On 06/09/2013 08:30 PM, Mark Janssen wrote: >> Can you provide any citations for your interpretation? Besides "that's >> what the law should be", I mean. > > I don't think I even have to: the legal code you're citing above is > not very clear, consistent, or well-defined at all. As such, it shows > that this area remains an area that has yet to be worked out by all > parties involved. I would happily volunteer for any interested > parties to such a broken system. Alternatively, I've been working on > a real fix to IP protections in the form of a unified data model for > the internet and data ecosystem.
Except that's now how law works in the US. All laws are unclear, inconsistent or ill-defined. Many laws even contradict existing laws. That's why there's a long history and tradition (for good or ill) of courts establishing case law to clarify and codify the implementation of law, and to resolve incompatibilities and consistencies. So while your views may be logical to you, and even common sense, unless case law backs you up, your opinions are irrelevant to the actual implementation of copyright law. As much as many of us are open source or even free software advocates, we do have to live within the copyright law currently, and use (or exploit) it to our benefit and to preserve our rights. Meaning if I as a developer produce code, and if I wish this code to be of use to others while still protecting my own rights under copyright law, I have to adopt a suitable distribution license. And if I use existing code that is already under license, I have to take that into consideration. It's not fair use. It's code license. That is why this issue does matter, and why the original poster asked his questions in the first place. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
