Re: [License-discuss] Looking for a license agreement.
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
Re: [License-discuss] Looking for a license agreement.
Chad Perrin wrote: 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. Database copyrights are not like patents. As long as you obtain the fact independently, you can publish them. Telephone directories and maps have bogus entries to help detect whether a competing compilation is truly independent. -- David Woolley Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want. RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam, that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Looking for a license agreement.
David Woolley scripsit: Database copyrights are not like patents. As long as you obtain the fact independently, you can publish them. Telephone directories and maps have bogus entries to help detect whether a competing compilation is truly independent. Maps, I hasten to say, are copyrightable in the U.S., although facts in the maps (like London is in England) and about the maps (Anytown USA is in grid square N1 on such-and-such a map) are not. The map itself, however, requires the selection of which facts to present and the choice of a manner of presentation, and as such is more than creative enough to be an object of copyright. -- La mayyitan ma qadirun yatabaqqa sarmadiJohn Cowan Fa idha yaji' al-shudhdhadh fa-l-maut qad yantahi. co...@ccil.org --Abdullah al-Hazred, Al-`Azif http://www.ccil.org/~cowan ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Looking for a license agreement.
John Cowan wrote: David Woolley scripsit: Database copyrights are not like patents. As long as you obtain the fact independently, you can publish them. Telephone directories and maps have bogus entries to help detect whether a competing compilation is truly independent. Maps, I hasten to say, are copyrightable in the U.S., although facts in the maps (like London is in England) and about the maps (Anytown USA is in grid square N1 on such-and-such a map) are not. The map itself, however, requires the selection of which facts to present and the choice of a manner of presentation, and as such is more than creative enough to be an object of copyright. Rather worrying and rather relevant to this, thread, an American company is suing the (American) individual who maintains the timezone data used in Linux and other open source and proprietary software, for alleged infringement of their copyright on the historic timezone data, which they allege that he has copied from their publication and has attributed that publication as source. http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/10/06/1743226/civil-suit-filed-involving-the-time-zone-database -- David Woolley Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want. RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam, that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Looking for a license agreement.
On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 04:09:24PM +0100, David Woolley wrote: Chad Perrin wrote: 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. Database copyrights are not like patents. As long as you obtain the fact independently, you can publish them. Telephone directories and maps have bogus entries to help detect whether a competing compilation is truly independent. The very existence of a copyright is a threat to others who deal in the material, because of the potential for expensive litigation regardless of the expected outcome if all parties are able to see it through to judgment. In the real world, the legal system is a bit more of a problem than the letter of the law might suggest. That, at least, is what I have observed. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpVWC851zjBS.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Looking for a license agreement.
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 8:09 AM, David Woolley for...@david-woolley.me.uk wrote: Chad Perrin wrote: 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. Database copyrights are not like patents. As long as you obtain the fact independently, you can publish them. Telephone directories and maps have bogus entries to help detect whether a competing compilation is truly independent. Darn it! I was still hoping to get my copy of Flags Up! by Lillian Mountweazel. Best Wishes, Chris Travers ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Looking for a license agreement.
Quoting David Woolley (for...@david-woolley.me.uk): Rather worrying and rather relevant to this, thread, an American company is suing the (American) individual who maintains the timezone data used in Linux and other open source and proprietary software, for alleged infringement of their copyright on the historic timezone data, which they allege that he has copied from their publication and has attributed that publication as source. Nothing in the blue-sky, vague notions[1] discussed upthread could possibly avert utterly baseless ab-initio civil litigation by a deluded plaintiff for non-existent infringement of non-existent copyrights supposedly committed by fully credited reuse of strictly functional facts over the 30-year period. Because filing requires only a fee, a half-baked idea, and some paperwork. So, prevention is out. Deterrence on the other hand exists: Rule 11(b), Federal Rules of Evidence. http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule11.htm I hope defence in this case files immediately for sanctions under Rule 11(b). [1] My opinion, yours for a small fee and a modest patent indemnity. -- Rick Moen So as not to offend readers, use r...@linuxmafia.com'the N-word' instead of 'Nebraska'. McQ! (4x80)-- FakeAPStylebook ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
