp Mendel were making use of some BY-SA
parts? What is someone tried to make a new 3d printer that made use
of some cool new gear system that someone released as BY-SA?

One could argue that in the copyleft scope, functional things such as
the RepRap should be GPL'ed (citation needed, but it's been argued at
least by Eben Moglen that GPL is great for hardware because it also
takes advantage of GPL's patent pool protections) and that purely
cultural things such as the
[http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:10367 Octocat print] should be CC BY-SA.
But a) not everyone has agreed on this, plenty of people are using
BY-SA for functional works, and b) this breakdown itself could really
stop working right when we try to create a new project that combines
cultural and functional works.

(One could possibly ask
[http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/3d-printing-settlers-catan-probably-not-illeg how far copyright applies to functional 3d printed works]
(and therefore, how far copyleft applies), and there's not much
background to show how it applies at all yet. I'm writing this
assuming it does apply.)

To more clearly illustrate the problem, let me first make a list of
some various cool 3d printable things under different licenses:

GPL things:
* [http://reprap.org/wiki/RepRap RepRap 3d printer] (on which most modern 3d printers are based)
* [http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:951 Bead belt gear]

BY-SA things:
* [http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:13368 Motorized functional differential gear system]
* [http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:14599 Robot chassis]
* [http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:10367 Octocat]

BY things:
* [http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:13827 Botmobile dune buggy]

From this list of things already we can see a list of things that
could be blocked. Say you want to power your 3d printer by human
energy by plugging in the motorized functional differential gear
system? Okay, maybe possibly you could argue that that's functional
and should have been GPL'ed, but what about the dune buggy, which is
closer to a children's toy? What about combining that with some
GPL'ed part?

But most complicated of all, what if you wanted to make a walking
cat-robot that uses a BY-SA cat design (maybe the head of the octocat)
and combines it with the robot chassis and some bears and the bead
belt gear and a bunch of other things. Suddenly we've a cool
intersection of culture and functionality is blocked by two copyleft
licenses that both have the same (and best) intentions at heart.
We've blocked the cat-robot from ever being born (well, within license
compliance) by best-intentions-copyleft. This is a problem, and if
the world continues to develop in the direction we want it to, I think
we're going to start seeing it a lot more.

= Possible actions =
== GPL compatibility ==

Probably the most actionable and most urgently raised amongst issues
when discussing with relevant community members is that of a one-way
compatibility between CC BY-SA (and probably also CC BY) and the GPL.
It's almost certainly not possible at this point (and probably
undesirable) that GPL->BY-SA compatibility is possible, but if we
choose to do it BY-SA->GPL (and probably BY->GPL) should be.

The benefits of this is that it will resolve the tricky issues with
"interwoven" content and cultural works. Clashes in copyleft licenses
which share the same goals are unfortunate if they block useful things
from being created. As
[https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/30676#comment-356183 Arne Babenhauserheide said],

<blockquote>... the case of cc-by-sa not being comptible with the GPL is very sad,
because they share exactly the same goals: Copyleft. Thus their
incompatibility creates a real split in cultural works. If the 4.0
licenses could make it possible to combine cc works under licenses
with compatible concepts (cc by, cc by-sa) with the GPL, that would be
a huge step towards a unified free culture.</blockquote>

So what are potential downsides? The main downside is that
[http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Can_I_apply_a_Creative_Commons_license_to_software.3F Creative Commons licenses are not acceptable for software]
and we don't want to spread a misconception that they are. If we go
forward with this, we should develop strong messaging that makes clear
that software should still not be released as BY-SA and that this is
for avoiding conflicts in complicated areas of interwoven cultural and
functional/software works.

The other possible downside is whether or not source requirements for
art might make incorporating BY-SA works with the GPL difficult. Ie,
there is no source requirement for BY-SA, and there is one for the
GPL. The GPL says:

The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work
for making modifications to it. “Object code” means any non-source
form of a work.

See also the "source release" section of this document for detailing
on the complexities of source code requirements in BY-SA. But as for
fulfilling the requirements of the GPL, what about the following:

* In programming, the division of what source and object code is well understood. In content it's more of a gradient
* For example, the Blender Foundation releases all the "source code" of its films such as Big Buck Bunny and etc by releasing the .blend files (though it is not a requirement of the license).
* However, what if someone made a remix of Big Buck Bunny where they changed the order of scenes, added a psychadelic overlay, and added new music. But the "source" they worked with was not on the .blend file level, but by remixing the rendered film itself. If incorporated with a GPL'ed work, would the source requirement apply, and would it in fact require sharing the source all the way down to the original .blend files?
* What about a film like Sita Sings the Blues, which is BY-SA but from which the source files were never redistributed at all? It's unlikely the content/code layers would be intertwined if combined with software, but let's pretend for a moment that it was. Would "combining" with a GPL'ed work mean requiring distribution of the original files from which the film was made? What if those were lost? What if there's still a lot you can do without the "original source files", although admittedly not as much as if you had them?
* In other words, just how far does "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it" go down? What if people are remixing it on different layers, and the artists themselves prefer separate layers? Does the GPL give flexibility here?

There is additional discussion about GPL/CC compatibility [[4.0/ShareAlike#Considerations_regarding_compatibility_of_other_licenses| here]].

== Scoping copyleft across and code ==

Bart Kelsey has written an excellent article,
"[http://freegamer.blogspot.com/2011/12/why-we-need-better-copyleft-for-artists.html Why we need a stronger copyleft for artists, and how this might be accomplished]".

It's best just to read that article, but the crux of the argument is
that artists who contribute artwork to free software games often worry
that their artwork will be "lifted" and dropped into some proprietary
game. In other words, something along the lines of this:

,---------YOINK----------,
| V
.---------------. .---------------.
| FaiF CONTENT | | FaiF CONTENT |
+---------------+ +---------------+
| FaiF CODE | | CLOSED CODE |
'---------------' '---------------'

Where FaiF stands for "Free as in Freedom". The argument is that if
you're producing free-as-in-freedom content, you won't want your
content being lifted and dropped into a proprietary codebase (ie, my
dragon creature which is BY-SA could still be used with a game with a
proprietary engine). Bart has pointed out that if the artwork were
done in something like the GIMP, it would be considered on a separate
layer, so even if copyleft like CC BY-SA were used, it could still be
compromised by being lifted and dropped into a proprietary
codebase... but if the artwork were instead done embedded into the
codebase itself like so:

/* This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
* the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
* (at your option) any later version.
*
* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
* but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
* GNU General Public License for more details.
*
* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
* along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
*/

var smiley = [
0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,
0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,
0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,
0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,
0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,
0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,
1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,
1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,
1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,
1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,
0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,
0,1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,
0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,
0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,
0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,
0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,
];

So, why should artists who use normal, real graphical tools not get
the same copyleft benefit of keeping their stuff protected with the
rest of the program under the GPL as do coders or artists who would
use a text-editor to hardcode their assets into their work? Are
artists being treated as if they are using some sort of second class
citizen copyleft then? Some artists in the FOSS gaming area feel that
they would be. (Some have even expressed interest in preventing
proprietization by using an -NC license, but there's an irony there in
that an NC license is proprietary anyway.)

The proposal then is for a copyleft license whose requirements reach
across the content layer over into the software layer, requiring a
free software licensed engine or etc. Complexities quickly arise as
in terms of "what about viewing the image in a proprietary browser or
other viewer, etc" and Bart has proposed trying to seperate terms out
for that, particularly by doing packaging-based copyleft.

It's easy to be sympathetic about why artists don't want their work
used in a proprietary engine. The issue is complex, and Bart has
tried to weigh out some pros and cons of this in his blogpost above.
There's also some risk in that some authors have expressed interest in
making a separate copyleft license. This could be very unfortunate
for license proliferation reasons, and especially because copyleft
does best when there's a
[http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/12/01/copyleft-pd/ single copyleft license per domain].

But here's another set of likely complexities with this:

'''Number one:''' In the example shown above, in a sense it's not true
that artists get a second class copyleft. The reverse also applies:

.---------------. .----------------.
| FaiF CONTENT | | CLOSED CONTENT |
+---------------+ +----------------+
| FaiF CODE | | FaiF CODE |
'---------------' '----------------'
| ^
'-----------YOINK---------------'

So while it's true that in the dual-layer system, copylefted
free-as-in-freedom content can be "yoinked" and dumped into a
proprietary game or game engine. But the reverse is also true;
copylefted game engine code can also be yoinked and used with to power
a free-engine-yet-proprietary game using proprietary assets. So
second class citizenship is not true; both sides are cat risk of
having their separate layer yoinked and used in something proprietary.

'''Number two:''' Getting the copyleft-works-across-layers bit to work
right without restricting mere viewer programs could be very hard to
write the correct way, could be excessively complex, and could even
end up in a license that's deemed nonfree if done wrong.

'''Number three:''' The current "separate layers" distinction between
code and content may result in some un-ideal circumstances, but people
have come to rely on it, and it's probably significantly easier to
manage things preserving these layers than to change them.

'''Number four:''' There's still a significant amount of copyleft
protection being done on the content layer even if the culture layer
is dropped onto a proprietary software layer. To put it this way: Say
Zynga or Nintendo were to take your CC BY-SA licensed 3d model and
were to drop it into their proprietary game with their proprietary
engine. If the copyleft layer really does span the whole content
layer, then that means that they also have to release all the rest of
their content to stay in compliance, and that's potentially a
tremendous payback on its own in a way.

That said, it's very reasonable that some artists are frustrated with
this copyleft divide and we should take this into careful consideration.

== Increasing/clarifying scope of what's a derivative ==

The 3.0 Creative Commons licenses provide clarification on what is and
isn't an adaptation/derivative as opposed to a mere collection:

For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work,
performance or phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in
timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered
an Adaptation for the purpose of this License.

Various people in the free software gaming community have commented on
the fact that it would be good to get more clarifications in the
license about what's an adaptation, making it clear that combining
works in a game ''is'' a derivative. For example, this "syncing"
example probably intends to cover works such as multiple character
models that are BY-SA all placed together and interacting in the same
file, but it doesn't explicitly say so about [http://jogosdabarbies.org/ jogos da barbie].

One concern that has been raised is that the part that "binds"
together various assets in a game is the engine itself, and that if
the copyleft doesn't extend to the engine layer, maybe it doesn't
properly encompass all assets:

[asset] [asset] [asset]
\ | /
\ | /
[engine]
|
V
Player experience

There's a good chance this isn't a concern however, as there's plenty
of things that aren't game engines that also load a bunch of separate
components and combine them into a single media experience.
[http://jogosde-moto.org/ jogos de moto]
Even so, it would be helpful to make clear that something along the
lines of loading several pieces of media together, for example in a
game, was a clear adaptation.
[http://coolmathgames-forkids.org cool math games]
For specific proposals for 4.0 relating to the scope of SA, visit the [[4.0/ShareAlike#ShareAlike_scope|ShareAlike page]].
[http://jogosdemeninass.org/ jogos de meninas]

== Source release? ==

Right now, unlike the GPL, BY-SA does not have a requirement for
source release. It's been proposed that this could possibly become a
requirement in CC BY-SA 4.0, but this seems unlikely:

* This could mean plenty of works never released with sources before will suddenly become out of compliance
* Unlike with software, where there's a clear binary of source or no source, in other forms of content it's often a gradient. See Big Buck Bunny/Sita Sings the Blues examples described the GPL compatibility section of this document.

It's likely we can't or shouldn't make this a requirement for CC BY-SA
4.0, but perhaps we could improve messaging generally to encourage
more community sharing of sources.

== DRM in BY-SA but not BY ==

In talking to some OpenGameArt members about licensing issues, several
expressed interest in keeping anti-DRM provisions in BY-SA as it's a
copyleft license, but remove them from CC BY (under the rationale the
CC BY approximately the equivalent of MIT/BSD licenses and CC BY-SA
approximately the equivalent of the GPL).

There are specific proposals about addressing DRM in Version 4.0 on the [[4.0/Technical_protection_measures|TPM page]].

<references/>

Games using CC licensed assets

2012-10-13T20:53:21Z

Jimmy92: /* Yo Frankie */

Some examples to be added at http://creativecommons.org/tag/video-game ([http://friv.5ire.com/ friv games])

http://freegamedev.net/wiki/Complete_open_source_games lists a number of games, some with CC licensed assets, some assets under software licenses.

http://freegamedev.net/wiki/Art_licensing_guide looks interesting.

Similarly, some comments on this at http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Games/Upstream#Source

==Go Ollie==
* http://www.tweeler.com/index.php?PAGE=goollie_info&PLATFORM=linux&CATEGORY=commercial&GENRE=all
* Found via http://identi.ca/notice/24239197 -- "logos are nonfree but can be disabled. Art is all free, IIRC CC BY SA, music is vorbis and code is GPL"
* Software license: GPL
* Content license: CC BY-SA

==LinCity NG==
* http://lincity-ng.berlios.de/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
* Software license: GPL
* Content license: GPL or CC BY-SA (dual license)

==REMIX THIS GAME==
* http://dto.github.com/notebook/remix-this-game.html
* Found via http://games.slashdot.org/story/10/07/18/227243/Remix-This-Game-mdash-a-Free-Software-Experiment
* Software license: GPLv3
* Content license: CC BY-SA

==Scorched 3D==
* http://www.scorched3d.co.uk/
* Software license: GPL
* Content license: CC BY-SA

==Scourge==
* http://scourgeweb.org/tiki-index.php
* Software license: GPL
* Content license: Mostly CC BY-SA, with exceptions (see [http://scourgeweb.org/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?comments_parentId=1280&topics_threshold=0&topics_offset=12&topics_sort_mode=lastPost_desc&topics_find=&forumId=3 this discussion])

==SuperTux==
* http://supertux.org
* Software license: GPL
* Content license: GPL or CC BY-SA (dual license)

==Tremulous==
* http://tremulous.net/
* Software license: GPL
* Content license: CC BY-SA

==Yo Frankie==
* http://yofrankie.org
* Particularly interesting for using the blender game engine...
* Software license: GPL
* Content license: CC BY
* [http://jogos-dapollypocket.org/ jogos da polly]
* [http://jogosdemeninass.org/ jogos de meninas]
* [http://jogosdabarbies.org/ jogos da barbie]
* [http://jogosde-moto.org/ jogos de moto]
* [http://coolmathgames-forkids.org cool math games]

Case Studies/GlaxoSmithKline

2012-10-13T20:39:54Z

Jimmy92: /* Overview */

{{Case Study
|Description=GlaxoSmithKline is a major pharmaceutical company that has surrendered all copyrights in its malarial data set, which includes more than 13,500 compounds known to be active against malaria.
|Mainurl=http://www.ebi.ac.uk/chemblntd/#tcams_dataset
|Author=ChEMBL-NTD, GlaxoSmithKline
|User_Status=Curator, Creator
|Tag=GSK, GlaxoSmithKline, malaria, disease
|License short name=GNU GPL
|Format=Image, Sound, Text, MovingImage, InteractiveResource, Other, Geodata, Data
|Country=United Kingdom
|Quote=Providing access to this level of information sees GSK set what I would hope to be a new trend that could revolutionise the urgent search for new medicines to tackle malaria. By sharing data, we start to build up a public database of knowledge that should be as powerful as the human genome databases.
|Quote_Attribution=Timothy Wells, Chief Scientific Officer of the Medicines for Malaria Venture (http://www.gsk.com/responsibility/access/rnd-neglected-tropical-diseases.htm)
|Image_Header=http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/0/04/Logo-gsk.gif
|Image_attribution=(c) GSK
|Image_license=http://www.gsk.com/terms.htm
|importance=High
|quality=B-Class
|License_short_name=CC0
}}
== Overview ==
One of the leading pharmaceutical [http://jogos-decarros.org jogos de] companies in the world, GlaxoSmithKline has surrendered all copyrights in its malarial data set, which includes more than 13,500 compounds known to be active against malaria. The data set is called Tres Cantos Antimalarial (TCAMS), and is available from the ChEMBL-NTD database, "a repository for Open Access primary screening and medicinal chemistry [http://jogos-demoto.org jogos de motos] data directed at neglected diseases - endemic tropical diseases of the developing regions of the Africa, Asia, and the Americas [http://shockbright.com/ Home teeth whitening]."

== License Usage ==

GlaxoSmithKline has surrendered all [http://jogos-de-tiro.org tiros] copyright in its malaria data set under the CC0 public domain dedication.

== Motivations ==
From GSK's http://www.gsk.com/responsibility/downloads/GSK-CR-2009-full.pdf

<blockquote>"By [http://jogos-decozinhar.org cozinhar] making this information publicly available, GSK hopes that many other scientists will review this information and analyse the data faster than we could on our own. Hopefully, [http://jogos-detiro.org jogos de tiros] this will lead to additional research that could help drive the discovery of new medicines. We would also encourage other groups, including academics and pharmaceutical companies, to make their own compounds and related information publicly available.

 This is essentially an example of ‘open source’ being applied to drug discovery. We know that data increases in value when connected with other data and that the more eyes looking at a [http://jogos-de-princesas.org jogos de princesas] problem, the more potential solutions may arise."</blockquote>

Research and development (R&D) for diseases prevalent in the developing world are costly [http://jogosdomario3.org jogo do mario] and time-consuming and carry less return on investment than R&D for diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, which have a market in the developed world. Since malaria is a disease that primarily affects the [http://jogosdemeninas2.org meninas] developing world, GSK has released malarial data in order to speed the process of R&D, while providing resources that nonprofits and academic institutions don't necessarily have wide access to, such as advanced technologies, facilities for medicinal drug discovery, and manufacturing and distribution expertise. For more information, see GSK's 2009 report on

== Media ==
[http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100120/full/news.2010.20.html Nature - GlaxoSmithKline goes public with malaria data]
 
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jan/20/glaxo-malaria-drugs-public-domain The Guardian - Glaxo offers free access to potential malaria cures]
 
[http://www.gsk.com/media/malaria.htm GSK's commitment to fighting Malaria]
 
[http://www.gsk.com/media/pressreleases/2010/2010_pressrelease_10009.htm press release]

Case Studies/GlaxoSmithKline

2012-10-13T20:38:01Z

Jimmy92: /* Motivations */

{{Case Study
|Description=GlaxoSmithKline is a major pharmaceutical company that has surrendered all copyrights in its malarial data set, which includes more than 13,500 compounds known to be active against malaria.
|Mainurl=http://www.ebi.ac.uk/chemblntd/#tcams_dataset
|Author=ChEMBL-NTD, GlaxoSmithKline
|User_Status=Curator, Creator
|Tag=GSK, GlaxoSmithKline, malaria, disease
|License short name=GNU GPL
|Format=Image, Sound, Text, MovingImage, InteractiveResource, Other, Geodata, Data
|Country=United Kingdom
|Quote=Providing access to this level of information sees GSK set what I would hope to be a new trend that could revolutionise the urgent search for new medicines to tackle malaria. By sharing data, we start to build up a public database of knowledge that should be as powerful as the human genome databases.
|Quote_Attribution=Timothy Wells, Chief Scientific Officer of the Medicines for Malaria Venture (http://www.gsk.com/responsibility/access/rnd-neglected-tropical-diseases.htm)
|Image_Header=http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/0/04/Logo-gsk.gif
|Image_attribution=(c) GSK
|Image_license=http://www.gsk.com/terms.htm
|importance=High
|quality=B-Class
|License_short_name=CC0
}}
== Overview ==
One of the leading pharmaceutical [http://jogos-decarros.org jogos de] companies in the world, GlaxoSmithKline has surrendered all copyrights in its malarial data set, which includes more than 13,500 compounds known to be active against malaria. The data set is called Tres Cantos Antimalarial (TCAMS), and is available from the ChEMBL-NTD database, "a repository for Open Access primary screening and medicinal chemistry [http://jogos-demoto.org jogos de motos] data directed at neglected diseases - endemic tropical diseases of the developing regions of the Africa, Asia, and the Americas."

== License Usage ==

GlaxoSmithKline has surrendered all [http://jogos-de-tiro.org tiros] copyright in its malaria data set under the CC0 public domain dedication.

== Motivations ==
From GSK's http://www.gsk.com/responsibility/downloads/GSK-CR-2009-full.pdf

<blockquote>"By [http://jogos-decozinhar.org cozinhar] making this information publicly available, GSK hopes that many other scientists will review this information and analyse the data faster than we could on our own. Hopefully, [http://jogos-detiro.org jogos de tiros] this will lead to additional research that could help drive the discovery of new medicines. We would also encourage other groups, including academics and pharmaceutical companies, to make their own compounds and related information publicly available.

 This is essentially an example of ‘open source’ being applied to drug discovery. We know that data increases in value when connected with other data and that the more eyes looking at a [http://jogos-de-princesas.org jogos de princesas] problem, the more potential solutions may arise."</blockquote>

Research and development (R&D) for diseases prevalent in the developing world are costly [http://jogosdomario3.org jogo do mario] and time-consuming and carry less return on investment than R&D for diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, which have a market in the developed world. Since malaria is a disease that primarily affects the [http://jogosdemeninas2.org meninas] developing world, GSK has released malarial data in order to speed the process of R&D, while providing resources that nonprofits and academic institutions don't necessarily have wide access to, such as advanced technologies, facilities for medicinal drug discovery, and manufacturing and distribution expertise. For more information, see GSK's 2009 report on

== Media ==
[http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100120/full/news.2010.20.html Nature - GlaxoSmithKline goes public with malaria data]
 
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jan/20/glaxo-malaria-drugs-public-domain The Guardian - Glaxo offers free access to potential malaria cures]
 
[http://www.gsk.com/media/malaria.htm GSK's commitment to fighting Malaria]
 
[http://www.gsk.com/media/pressreleases/2010/2010_pressrelease_10009.htm press release]

Case Studies/Whitehouse.gov

2012-10-13T17:44:31Z

Jimmy92: /* References */

{{Case Study
|Description=www.whitehouse.gov is the official website of United States’ President Barack Obama and his Administration.
|Mainurl=http://www.whitehouse.gov
|Author=United States Government
|User_Status=Curator, Creator
|Tag=government, whitehouse, public sector information, technical details
|Format=Image, Text, MovingImage
|Country=United States
|Quote=Our commitment to openness means more than simply informing the American people how decisions are made. It means recognizing that government does not have all the answers, and that public officials need to draw on what citizens know.
|Quote_Attribution=President Barak Obama, 1/21/09, http://www.whitehouse.gov/ope/
|Image_Header=http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/1/1f/Us-whitehouse-logo.jpg
|Image_attribution=whitehouse.gov
|Image_license=http://www.whitehouse.gov/copyright
}}
== Overview ==

The United States of America’s President Barack Obama was sworn in on the 20th of January 2009 after being elected on the 4th of November 2008 to be the 44th leader of the American people. During the period between election and inauguration, the President elect’s transitional website (www.change.gov) was licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Licence.<ref name=”test”> [http://change.gov/about/copyright_policy The Office of the President Elect, Copyright Notice] (2008) at 19 March 2009.</ref> This meant that all content posted by the President elect, his team and any contributors was subject to this licence. During his inauguration, at 12:01pm on the 20th of January 2009, President Barack Obama launched the whitehouse.gov website, the official website of the Obama-Biden Administration also incorporating the same Creative Commons licence (see below).<ref name="test">Benenson, F [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/12267 Whitehouse.gov’s 3rd Party Content Under CC-BY] (2009) Creative Commons, at 20 March 2009. </ref>

Visitors to whitehouse.gov can choose to view information from a variety of categories, these being:
* “The Briefing Room” which includes the White House Blog, weekly addresses, slideshows, speeches and official statements from the Obama-Biden Administration;
* “The Agenda” which lists the “Obama-Biden Administration’s positions on everything from healthcare and the economy to alternative energy and foreign policy”;
* “The Administration”, which as the name suggests, provides information about the various key figures in the current Administration;
* “About the White House” which provides a historical overview of the US Government; and
* “Our Government” which discusses democracy in the form of the various branches of government.

Of the above, perhaps one of the most interesting aspects of the site is the White House blog. The White House blog discusses various events from spring gardening with the First Lady to live blogs of the Vice President’s meeting of the Middle Class Task Force for green jobs. The White House blog is the US Government’s tool to keeping the American people in-step with the most recent developments in politics, and is pitched on the site as offering exactly that - the “Latest News & Updates”.

After visiting the site, it is easy to observe that the US Government’s goal in maintaining whitehouse.gov is to appear connected with its people. This is apparent from the weekly addresses, slideshows and constant blogging, which aim to create a sense of unity and inclusion for the American community. In teaming with this theme, the Office of Public Liaisons which can be accessed from the website’s Administration tab, offers an opportunity for the American people to give the Obama-Biden Administration feedback and suggestions on running the country. The idea behind this is obvious – “to take the Administration out of Washington and into communities across America, stimulating honest dialogue and ensuring that America's citizens and their elected officials have a government that works effectively for them and with them.” This initiative works in accordance with the idea of using the Creative Commons licence, and building a democracy based on true public participation, and will be discussed in detail below.

== Statistics ==

In March 2009, average weekly traffic rankings for whitehouse.gov were 3,080 people which had increased by an average of 2,729 people per week, for three months. From these users, 72.5% came from the United States of America.

== Licence Usage ==

Pursuant to the United States of America Code, Title 17, s 105, “copyright protection…is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.” As a result, the information posted by any of the Obama-Biden Administration on the whitehouse.gov site is not capable of being protected by copyright law.

However, this rule does not apply to third party content posted to on whitehouse.gov. Therefore, to align with the open principles of the website, people posting material to the site are required to license that material under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. The White House copyright policy states that as a result “visitors to this website agree to grant a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to the rest of the world for their submissions to whitehouse.gov.”<ref name=”test”> [http://www.whitehouse.gov/copyright/ The White House, Copyright Notice] (2009) at 20 March 2009. </ref> This licence enables visitors to the site to copy, distribute, display or perform any of the text or images contained in the site, as well as to make derivative works of these. The only condition to such use is that visitors must attribute the work remixed, copied, distributed, displayed or performed to the author but not in such a way as to imply that the author has endorsed the derivative work.

This licence is the widest Creative Commons licence available that doesn’t give away all rights of the author. There are no restrictions with respect to using any material in a commercial manner, neither are there any restrictions about share-alike conditions. The use of this licence reflects the prohibition that copyright protection (of any kind) is not afforded to the United States Government or its products. In the event that a more onerous Creative Commons licence was imposed on Third Party content, this may be argued as being out of line with this principle.

== Motivations ==

Creative Commons licensing enables the Obama-Biden Administration to work collaboratively with the American people, and demonstrates a genuine focus on democratic participation in the running of the country. The ability to take information from the site with only an obligation to attribute it to the author means that visitors to the site can be fully informed and in turn can fully inform others. Additionally, this process means that the circulation of inaccurate material is kept to a minimum because of the openness of the collaboration process.

Furthermore, after receiving a great response from using a Creative Commons licence on his change.gov site (even though the content contained was copyrightable at the time given that it was not US governmental material yet), President Obama’s choice to continue with the Creative Commons license for whitehouse.gov was strategically logical. Choosing to use the Creative Commons licence clearly influenced and reached out to those sectors of the community who were in tune with current creative technological advancements, and whose attention may not have been attracted otherwise. Creative Commons blogger, Fred Benenson encouraged the use of Creative Commons by President Obama, as did others with comments like “Thank you again, Mr President,” and “How awesome” posted on blogs all over the internet. The clearly favourable responses from the American people to the use of a Creative Commons licence on whitehouse.gov, indicates that the President’s team was successful in utilizing the licence to create a truly democratic process in a creative online environment. The political results of this move are a clear motivation for the use of the Creative Commons licence.

Finally, the convenience of the archiving process of the website has been made abundantly simpler given the use of the Creative Commons Licence. As one blogger put it, using a CC licence for 3rd party material on whitehouse.gov “would make the archiving of the website a much easier proposition.” Obviously the ability to forego any copyright processes and other such records would be a motivation for the maintainers of whitehouse.gov given that the site will encourage high traffic and be in use for the entire term of President Obama.

It can be gathered from comments by the administration on the site, and in particular those on the site of the Office of Public Liaison, that the current US Government is legitimately interested in generating public interest around policy issues in order to build a greater democracy.

== Technical Details ==
Whitehouse.gov has implemented the license image and linked to the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States deed. The license can be found on the [http://www.whitehouse.gov/copyright Copyright Policy page]:

[[Image:whitehouse1.png|link=http://www.whitehouse.gov/copyright|border]]

Whitehouse.gov has not implemented any of the [[CC REL]] license metadata specification. The code below generates the license mark above:

<code><nowiki>
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/3.0/us/88x31.png" alt="Creative Commons License" /></a>
Except where otherwise noted, third-party content on this site is licensed under a <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/">Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License</a>. Visitors to this website agree to grant a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to the rest of the world for their submissions to <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/">Whitehouse.gov</a> under the <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/">Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License</a>.
</nowiki></code> 

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:USA]]
[[Category:Public domain]]
[[Category:Opensource]]

Case Studies/Whitehouse.gov

2012-10-13T17:43:49Z

Jimmy92: /* References */

{{Case Study
|Description=www.whitehouse.gov is the official website of United States’ President Barack Obama and his Administration.
|Mainurl=http://www.whitehouse.gov
|Author=United States Government
|User_Status=Curator, Creator
|Tag=government, whitehouse, public sector information, technical details
|Format=Image, Text, MovingImage
|Country=United States
|Quote=Our commitment to openness means more than simply informing the American people how decisions are made. It means recognizing that government does not have all the answers, and that public officials need to draw on what citizens know.
|Quote_Attribution=President Barak Obama, 1/21/09, http://www.whitehouse.gov/ope/
|Image_Header=http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/1/1f/Us-whitehouse-logo.jpg
|Image_attribution=whitehouse.gov
|Image_license=http://www.whitehouse.gov/copyright
}}
== Overview ==

The United States of America’s President Barack Obama was sworn in on the 20th of January 2009 after being elected on the 4th of November 2008 to be the 44th leader of the American people. During the period between election and inauguration, the President elect’s transitional website (www.change.gov) was licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Licence.<ref name=”test”> [http://change.gov/about/copyright_policy The Office of the President Elect, Copyright Notice] (2008) at 19 March 2009.</ref> This meant that all content posted by the President elect, his team and any contributors was subject to this licence. During his inauguration, at 12:01pm on the 20th of January 2009, President Barack Obama launched the whitehouse.gov website, the official website of the Obama-Biden Administration also incorporating the same Creative Commons licence (see below).<ref name="test">Benenson, F [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/12267 Whitehouse.gov’s 3rd Party Content Under CC-BY] (2009) Creative Commons, at 20 March 2009. </ref>

Visitors to whitehouse.gov can choose to view information from a variety of categories, these being:
* “The Briefing Room” which includes the White House Blog, weekly addresses, slideshows, speeches and official statements from the Obama-Biden Administration;
* “The Agenda” which lists the “Obama-Biden Administration’s positions on everything from healthcare and the economy to alternative energy and foreign policy”;
* “The Administration”, which as the name suggests, provides information about the various key figures in the current Administration;
* “About the White House” which provides a historical overview of the US Government; and
* “Our Government” which discusses democracy in the form of the various branches of government.

Of the above, perhaps one of the most interesting aspects of the site is the White House blog. The White House blog discusses various events from spring gardening with the First Lady to live blogs of the Vice President’s meeting of the Middle Class Task Force for green jobs. The White House blog is the US Government’s tool to keeping the American people in-step with the most recent developments in politics, and is pitched on the site as offering exactly that - the “Latest News & Updates”.

After visiting the site, it is easy to observe that the US Government’s goal in maintaining whitehouse.gov is to appear connected with its people. This is apparent from the weekly addresses, slideshows and constant blogging, which aim to create a sense of unity and inclusion for the American community. In teaming with this theme, the Office of Public Liaisons which can be accessed from the website’s Administration tab, offers an opportunity for the American people to give the Obama-Biden Administration feedback and suggestions on running the country. The idea behind this is obvious – “to take the Administration out of Washington and into communities across America, stimulating honest dialogue and ensuring that America's citizens and their elected officials have a government that works effectively for them and with them.” This initiative works in accordance with the idea of using the Creative Commons licence, and building a democracy based on true public participation, and will be discussed in detail below.

== Statistics ==

In March 2009, average weekly traffic rankings for whitehouse.gov were 3,080 people which had increased by an average of 2,729 people per week, for three months. From these users, 72.5% came from the United States of America.

== Licence Usage ==

Pursuant to the United States of America Code, Title 17, s 105, “copyright protection…is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.” As a result, the information posted by any of the Obama-Biden Administration on the whitehouse.gov site is not capable of being protected by copyright law.

However, this rule does not apply to third party content posted to on whitehouse.gov. Therefore, to align with the open principles of the website, people posting material to the site are required to license that material under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. The White House copyright policy states that as a result “visitors to this website agree to grant a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to the rest of the world for their submissions to whitehouse.gov.”<ref name=”test”> [http://www.whitehouse.gov/copyright/ The White House, Copyright Notice] (2009) at 20 March 2009. </ref> This licence enables visitors to the site to copy, distribute, display or perform any of the text or images contained in the site, as well as to make derivative works of these. The only condition to such use is that visitors must attribute the work remixed, copied, distributed, displayed or performed to the author but not in such a way as to imply that the author has endorsed the derivative work.

This licence is the widest Creative Commons licence available that doesn’t give away all rights of the author. There are no restrictions with respect to using any material in a commercial manner, neither are there any restrictions about share-alike conditions. The use of this licence reflects the prohibition that copyright protection (of any kind) is not afforded to the United States Government or its products. In the event that a more onerous Creative Commons licence was imposed on Third Party content, this may be argued as being out of line with this principle.

== Motivations ==

Creative Commons licensing enables the Obama-Biden Administration to work collaboratively with the American people, and demonstrates a genuine focus on democratic participation in the running of the country. The ability to take information from the site with only an obligation to attribute it to the author means that visitors to the site can be fully informed and in turn can fully inform others. Additionally, this process means that the circulation of inaccurate material is kept to a minimum because of the openness of the collaboration process.

Furthermore, after receiving a great response from using a Creative Commons licence on his change.gov site (even though the content contained was copyrightable at the time given that it was not US governmental material yet), President Obama’s choice to continue with the Creative Commons license for whitehouse.gov was strategically logical. Choosing to use the Creative Commons licence clearly influenced and reached out to those sectors of the community who were in tune with current creative technological advancements, and whose attention may not have been attracted otherwise. Creative Commons blogger, Fred Benenson encouraged the use of Creative Commons by President Obama, as did others with comments like “Thank you again, Mr President,” and “How awesome” posted on blogs all over the internet. The clearly favourable responses from the American people to the use of a Creative Commons licence on whitehouse.gov, indicates that the President’s team was successful in utilizing the licence to create a truly democratic process in a creative online environment. The political results of this move are a clear motivation for the use of the Creative Commons licence.

Finally, the convenience of the archiving process of the website has been made abundantly simpler given the use of the Creative Commons Licence. As one blogger put it, using a CC licence for 3rd party material on whitehouse.gov “would make the archiving of the website a much easier proposition.” Obviously the ability to forego any copyright processes and other such records would be a motivation for the maintainers of whitehouse.gov given that the site will encourage high traffic and be in use for the entire term of President Obama.

It can be gathered from comments by the administration on the site, and in particular those on the site of the Office of Public Liaison, that the current US Government is legitimately interested in generating public interest around policy issues in order to build a greater democracy.

== Technical Details ==
Whitehouse.gov has implemented the license image and linked to the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States deed. The license can be found on the [http://www.whitehouse.gov/copyright Copyright Policy page]:

[[Image:whitehouse1.png|link=http://www.whitehouse.gov/copyright|border]]

Whitehouse.gov has not implemented any of the [[CC REL]] license metadata specification. The code below generates the license mark above:

<code><nowiki>
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/3.0/us/88x31.png" alt="Creative Commons License" /></a>
Except where otherwise noted, third-party content on this site is licensed under a <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/">Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License</a>. Visitors to this website agree to grant a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to the rest of the world for their submissions to <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/">Whitehouse.gov</a> under the <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/">Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License</a>.
</nowiki></code> 

==References==
<references/>

[Category:USA]
[Category:Public domain]
[Category:Opensource]

Case Studies/Sita Sings The Blues

2012-10-09T15:36:22Z

Jimmy92: /* Motivations */

{{Case Study
|importance=High
|quality=A-Class
|Description=Sita Sings the Blues is a musical, animated personal interpretation of the Indian epic the Ramayana released under a CC Attribution-Share Alike license.
|Quote=I want my film to reach the widest audience. It costs money to run a theater; it costs money to manufacture DVDs; it costs money to make and distribute 35mm film prints. It’s essential I allow people to make money distributing Sita these ways and others; otherwise, no one will do it. So I eschewed the “non commercial” license. Share Alike would “protect” the work from ever being locked up [...] a Share Alike license eliminates the corporate abuse everyone’s so afraid of, while it encourages entrepreneurship and innovation. Everyone wins, especially the artist!
|Quote_Attribution=Nina Paley
|Image_Header=http://creativecommons.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/05ramsitagods.jpg
|Image_attribution=RamSitaGods
|Image_license=http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
|Mainurl=http://www.archive.org/details/SitaStills
|Author=Nina Paley
|User_Status=Creator
|Tag=cinema, animation
|License_short_name=CC BY-SA
|License=http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
|Format=MovingImage
|Country=United States
}}
== Overview ==

'''Sita Sings the Blues''' is an animated feature-length film from Nina Paley. It has achieved wide levels of success, both commercially and in press, without the help of traditional press methods or large studio backing. Released under a CC Attribution-Share Alike license, the film is a prime example of 'open-source cinema'.

You can read more about the film at the [http://www.sitasingstheblues.com/faq.html '''Sita Sings The Blues''' FAQ].

== License Usage ==

'''Sita Sings The Blues''' is released under a [CC Attribution-Share Alike license], a decision Paley came to after her experience trying to license Annette Hanshaw's music.

== Motivations ==

Paley describes her motivation for using a CC BY-SA license at length in her featured interview at [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/14760 creativecommons.org]:

I want my film to reach the widest audience. It costs money to run a theater; it costs money to manufacture DVDs; it costs money to make and distribute 35mm film prints. It’s essential I allow people to make money distributing Sita these ways and others; otherwise, no one will do it. So I eschewed the “non commercial” license. Share Alike would “protect” the work from ever being locked up. It’s better than Public Domain; works are routinely removed from the Public Domain via privatized derivatives (just try making your own Pinocchio). I didn’t want some corporation locking up a play or TV show based on Sita. They are certainly welcome to make derivative works, and make money from them; in fact I encourage this. But they may not sue or punish anyone for sharing those works.
 
I looked to the Free Software movement as a model. The CC BY-SA license most closely resembles the GNU GPL, which is the foundation of Free Software. People make plenty of money in Free Software; there’s no reason they can’t do the same in Free Culture, except for those pernicious “non commercial” licenses. A Share Alike license eliminates the corporate abuse everyone’s so afraid of, while it encourages entrepreneurship and innovation. Everyone wins, especially the artist!

== Profit Breakdown ==

via [http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/11/23/how-to-make-55000-by-giving-away-your-work/ '''The Wall Street Journal''']:

* Total donations from people who appreciate her giving out free content: $23,000
* Profits from her online store which sells merchandise and DVDs: $19,000
* Theatrical distribution revenues: $3,000 (out of total box office tally of $22,350)
* Additional DVD distribution: $3,000
* Broadcast television distribution: $3,000
* Revenue from Central Cinema in Seattle which showed the film: $4,000
* Grand total: $55,000

[[Category:USA]]

Case Studies/Sita Sings The Blues

2012-10-09T15:35:19Z

Jimmy92: /* License Usage */

{{Case Study
|importance=High
|quality=A-Class
|Description=Sita Sings the Blues is a musical, animated personal interpretation of the Indian epic the Ramayana released under a CC Attribution-Share Alike license.
|Quote=I want my film to reach the widest audience. It costs money to run a theater; it costs money to manufacture DVDs; it costs money to make and distribute 35mm film prints. It’s essential I allow people to make money distributing Sita these ways and others; otherwise, no one will do it. So I eschewed the “non commercial” license. Share Alike would “protect” the work from ever being locked up [...] a Share Alike license eliminates the corporate abuse everyone’s so afraid of, while it encourages entrepreneurship and innovation. Everyone wins, especially the artist!
|Quote_Attribution=Nina Paley
|Image_Header=http://creativecommons.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/05ramsitagods.jpg
|Image_attribution=RamSitaGods
|Image_license=http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
|Mainurl=http://www.archive.org/details/SitaStills
|Author=Nina Paley
|User_Status=Creator
|Tag=cinema, animation
|License_short_name=CC BY-SA
|License=http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
|Format=MovingImage
|Country=United States
}}
== Overview ==

'''Sita Sings the Blues''' is an animated feature-length film from Nina Paley. It has achieved wide levels of success, both commercially and in press, without the help of traditional press methods or large studio backing. Released under a CC Attribution-Share Alike license, the film is a prime example of 'open-source cinema'.

You can read more about the film at the [http://www.sitasingstheblues.com/faq.html '''Sita Sings The Blues''' FAQ].

== License Usage ==

'''Sita Sings The Blues''' is released under a [CC Attribution-Share Alike license], a decision Paley came to after her experience trying to license Annette Hanshaw's music.

== Motivations ==

Paley describes her motivation for using a CC BY-SA license at length in her featured interview at [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/14760 creativecommons.org]:

<blockquote>
I want my film to reach the widest audience. It costs money to run a theater; it costs money to manufacture DVDs; it costs money to make and distribute 35mm film prints. It’s essential I allow people to make money distributing Sita these ways and others; otherwise, no one will do it. So I eschewed the “non commercial” license. Share Alike would “protect” the work from ever being locked up. It’s better than Public Domain; works are routinely removed from the Public Domain via privatized derivatives (just try making your own Pinocchio). I didn’t want some corporation locking up a play or TV show based on Sita. They are certainly welcome to make derivative works, and make money from them; in fact I encourage this. But they may not sue or punish anyone for sharing those works.
 
I looked to the Free Software movement as a model. The CC BY-SA license most closely resembles the GNU GPL, which is the foundation of Free Software. People make plenty of money in Free Software; there’s no reason they can’t do the same in Free Culture, except for those pernicious “non commercial” licenses. A Share Alike license eliminates the corporate abuse everyone’s so afraid of, while it encourages entrepreneurship and innovation. Everyone wins, especially the artist!
</blockquote>

== Profit Breakdown ==

via [http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/11/23/how-to-make-55000-by-giving-away-your-work/ '''The Wall Street Journal''']:

* Total donations from people who appreciate her giving out free content: $23,000
* Profits from her online store which sells merchandise and DVDs: $19,000
* Theatrical distribution revenues: $3,000 (out of total box office tally of $22,350)
* Additional DVD distribution: $3,000
* Broadcast television distribution: $3,000
* Revenue from Central Cinema in Seattle which showed the film: $4,000
* Grand total: $55,000

[[Category:USA]]

Case Studies/GlaxoSmithKline

2012-10-09T15:03:39Z

Jimmy92: /* Overview */

{{Case Study
|Description=GlaxoSmithKline is a major pharmaceutical company that has surrendered all copyrights in its malarial data set, which includes more than 13,500 compounds known to be active against malaria.
|Mainurl=http://www.ebi.ac.uk/chemblntd/#tcams_dataset
|Author=ChEMBL-NTD, GlaxoSmithKline
|User_Status=Curator, Creator
|Tag=GSK, GlaxoSmithKline, malaria, disease
|License short name=GNU GPL
|Format=Image, Sound, Text, MovingImage, InteractiveResource, Other, Geodata, Data
|Country=United Kingdom
|Quote=Providing access to this level of information sees GSK set what I would hope to be a new trend that could revolutionise the urgent search for new medicines to tackle malaria. By sharing data, we start to build up a public database of knowledge that should be as powerful as the human genome databases.
|Quote_Attribution=Timothy Wells, Chief Scientific Officer of the Medicines for Malaria Venture (http://www.gsk.com/responsibility/access/rnd-neglected-tropical-diseases.htm)
|Image_Header=http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/0/04/Logo-gsk.gif
|Image_attribution=(c) GSK
|Image_license=http://www.gsk.com/terms.htm
|importance=High
|quality=B-Class
|License_short_name=CC0
}}
== Overview ==
One of the leading pharmaceutical companies in the world, GlaxoSmithKline has surrendered all copyrights in its malarial data set, which includes more than 13,500 compounds known to be active against malaria. [http://jogosdabarbie9.org jogos da barbie] The data set is called Tres Cantos Antimalarial (TCAMS), and is available from the ChEMBL-NTD database, "a repository for Open Access primary screening and medicinal chemistry data directed at [http://jogos-demoto.org jogos de moto] neglected diseases - endemic tropical diseases of the developing regions of the Africa, Asia, and the Americas."

== License Usage ==

GlaxoSmithKline has surrendered all copyright in [http://jogos-detiro.org jogos de tiro] its malaria data set under the CC0 public domain dedication.

== Motivations ==
From GSK's [http://www.gsk.com/responsibility/downloads/GSK-CR-2009-full.pdf 2009 report]:

<blockquote>"By making this information publicly available, GSK hopes that many other scientists will review this information and analyse the data faster than we could on our own. Hopefully, this will lead to additional research that could help drive the discovery of new medicines. We would also encourage other groups, including academics and pharmaceutical companies, [http://jogos-de-tiro.org jogos de tiro] to make their own compounds and related information publicly available.

 This is essentially an example of ‘open source’ being applied to drug discovery. We know that data increases in value when connected with other data and that the more eyes looking at a [http://jogos-de-princesas.org jogos de princesas] problem, the more potential solutions may arise."</blockquote>

Research and development (R&D) for diseases prevalent in the developing world are costly and time-consuming and carry less return on investment than R&D for diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, which have a market in the developed world. Since malaria is a disease that primarily [http://jogos-decozinhar.org jogos de cozinhar] affects the developing world, GSK has released malarial data in order to speed the process of R&D, while providing resources that nonprofits and academic institutions don't necessarily have wide access to, such as advanced technologies, facilities for medicinal drug discovery, and manufacturing and distribution expertise. For more information, see GSK's 2009 report on

== Media ==
[http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100120/full/news.2010.20.html Nature - GlaxoSmithKline goes public with malaria data]
 
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jan/20/glaxo-malaria-drugs-public-domain The Guardian - Glaxo offers free access to potential malaria cures]
 
[http://www.gsk.com/media/malaria.htm GSK's commitment to fighting Malaria]
 
[http://www.gsk.com/media/pressreleases/2010/2010_pressrelease_10009.htm press release]