Who we are   Organizations   Get Involved!   Helpdesk   Weblog   About FLORA   Server project   F.A.Q.

Election 2006 (and beyond): Digital Copyright Canada

First draft of FLORA.org Terms and Conditions

From: Russell McOrmond <russell_-at-_flora.ca>
To: flora-admin-help_-at-_flora.org
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 20:16:08 -0400 (EDT)

  Rather than talking around in circles, I have posted the first draft at
http://www.flora.org/flora/legal.shtml so we can be talking about an
actual draft document rather than people assuming things that are not
written down.

  First of all I want to remind people that the purpose of this document
is to do two things (it started out only as the first, but the second
became obvious that it was necessary):

  a) To seek to protect me from someone trying to sue FLORA.org (really
its sponsor which is me) for something on the website, posted in mailing
lists, or otherwise distributed by FLORA.org.

   This is not an option to not pursue, and I am entirely unwilling to
continue to operating FLORA.org without such a document.  As some of the
people in this forum have noted the Internet exists in many countries, and
there are a variety of laws that someone can try to (ab)use to try to sue
me.  Given the cult of lawsuits (especially from our 'neighbors' to the
south) we need to be more formal than we have in the past.

  If it doesn't offer me the protection I am seeking, at least it makes me 
sleep better at night.  The alternative to authoring such a document is to 
close FLORA.org, which is obviously the lesser of the available options.


  b) To clarify the 'no commercial content' nature of FLORA.org.  
FLORA.org exists to offer free services to those who might not otherwise 
be able to afford these services commercially, and is not intended to be a 
$free$ ride.



  I have been dismissive of some opinions for what should be an obvious
reason.  I have been offering services on FLORA.org (and earlier versions)  
for almost 10 years now.  To now have my motivations questioned is rather
disheartening.  I am not out to try to 'rip people off', and the fact that 
I've been running FLORA.org for so long without asking for payment/etc 
should be proof enough.

  When I read people claim that I am trying to take away their rights I
wonder whether they are really trying to 'rip me off', or retain a 
situation where they could sue me for my volunteer/sponsorship efforts on 
FLORA.org.

  Some trust has to exist of me as sponsor.  If people don't trust that I
am trying to manage (and protect) FLORA.org to the best of my abilities,
then there is not much I can offer them.  If people want to help me with
FLORA.org, please continue to contribute to this forum and this thread to
do so (including improving this document).

  If you wish to protect some other right *against* FLORA.org (and myself
as sponsor), then I am forced to welcome you to please take your concern
(and yourself) elsewhere.


  The most controversial part of the discussion seems to be the copyright
license for submissions to discussion groups, so I will repeat it here:

---cut---

Discussion List copyright license

If you make any submission, you automatically grant -- or warrant that the 
owner of such content has expressly granted -- to FLORA.org and its 
sponsor FLORA Community Consulting -- a royalty-free, perpetual, 
irrevocable, worldwide nonexclusive license to use, reproduce, create 
derivative works from, modify, publish, edit, translate, distribute, 
perform, and display the communication or content in any media or medium, 
or any form, format or forum now known or hereafter developed.

Note: It needs to be emphasized that copyright license is not an exclusive 
license which means you can offer different rights to someone other than 
FLORA.org. This license also does not apply to moral rights such as the 
right to be given credit to your work, which are protected in Canadian 
(and other laws) independent of the economic rights described in this 
license. 

---cut---


The 'note' is new from the Gigalaw sample, but the paragraph above is the
same.


 Lets clarify some things:

  a) This is a copyright *LICENSE*, not a copyright *ASSIGNMENT*.  These 
are two extremely different things, and the two seem to have been confused 
in this forum already.

  b) This is a non-exclusive license, and is a license to FLORA.org
(meaning its sponsor, myself).  This means you can have an entirely
different license for someone else, although I would invoke the "FLORA.org
may assign its rights and duties under these Terms and Conditions to any
party at any time without notice to you" if you tried to sue someone like
Google Groups for re-publishing archives of discussion groups which
FLORA.org has deliberately re-distributed to them.

  c) Nothing in this license removes your ability to protect your moral
rights.  If the laws in your country do not protect moral rights then you
should talk to your member of parliament as there is nothing I can do
about that.  If the right is protected at all in your country (and the
United States trade representatives have been strongly opposed to moral
rights), it still exists under this license agreement.

  d) Nothing in this license allows a third-party website to make a local 
mirror of the articles without the permission of either the author of the 
article (inherent copyright) or of FLORA.org (the "may assign" clause 
mentioned in the Google Groups example).

---
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> 
 Governance software that controls ICT, automates government policy, or
 electronically counts votes, shouldn't be bought any more than 
 politicians should be bought.  -- http://www.flora.ca/russell/

Please read the FLORA.org Terms and Conditions before you submit information to FLORA.org
Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign (USA) (Canada)	FLORA Community Web (FLORA.ORG) is sponsored by FLORA Community Consulting (FLORA.CA).