@Rudy
Has someone pointed you at ODbL (Open Database License via the Open Data
Commons) yet?
http://opendatacommons.org/
http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/
I believe that OSM switched to this and it might do what you want it to do
for the data part. If all of your hosted data
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Rudy Lippan wrote:
So what I would like to do is tie the license of the software to the user
of the software respecting the licenses of the community-distributed components
they use, whether or not the individual component is eligible for copyright
protection.
You can't have a licence unless
On 10/06/2011 12:50 PM, Rudy Lippan wrote:
There will also be a community aspect where individuals will
develop and contribute components, just like every other open source
project However, some of the contributed components may not be
eligible for copyright protections. A component
Rudy Lippan scripsit:
So what I would like to do is tie the license of the software
to the user of the software respecting the licenses of the
community-distributed components they use, whether or not the
individual component is eligible for copyright protection.
I would just ignore the
Rudy Lippan wrote:
So what I would like to do is tie the license of the software to the user
of the software respecting the licenses of the community-distributed
components
they use, whether or not the individual component is eligible for copyright
protection.
You can't have a
Rudy Lippan scripsit:
There may not be intellectual property in the components; however,
there is work involved in their creation.
That doesn't matter to the law. It takes a lot of work to alphabetize
a list of millions of names, but the result is not in copyright in the
U.S.; it is in the
Rudy Lippan wrote:
There may not be intellectual property in the components; however, there is work
involved in their creation. As such, I think it would be fair to be able to
attribute the creator some level of control over the use use of the product.
License may be the wrong term here, but
John Cowan wrote:
You can't restrict how people use copyrighted works by reason of the
copyright alone: you can only control how they copy, distribute, or
modify them.
I believe that may be true in the USA. Running a computer program is
restricted under UK copyright law.
--
David
On 10/06/2011 12:50 PM, Rudy Lippan wrote:
There will also be a community aspect where individuals will
develop and contribute components, just like every other open source
project However, some of the contributed components may not be
eligible for copyright protections. A
Rudy Lippan scripsit:
I give you free use of a copy machine, but state that as a condition
of use, you can't copy any of the books on shelf #3, even though a) I
don't own the books and b) they are in the public domain.
You can do that because you own the copy machine. But if a book is
Rudy Lippan scripsit:
But if I own the the software (copy machine), could I state that as a
condition of my allowing you to use the software that you will read the
requirements(title page) of the components (books) and agree to abide by
what it says before using it with the software (making
David Woolley scripsit:
I believe that may be true in the USA. Running a computer program is
restricted under UK copyright law.
Technically it is copying in the U.S. too, but there is an automatic license
to do such copying, as long as your possession of the software is lawful.
--
John
On Thursday, October 06, 2011 at 05:59:45 PM, John Cowan wrote:
Rudy Lippan scripsit:
But if I own the the software (copy machine), could I state that as a
condition of my allowing you to use the software that you will read the
requirements(title page) of the components (books) and
On Thursday, October 06, 2011 at 05:06:58 PM, David Woolley wrote:
Rudy Lippan wrote:
There may not be intellectual property in the components; however, there is
work
involved in their creation. As such, I think it would be fair to be able to
attribute the creator some level of
21 matches
Mail list logo
