Licensing The Geocachers Creed

20.7k · February 9, 2005

It is much more appropriate for this 'creed' to simply stay in the public domain.

9.4k · February 9, 2005

It is much more appropriate for this 'creed' to simply stay in the public domain.

This is an interesting conundrum. I would think that some "body" would want to take a version of the creed and bless it somehow so it doesn't get warped into something else. Ergo, ownership and licensing. Public domain isn't restrictive enough, IMO.

9.1k · February 9, 2005

Why don't we add 'I will not drown any kittens' to the creed?

Oops. So much for my "Nine Lives" multicache. Sorry 'bout that.

20.7k · February 9, 2005

This is an interesting conundrum. I would think that some "body" would want to take a version of the creed and bless it somehow so it doesn't get warped into something else. Ergo, ownership and licensing. Public domain isn't restrictive enough, IMO.

Unfortunately, it was derived in the public domain. I'm not sure if anyone could legally copyright it.

Edited February 9, 2005 by sbell111

2.1k · February 9, 2005

Hi,

What if the language were changed to allow for two types of usage (which will likely happen anyway):

if you use the creed as is, call it that and attribute it via the weblink, and agree not to sell or alter it in any way without permission
if you wish to work with some of the basic ideas, which are, after all, common sense notions that have been tossed around among geocachers for years, you do not attribute it to the creed via the weblink and do not call it the creed

I would think that taking this attitude up front would head off debates about who owns the copyright to ideas like being safe and obeying laws and minimizing environmental impact and being considerate, while allowing people who want to the option reference the creed and directing interested parties to the website for the well-presented information.

just a thought,

nfa-jamie

Edited February 9, 2005 by NFA

7.2k · February 9, 2005

The author always retains the copyright unless specifically released.

While Jeremy et. al has some rights to it because it was created here and the authors had to abide by the TOU, the copyright stays with the author, namely me. I was the one that came up with the bulk of the wording and did the compiling of other's original wording into the works. I've not released the creed into the public domain. If anyone takes issue with my inclusion of their works into the creed they can take it up with me.

I have released the creed to the care of person(s) that go by "Kai Team." They've attached a license which gives rights to which I've not abjected. In fact, I'd give more rights, but Kai Team is handling that.

Where does all this leave us in a court of law? I dunno, but I doubt that the creed would be considered public domain.

Oh, INAL. :mad:

Edited February 9, 2005 by CoyoteRed

20.7k · February 9, 2005

YOU are the author? What about all those other people that contributed? :mad:

February 9, 2005

While Jeremy et. al has some rights to it because it was created here and the authors had to abide by the TOU, the copyright stays with the author, namely me. I was the one that came up with the bulk of the wording and did the compiling of other's original wording into the works. I've not released the creed into the public domain. If anyone takes issue with my inclusion of their works into the creed they can take it up with me.

In the event the creed has any economic value and is ever successfully licensed, you can be sure that every person who posted to the creed thread will come out of the woodwork the moment that first royalty check is cut. They no doubt will believe they too are co-authors and co-owners of the copyright.

This is an interesting question for a law school copyright class. Who owns the work? Is it even copyrightable? With all due respect, I think a good copyright attorney could punch some serious holes in your claim of ownership.

P.S. If there is any litigation over the ownership of the copyright, you may want to remember that what you post here will be used against you - in the quote above you've already conceded that Jeremy has "rights" to your work and that you are not the sole author.

2.3k · February 9, 2005

Proactive moderator insert.

No one has yet done anything wrong. Just a reminder that you are all doing a good job of keeping it nice.

thank you

CO Admin.

2.1k · February 9, 2005

YOU are the author? What about all those other people that contributed?

I think its the difference between contributing ideas vs contributing precise wording. Obviously you can't copyright the 'idea' to be safe, and don't be stupid, but how exactly you write it down can be copyrighted. As the actual wording and ordering of things seems to have been initiated by one particular person for the most part, I imagine that said person does have the rights to it.

Seems to me though like Kai Team and CR don't really care what is done with it, just want *some* legal ground to stand on in case someone does something inappropriate with the creed (i.e. reasonable grounds to send a threatening lawyer letter...). Not sure if it would stand up in court or not, but I think the idea is a good one. Personally I can't think of anything particularly nasty that someone could do, but then again, I'm not as creative as some people are. They have pretty much said here that they will grant exceptions up the yin-yang for anyone who goes to the trouble to ask, so I really have no trouble with it.

20.7k · February 9, 2005

I think its the difference between contributing ideas vs contributing precise wording.

Go ahead and reread the aforementioned threads. You will find that the precise wording was tweaked by a number of people.

... and don't be stupid,

Dude, that was immediately after CO Admin's post. :mad:

As the actual wording and ordering of things seems to have been initiated by one particular person for the most part, I imagine that said person does have the rights to it.

Do I have to pull out a beans analogy to argue this one? :mad:

Seems to me though like Kai Team and CR don't really care what is done with it, just want *some* legal ground to stand on in case someone does something inappropriate with the creed (i.e. reasonable grounds to send a threatening lawyer letter...). Not sure if it would stand up in court or not,

So what you're saying is they want the appearance of 'legal ground to stand on'. :mad:

Edited February 9, 2005 by sbell111

7.2k · February 9, 2005

P.S. If there is any litigation over the ownership of the copyright, you may want to remember that what you post here will be used against you - in the quote above you've already conceded that Jeremy has "rights" to your work and that you are not the sole author.

Remember too that Jeremy's rights are laid out in the TOU and does not claim ownership of the anyone's words. He does has certain rights, but doesn't claim ownership and therefore doesn't have full rights. In other words, he doesn't have the right to place in the public domain and other such right a full rights holder would have.

Second, conceding I'm not the sole author does not give up the copyright of my compilation any more that Jeremy gives up the right to his compilation of your and mine copyrighted works--namely our caches. Same concept only Groundspeak has it written down. You don't have to assert your rights under copyright law for it to be enforceable.

That said, this is only to establish authority over being able to attach a license to the creed. I contend Kai Team did, in fact, have sufficient rights to attach the license in question.

20.7k · February 9, 2005

and I disagree.

1.4k · February 9, 2005

So long as it's generally recognized that the official creed is maintained by a body and lives in a certain location, I don't really see a need to license it.

Giving credit and a link back is nice and if you were really concerned you could simply add the URL under the main title and between the safe * ethical * legal thing.

I think it's a good device. I think it could be adopted widely. I know that if there are a lot of hoops to jump through, it will not be. If I can use it freely in documentation I create for parks managers, etc. I will. If I need to go ask permission or some such every time I wish to print it or put it on a business card or promote it - I probably won't.

Having the Gx logo in the public domain has resulted in many derivative works and wide recognition and acceptance of the symbol. If you had to go ask Leatherman every time you wanted to use that in something... noone would deal with that.

February 9, 2005

The thing that is off-putting to me about this situation is that a topic is posted to a public forum soliciting input, ideas and language from the geocaching community to create the "Creed" (in substance an obvious collection of common sense observations about geocaching). Other geocachers freely contribute to this (pinned) thread, helping to create the finished product. Then the thread's O.P. compiles the contributions and now makes a proprietary claim to the work as a whole and seeks to exploit it commercially. I'm sure many of the contributors to the "Creed" thread didn't foresee this development. They may not have contributed if they knew of the OP's ownership claim and commercial goal, to the exclusion of their rights in the work.

Has a registration for the Creed been obtained from the Copyright Office (you won't be able to enforce your rights in court without it)?

2.1k · February 9, 2005

... and don't be stupid,

Dude, that was immediately after CO Admin's post.

Sorry, what I meant was saying essentially "Don't be stupid while geocaching" as an essential tenent of the creed (as in be safe while caching, and don't do supremely stupid things), not don't be stupid while posting. :mad:

(Actually I was writing at the same time as CO Admin was posting...)

I wasn't involved in any way shape or form with the creed, so I don't really know who did/said what. My understanding is that you can copyright a particular arangement of other people's works (like an arrangement of a particular work of music), but you only own the right to the portions which you actually did (i.e. you can do a jazzed up version of Beethoven, that you can copyright, but you can't copyright Beethoven's works themselves. What you own the rights to is how the work is arranged and the presentation of the work. Perhaps this is relavent...

2.1k · February 9, 2005

Then the thread's O.P. ... seeks to exploit it commercially.

Not sure where that came from. I didn't see CR or Kai Team claiming anything of the sort (maybe I missed it). My understanding was that they were just trying to prevent commercial application of the creed without prior consent (i.e. if you're going to try to make money off of this, at least tell us first...). They have said that they will grant pretty much anyone permission to do what ever they like with it, as long as it isn't absurd in the extreme.

20.7k · February 9, 2005

What I gleen from your post is that while they are not actively considering commercial applications, they want to leave themselves open to future commercial applications.

Also, they will grant most requests for usage, but you have to ask first.

My position is this. If you like the creed, use it. The copyright isn't enforceable.

Edited February 9, 2005 by sbell111

7.2k · February 9, 2005

...now makes a proprietary claim to the work as a whole and seeks to exploit it commercially. I'm sure many of the contributors to the "Creed" thread didn't foresee this development. They may not have contributed if they knew of the OP's ownership claim and commercial goal, to the exclusion of their rights in the work.

Dude, where the heck are you getting that from?

2k · February 9, 2005

This is a very interesting thread.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on T.V. :mad:

As far as how the copyright works for compilations there has to be someway you can copyright others. What makes me think of this is for example books with famous peoples quotes or trivia books for example.

I'm sure you can pick up several different books of quotes by several different authors and they have the same quotes buy Bush or Clinton for example. The same thing could be said for Trivia Books.

As far as this goes could it be possible to go back through the thread and contact the people that contributed to the parts of the creed that are being used and ask their permission?

I didn't contribute to it and I'm not really for it or against it but I find this thread interesting. However, if I was one of the contributers and another person came out and said "I wrote it and own it" I can see how some people could tend to disagree with that.

There has to be some geocaching lawyers out there that need to take a look at this thread.

Edited February 9, 2005 by Eric K

February 9, 2005

My understanding is that you can copyright a particular arangement of other people's works (like an arrangement of a particular work of music), but you only own the right to the portions which you actually did (i.e. you can do a jazzed up version of Beethoven, that you can copyright, but you can't copyright Beethoven's works themselves. What you own the rights to is how the work is arranged and the presentation of the work.

You are partially correct. Since Beethoven's works are in the public domain, they are free for use by all and you are free to make a "jazzed up" (anybody remember "Fifth of Beethoven"?) version. You try to create a version of a more current work that is still covered by copyright (such as the Beatles), you may be running into trouble. Copyright extends not only to making copies of the work itself but extends to derivative works as well, such as a "jazzed up" version. Unless it's a parody, you probably will need permission from the copyright owner.

I didn't see CR or Kai Team claiming anything of the sort (maybe I missed it). My understanding was that they were just trying to prevent commercial application of the creed without prior consent (i.e. if you're going to try to make money off of this, at least tell us first...).

This assumes that use of the Creed requires their consent - because they are the owners of the Creed. I don't think their ownership claim would hold up in court if challenged.

Dude, where the heck are you getting that from?

You/Kai Team claim ownership and are seeking to license the work. That, in my view, is commercial exploitation. Your commercial goal apparently is to be the sole owner and licensor of the Creed, to the exclusion of all others. If I am mistaken, then just tell us what your intentions are.

Here's an analogy to chew on: I post a thread (like this one) in the forums asking 'cachers to share their photographs of sunsets. The copyright in the photos belong to the geocachers. I then compile the photos together, including a few of my own and make a nifty calendar. Although I added my own copyrighted photos and compiled the other photographs to create the calendar, I have still violated the other 'cacher's copyrights in their pictures.

As a disclaimer, I have no stake in this since I didn't contribute to the Creed thread but find the copyright implications interesting.

7.2k · February 9, 2005

...another person came out and said "I wrote it and own it" ...

That's the thing. I didn't say I wrote it. I wrote a good chunk of it and took many of the contributions and added those in. The ultimate authority of what was included and what was not was mine.

I do agree, if someone wants to go back and have everyone who contributed put on some list, I don't have a problem with it. It'd be a little silly, but I wouldn't have a problem with it.

If you wanted to look at it from a contributor copyright point of view, I don't think I could release it to the public domain if I wanted to. I don't have the right to release a works of another to the public domain. I'm not sure if you can release work that is a compilation into the public domian that contains retained copyrights.

I guess we're back to who owns my own words and the compilation that I created.

7.2k · February 9, 2005

If I am mistaken, then just tell us what your intentions are.

Me, personally? That it not be modified willy-nilly, that each version you see out there is the same as what was agreed on by those who contributed to the creation of it, and that some joker doesn't try to lay claim on it and use it in some manner we can't even fathom.

I'm not looking to make money on The Creed itself. I've got more than enough on my plate to keep me busy. ( Maybe, Creed stamps? :unsure: Nah. ) My main goal was to create something that new members of our hobby can look to to get a better feel of how we think. Something between "Take something, leave something, sign log" and braving the forums. Kind of like a crash course on general conduct or philosophy. (or something.)

2.1k · February 9, 2005

You are partially correct. Since Beethoven's works are in the public domain, they are free for use by all and you are free to make a "jazzed up" (anybody remember "Fifth of Beethoven"?) version.

I *think* it also depends on the extent of the changes, and if the new work is sufficiently different from the old one (probably a bit of a gray area)...

This assumes that use of the Creed requires their consent - because they are the owners of the Creed. I don't think their ownership claim would hold up in court if challenged.

Ahhh I see where you're comming from now. I agree with you, that it probably wouldn't stand up if challenged in court, but my interpretation is that Kai Team and CR are trying to protect the work in general in an altruistic way (note the thread was started by Kai Team, asking if the license was too restrictive or not...), which I see as a good thing...

20.7k · February 9, 2005

I thought the Geocacher's Creed was here.

2k · February 9, 2005

If I am mistaken, then just tell us what your intentions are.

Me, personally? That it not be modified willy-nilly, that each version you see out there is the same as what was agreed on by those who contributed to the creation of it, and that some joker doesn't try to lay claim on it and use it in some manner we can't even fathom.

I'm not looking to make money on The Creed itself. I've got more than enough on my plate to keep me busy. ( Maybe, Creed stamps? Nah. ) My main goal was to create something that new members of our hobby can look to to get a better feel of how we think. Something between "Take something, leave something, sign log" and braving the forums. Kind of like a crash course on general conduct or philosophy. (or something.)

Even though the original topic of this subject as somewhat strayed now I can see more of your point as far as ownership.

It could be along the same reasons that geocaching had to make the stricter rulings on using their logos in the past.

I could see somewhat for example making laminated cards and selling them for cachers to leave in caches for example.

So if that happend then it could be possible that the person selling the cards could claim a copyright to it.

Hmmm, I don't see a 'simple' solution to this.

February 9, 2005

Holy Crap folks - it's a game!

Follow the posting guidelines, use your noodle to apply some common sense while out and about.

Go and find some plastic :unsure:

2.1k · February 10, 2005

YOU are the author? What about all those other people that contributed?

From BitLaw:

Compilation Copyrights: Compilation copyrights are a special breed of copyrightable work. They are defined by the Copyright Act as a work that is formed by the "collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship." An example of a compilation would be a collection of the most influential plays of the Eighteenth Century. The individual plays themselves would not be subject to copyright protection, since the copyright would have expired (see the discussion in BitLaw on copyright duration for more information). However, the selection of the plays (as well as their order) involves enough original, creative expression to be protected by copyright. Therefore, the grouping of plays is protected by the copyright in the compilation even though each individual play is not protected.

A grouping of facts is also protected as a compilation, assuming the grouping contains enough original expression to merit protection. An example of a protectable grouping of facts would be the links to other web sites found in the BitLaw legal links section. Each link consists merely of factual information, namely that a particular web site can be found at a particular URL location. Thus, there is no copyright protection for the links. Although the individual links can be copied and placed unto another web site, if the entire list (or a substantial portion) of the list were copied, the copyright in the compilation would be infringed. The creative, original expression that is being protected is the sorting, selecting, and grouping of all the legal oriented web sites into the ordered legal list found on these pages.

The white pages telephone directory is an example of an unprotected grouping of facts. The individual facts (name, address, and telephone number) are not protectable under the copyright law. In addition, the compilation in this case consisted solely of gathering all available telephone numbers in a particular area and sorting them alphabetically. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that this minimal level of selecting and arrangement does not involve enough originality to be protected by copyright.

1k · February 10, 2005

Thanks again for the input. This is a very interesting discussion.

I think I answered the questions about our intent in this post., but let me add a few clarifications:

1) As CR said, I'm the current copyright holder, since I'm the one who generated the Creative Commons license. If in the future I decide to rotate out of the "keeper" role, I'll transfer the registration and copyright free of charge to those who support the Creed and continue to volunteer in that role (currently two other geocachers are sharing the "keepers" role with me, one more active than the other).

2) You do NOT need permission for non-commerical copying, distribution, display, and performance ( :unsure: ) of the Creed as long as you give credit to www.geocreed.info, which in turn links back to the development forums and gives credit to everyone who contributed to the Creed.

If you want to laminate it on cards, or print it on anything else and distribute them in cahces free of charge, we encourage you to do so. People should not feel inhibited in distributing the Creed for free. Let me say that one more time, with feeling: Free distribution of the Creed, with the wording intact, does NOT require prior permission, just the mention of www.geocreed.info. Go forth and distribute - we'd love it!

3) None of us plan to make money on the Creed by selling the rights to use it, now or in the future. Period. If you want to put it on something and sell it, all you have to do is ask. Of course, if I want to print it on a coffee mug and sell the coffee mug, I'm not going to deny myself a use that I'd grant to anyone else (I have no plans to do this, but you never know :unsure: ).

Examples of inappropriate commercialization I can think of (i.e. that we would not grant permission for) would be:

Printing the Creed on an obscene or pornographic material (this is a family oriented activity)
Selling items that use the Creed to criticize or denigrate one of the cache listing sites or their guidelines,
Incorporating the Creed into a piece that denigrates people by race, creed (pun intended), national origin, etc.

I can't think of any other examples at the moment, but I'm sure there are people out there who could. You get the idea.

As for whether the copyright (CC license) is enforceable, that's for a court of law to decide. I agree that it poses all sorts of interesting legal questions, but it's silly to argue that here because it can't be decided here.

Assuming it is enforceable, what can be decided here is if the terms of the current license are good for the Creed or not. That's the discussion that I find most interesting!

1k · February 13, 2005

There haven't been any new posts to this thread in a few days so I assume it has pretty much run its course. Thanks again for your input!

The thread reflects a mixed bag of opinion for and against licensing the Creed. It seems that the support is strongest for the attribution requirement, second strongest for the no-derivatives clause (to maintain consistency), and weakest for the non-commercialization clause.

If you're interested (assume you must be, since you're reading this thread :lostsignal: ), we've decided to maintain the CC license and retain the attribution and no-derivatives clauses. We'll be dropping the non-commercialization clause (i.e. you can sell stuff with the Creed on it without asking permission). We'll also be adding a line to the website encouraging people to email questions on the terms of use (e.g. if a site wants to modify an example before posting the Creed, to be consistent with it's own listing guidelines).

edit: typos

Edited February 13, 2005 by Kai Team

2.5k · February 13, 2005

I vaguely recall chiming in with an idea, I'm not sure if it was ever included in the creed, but for the record, to make it clear, that no other opinions may be assumed, I fully intended and still intend to retain my rights to my unpublished copyrighted works, and fully intended it to develop into a derivative work, for my own purposes, perhaps a creed of my own.

I hope you didn't spend a lot for the license, because if my work was included, then that means the person who sold you the license made money from my work, and I expect my royalty check to arrive promptly.

24.7k · February 13, 2005

The creed exists as a standard. Whenever you have a standard you have a keeper of the standard. It's how it has to be. The keepers also are responsible for changes. How this will pay out will probably be figured out as needed. Odds are the community will have a lot of say. If they choose to participate. You can't force the participation but you can extend the invite. That was done with this creed and it will be done again.

To keep the creed from changing to the Red Hat version and the IBM version, and the Linux version you need to copyright the original, if for no other reason so you can say "This is the original".

Commerial sites can't really work with the creed directly due to the licence but they can link to it and support it for exactly the reasons that Trippy has pointed out.

Anyone else can use the same information that went into this creed and make another one. If it's better in some fundamental way it will be the one adopted by the geocaching community. If not it will fade away. Regardless as soon as they do, they may see why you need to walk the same path the current cachers creed has gone.

24.7k · February 13, 2005

I would keep the con commercialization clause. You have a website to pay for. Forums to run. Long distance calls to pay for and other expenses that you will find you have to cover.

The right to sell the creed on mugs or license it for others to sell (for a small fee...) are the only way to fund the site at least if you think geocaching will be around longer than your own personal interest in it and others will take over the site and keep the creed alive.

Look at tread lightly and other programs if you want an idea of the challenges that you face, and how they tackled some of the same things.

1.8k · February 13, 2005

I hereby wave all rights and expectations to any financial benefit which may arise directly from the aforementioned Creed developed by geocachers in a public forum on a private web site and officially authored by certain specific geocachers and subsequently licensed by specific geocachers after contributions by numerous unspecified geocachers; on this thirteenth day of February, 2005, in the appropriate thread of the aforementioned web site.

signed.....Robespierre (which is not a legal signature.)

edit: adding the semicolon.

Edited February 13, 2005 by Robespierre

2.3k · February 13, 2005

I hereby wave all rights and expectations to any financial benefit which may arise directly from the aforementioned Creed developed by geocachers in a public forum on a private web site and officially authored by certain specific geocachers and subsequently licensed by specific geocachers after contributions by numerous unspecified geocachers; on this thirteenth day of February, 2005, in the appropriate thread of the aforementioned web site.
signed.....Robespierre (which is not a legal signature.)

edit: adding the semicolon.

Robespierre (which is not a legal signature.)

And therefore not even worth the paper it isnt printed on :lostsignal:

20.7k · February 13, 2005

The creed exists as a standard. ...

I don't see it as a 'standard'. It is opinion of a few. Granted, there isn't really anything earth-shattering in it. Really, it seems just to be an ego thing for some.

Edited February 13, 2005 by sbell111

2.5k · February 13, 2005

Anyone else can use the same information that went into this creed and make another one. If it's better in some fundamental way it will be the one adopted by the geocaching community. If not it will fade away. Regardless as soon as they do, they may see why you need to walk the same path the current cachers creed has gone.

It probably would be ok to include it in a larger work, like a compilation called "A compilation of silly creeds", wouldn't it? After all, as CR says, I wouldn't be claiming to have written it, just including it in the compilation.

1k · February 13, 2005

The creed exists as a standard. ...

I don't see it as a 'standard'. It is opinion of a few. Granted, there isn't really anything earth-shattering in it. Really, it seems just to be an ego thing for some.

For someone who is so dismissive of the Creed, you seem to have a lot of ego invested in it yourself, judging by the number of times you've sniped in this tread. For those few people (not just sbell111) who keep sniping at the Creed in every related thread:

1) If you don't agree with it, don't follow it. It's voluntary. It doesn't effect you in any way, let alone hurt you - there's no reason for you to harass people who are interested in it.

2) If you find these discussions silly or distasteful, don't read any threads with "Geocachers Creed" in the title. It's not like you're being tricked into reading the threads.

3) If you can't say anyting constructive (not necessarily positive, but constructive in your criticism) then don't say anything at all.

One has to wonder what purpose is served by these off-topic posts. No life? Misery loves company? You just have to say something, even when you have nothing to say? One second thought, I don't want to know (but I'm sure you'll tell me anyway).

20.7k · February 13, 2005

I think its funny that, according to you, everyone who disagrees with you are petty attackers. I also am amused with your idea that any detractors should not respond. I bet life is nice when one surrounds himself with people who agree with him, dismissing all those who disagree as ignorant.

Edited February 13, 2005 by sbell111

February 13, 2005

So does this mean I need to cancel my account with cafepress.com to print the geocacher creed t-shirts?

I was going to sell them at the Creed concert with eyes wide open.

It's nice you guys wrote it up and I think it's got some terrific points for new geocachers but calling it a creed seems a little formal. I didn't think it was a formal statement of religious belief or confession of faith.

Everyone has a different take on the game though and Jeremy's the founder of this listing site, so he's probably the best arbiter to discuss this with.

Seriously, it's a nice set of guidelines for new cachers....and I like the website.

1k · February 13, 2005

I think its funny that, according to you, everyone who disagrees with you are petty attackers. I also am amused with your idea that any detractors should not respond. I bet life is nice when one surrounds himself with people who agree with him, dismissing all those who disagree as ignorant.

I didn't say anything about people who disagree. My comments were directed at off topic posts, like these (all posted by the same person in just this one thread, which is about Licensing the Geocachers Creed, not how many people's opinions it represents, how silly it is, whether it's likely to wander off, or whether it's being taken too seriously):

I don't see it as a 'standard'. It is opinion of a few. Granted, there isn't really anything earth-shattering in it. Really, it seems just to be an ego thing for some.

I'm very glad that I ignored most of the threads on the creed. I thought it was a silly process before, now even more so.

Why does the creed need 'keepers'? If I needed to find it, couldn't I just do a search for the thread? Do you think that someone might wander off with it?

The entire creed thing was kind of a harmless idea, but I think some people have taken it WAY too seriously.

How do the people in the forums over there like it?

I thought the Geocacher's Creed was [link to sbell111 profile with parody of Creed].

Maybe some people have a disability that prevents them from understanding what's actually written, and only see what they want to see. That could explain a lot. The only other explanation I can think of is that some people just enjoy trolling, for the reasons mentioned in my last post.

20.7k · February 13, 2005

I found every one of those to be on topic.

...which is about Licensing the Geocachers Creed, not how many people's opinions it represents, how silly it is, whether it's likely to wander off, or whether it's being taken too seriously):

I think it is bizarre for a few people to license the work of a few other people and present it as a 'creed' for all of us. Licensing said 'creed' is silly. Licensing the creed is not necessary because it is archived for all to find. I think very few people are taking the creed too seriously; I think some people are taking themselves too seriously.

Thanks for compliling my comments, I might license them.

edited for clarity.

Edited February 14, 2005 by sbell111

1k · February 14, 2005

So does this mean I need to cancel my account with cafepress.com to print the geocacher creed t-shirts?

I was going to sell them at the Creed concert with eyes wide open.

It's nice you guys wrote it up and I think it's got some terrific points for new geocachers but calling it a creed seems a little formal. I didn't think it was a formal statement of religious belief or confession of faith.

Everyone has a different take on the game though and Jeremy's the founder of this listing site, so he's probably the best arbiter to discuss this with.

Seriously, it's a nice set of guidelines for new cachers....and I like the website.

Thanks for your positive comments.

Actually, it was changed from "Code" to "Creed" to make it LESS formal. When the name change was first suggested, I had the same reaction you did, but when I looked it up, I realized that the definition of "creed" was more accurate (a voluntary set of beliefs). Nothing religious about it (edit: in this context, that is).

Edited February 14, 2005 by Kai Team

9.4k · February 14, 2005

The legal issues aside, for a maintainer of geocaching.com it is difficult for me to adopt a loosely licensed (and vaguely owned) compilation or whatever you want to call it. Theoretically if I were to work with an outside organization to bless it, and as part of that arrangement I am oblgated to adjust it so it could be blessed, I could run into a quagmire of political garbage to make these adjustments. In all honesty it would be easier to write something from scratch.

So if Kai Team claims ownership or CR claims ownership or whatever, I'm going to take the path of least resistance and ultimately the one with the most freedoms. In some ways it is easier to license "Be Prepared" from the Boy Scouts since there is only one org to work with.

As for the Creative Commons license the idea of commercial usage is somewhat difficult since a commercial site, even not selling t-shirts with the creed on it, would still be using it in a "commercial use" - I guess, anyway, not being a lawyer. Groundspeak is a commercial entity which makes it uncomfortable for Groundspeak to use it too.

Granted it was developed within our TOU so most of this is probably moot, though I would prefer using and modifying this creed without a lot of negativity from the folks who contribute to it.

9.4k · February 14, 2005

I think it is bizarre for a few people to license the work of a few other people and present it as a 'creed' for all of us. Licensing said 'creed' is silly. Licensing the creed is not necessary because it is archived for all to find. I think very few people are taking the creed too seriously; I think some people are taking themselves too seriously.

I think you got your point across long ago. It's coming off as tiring on both sides.

I don't think there's anything wrong with it. If you think it is silly, so what? I run a site that manages plastic containers in the woods. Everything I do is silly.

1k · February 14, 2005

I would prefer using and modifying this creed without a lot of negativity from the folks who contribute to it.

What he said.

2.6k · February 14, 2005

I don't think there's anything wrong with it. If you think it is silly, so what? I run a site that manages plastic containers in the woods. Everything I do is silly.

If you spent your days publicly agonizing about it, I'd take great pleasure in making fun of you, too. At least until I got cut off.

3.9k · February 14, 2005

I've read though the highlights of the thread, and the question that keeps coming to my mind is why does this have to be licensed, and why put restrictions on where it can be posted?

The creed seems to be the creed that cachers have lived by since the very inception of caching. Once again I fail to see why it needs to be licensed.

Maybe someone can enlighten me?

El Diablo

1.4k · February 14, 2005

Ya know, my children and I have only 2 creeds when it comes to geocaching:

Cache In, Trash Out

and

Have fun!

Most of the stuff in this creed is just common sense stuff. There's no way to dictate common sense to some people, even if it's written down and available on the web.

Shouldn't we just stick to something simple rather than long, drawn-out and controversial?

1k · February 14, 2005

I've read though the highlights of the thread, and the question that keeps coming to my mind is why does this have to be licensed, and why put restrictions on where it can be posted?

The creed seems to be the creed that cachers have lived by since the very inception of caching. Once again I fail to see why it needs to be licensed.

Maybe someone can enlighten me?

El Diablo

With the impending removal of the non-commercialization clause, there is no restriction on where it can posted, only a requirement that the posting note the source (www.geocreed.info) and that it be posted as written.

It has to be licensed to put these two restrictions on it, the rationale for which is discussed in this post, this post, this post, this post, this post, and this post.

To summarize briefly, crediting www.geocreed.info gives a source for further information about the nature of the Creed and credit to all who contributed to its development (through links to the original development forums).

Posting it "as written" insures that changes are made through a public, collaborative process, not the whim of someone who decides they don't like some commonly accepted geocaching behavior, or someone who feels that new restrictions should be created (in the development forums, people suggested adding a number of tenets and examples - e.g. gun control - that were rejected because they were not commonly accepted geocaching norms). This restriction helps insure that the creed remains "the creed that cachers have lived by since the very inception of caching", rather than one person's opinion.

There are no other reasons to license the Creed (i.e. there's no hidden agenda).

Licensing The Geocachers Creed

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment