[License-discuss] Looking for a license agreement.

Chad Perrin perrin at apotheon.com
Fri Oct 7 14:30:12 UTC 2011

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 ]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20111007/4dec859a/attachment.sig>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list