On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 01:13:26AM -0400, Rudy Lippan wrote: > > That is a tough one for me. I don't think that a list factual data itself is > deserving of copyright protections esp. when the data cannot be recreated by > someone else.
This may be a touch off-topic for this list, but . . . why would you want to grant someone the ability to prohibit others from using *facts* by the simple expedient of (for instance) alphabetizing a list of facts? That's insane. In a time when even the ability to maintain a monopoly over things that have been *created* is becoming controversial, someone asserting a monopoly over information that has been *found* seems quite regressive and, frankly, harmful. > > Do you think that it would be compatible with open source for super- > data-munger(TM) 1.3 to say, "if you download* databases form the munger > network(TM)+ > and use super-data-munger to process the data, you must re-release the > product > of your munging along with your munger ruleset(TM) to the munger$ network?" > > I ask because this is related to another project with which I am involved. That seems to me like a Terms of Service issue. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
pgpd0CeKWyN6F.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
