What do you think about the transcopyright license?

Hi all!

  1. Recently, I was investigating - or rather, researching how the web was made.
  2. I read hundreds of scientific articles, researched a lot about internet protocols like tcp/ip and other protocols like ftp/ssh - as well as I went deeper to understand standardizations on the internet… I googled some specs by what they call RFC
  3. About that, what caught my attention was the first browsers… mostly mosaic and old things like internet explorer and some older versions of browsers…
  4. I did so much research that I found a researcher who created the concept of hypertext.
  5. I found what you call the first “www” which was the Xanadu project. So… What caught my attention was this license: “transcopyright” … a question, can this license be associated with open source projects?


Transcopyright is a copyright license intended to legitimize remix, "mashup," anthologies, and many other ways of combining content-- in any amount and in any combination.
The transcopyright license permits all parties to republish content indirectly, meaning that the new publisher doesn't send out the content, but rather the addresses of the content.

Transcopyright is intended make mixing of content from all sources legal and easy, unlike evil and deceptive "sharealike" licenses, which do not allow combining with any other content but their own exact type.

The transcopyright license has several important properties which are not explicit in the license itself--

•  attribution is automatic
•  mixing of content from many sources is permitted
•  content remains attached to its original source
• the original context of every portion may be reached directly, if the user wants to see or hear more of the original, by further downloading
•  publishers of original content are free to require payment, or not-- paid sale of content is possible and legitimate, and may be exact
• distribution by EDL (edit decision list method) of content is expected
Conventional licenses, such as the Creative Commons licensing suite, are for lump files.  The transcopyright license is intended for content distributed as lists to be fulfilled (EDLs, or edit decision lists).  For effectiveness, the content must be unchanging source content, especially text, pictures, audio and video.
The transcopyright license contains  two provisions, one for a downloader and one for a republisher, but since any party may be either a downloader or republisher, the two parts are stated as one license.

We regret using the pronoun "they" in the singular, as is now fashionable, but it seems the best current phrasing.

(version of November 22, 2016)
Any party in the universe may DOWNLOAD AND KEEP this content in any amount, provided that
• they obtain it from my designated server
• they retain it in a form connected to my designated server

Any party in the universe may REPUBLISH this content in any new context and any amount, provided that
• they republish only by giving the on-line addresses of the content on my designated server, for example by edit decision list (EDL).

More question

  1. So… Imagining that each person makes a pull request, in which case would I pay for the code snippet for author?
  2. Why doesn’t opensource.org add this license as open source?
  3. As I understand the license, you get a recurring payment for the assembled document… would that be similar to the software?


  1. If anyone gives feedback, I would be happy.
  2. I don’t want to promote anything, I just want to know if this license can be considered open source
  3. I’m not aware of the implications of the logo property, I’m just for legal use or for open source and if this would be used for open source


Just curious - how many years did that take?


It has nothing to do with open source. It’s maybe slightly better than the aforementioned sharealike licenses. That’s it.

Open Source Software is much broader, much more permissive, much more free.

The license you display is basically just saying, that it’s the same shit as the traditional copyright, but you are allowed to mix it with other software that has thing license attributed to it. That’s it.
That’s not even remotely close to open source. It’s not even open. It’s nothing. It’s as closed source, as any other proprietary distribution, except you are allowed to mix them.

For effectiveness, the content must be unchanging source content, especially text, pictures, audio and video.

This quote from the text pretty much defeats the whole purpose. If you may not change anything, it’s already not open source. Even worse, it does not seem to promote at least available source, while this would already be too restricted, anyway.

Well, long story short, this license is garbage.

It’s a proprietary license, if I understand correctly, but allows mixing of software, which have this license or a more permissive one. That’s it.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice.


thank you for feedback