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 control over the use use of the product. > > License may be the wrong term here, but the idea is the same. > > > > That's why the UK recognizes database copyrights. However, if no such
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. > statute applies, you must create a contract with every transfer or copy > of the components, and as part of that contract, require the receiving > party to treat them as confidential. I'm not sure that is compatible > with open source. 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. * know or have reason to believe that the data set originated or was derived from a munger network data source. + or any similar network that puts restrictions on the use of such databases. $ or network from which the original databases originated -r _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
