[License-discuss] Looking for a license agreement.

[Rudy Lippan]

On Friday, October 07, 2011 at 10:30:12 AM, Chad Perrin wrote:
> 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

Perhaps a little off-topic.

> 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

I don't. But I do realize that there can be a great deal of work involved in 
compiling a data set.  That is why I said that it is tough, and I don't know if
I have an answer for the general case.   But getting back on-topic:

What I am looking for is more of a compromise.  If you use this software, you
have to respect the wishes of the of the people who write plugins/configurations
for it whether or not they enjoy real honest-to-god legal protections.  In other
words a "play nice", "play fair", or "Don't pee in the pool" license.

But I gather, form what I have seen so far, that there is much interest in this
sort of thing.  I still think something like this might be nice for fostering micro-
contributions (possibly appealing to a non-programmer community)....


> 
> > 
> > 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.
> 

The other project would be an attempt bring the idea of the GPL to data mining
by providing a framework for collection, aggregating and re-distributing. But
this would only be a framework, so I don't think a TOS would be the correct
instrument. I have slides from a talk I did somewhere, but now I think we are
getting off topic....


-r