Eric Jarvies Sent from my iPad
On Aug 29, 2010, at 3:10 AM, "jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com" <jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Francis Davey <fjm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 29 August 2010 00:40, Nic Roets <nro...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Mike, my understanding (and I think Grant will agree) is that copyleft is an >>> idea: I publish something in such a way that coerce others into sharing >>> their work with me. The implementation details of that idea (copyright law, >>> contract law, unenforceable moral clauses etc) is left to the lawyers and >>> the managers. > >> As follows: if X uses your data under a contract with you that >> requires use in a particular way (eg to mimic something like the GPL) >> and X, in breach of that agreement, passes data to Y then barring >> certain special circumstances (such as X and Y colluding) it will be >> virtually impossible to prevent Y from using the data in any way they >> please. > > unless the work is copyrighted or copylefted as well. What right does > Y have to the data to begin with? under copyright law, he has no > rights. Y has everything to do with the data, in the context explained above. The point is; it is already difficult(and expensive, time consuming) to defend rights on said data, it will become even moreso. > >> Of course if there's an IP right as well Y might be breaching that, >> but then you wouldn't need to use the contract, only a licence. > > yes, i think i see what you are saying: > the license will be the only protection against third party abuse. > I think that copyleft is good enough. > > mike > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk