Difference between revisions of "List of references on data licenses (Q2008)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created claim: has part (P6): Copyleft, attribution and data: other considerations (Q2908)) |
(Changed claim: has part (P6): Copyleft and data: database law as (poor) platform (Q2905)) |
||
| Property / has part: Copyleft and data: database law as (poor) platform / qualifier | |||
| + | comment: Eben Moglen has often pointed out that anyone who attacks the GPL is at a disadvantage, because if they somehow show that the license is legally invalid, then they get copyright’s “default”: which is to say, they don’t get anything. So they are forced to fight about the specific terms, rather than the validity of the license as a whole. | ||
Revision as of 23:16, 21 January 2020
No description defined
| Language | Label | Description | Also known as |
|---|---|---|---|
| English |
List of references on data licenses
|
No description defined
|
Statements
Eben Moglen has often pointed out that anyone who attacks the GPL is at a disadvantage, because if they somehow show that the license is legally invalid, then they get copyright’s “default”: which is to say, they don’t get anything. So they are forced to fight about the specific terms, rather than the validity of the license as a whole.
In contrast, in much of the world (and certainly in the US), if you show that a database license is legally invalid, then you get database’s default: which is to say, you get everything. So someone who doesn’t want to follow the copyleft has very, very strong incentives to demolish your license altogether.
0 references
it's not the same to give automated credit, even if you can technically do it
0 references
goes into motivations for the attempt at copylefting data
Unfortunately, many people have a good-faith desire to see copyleft-like results in other domains. As a result, they’ve gone the wrong way on this point.
ODbL is probably the most blatant example of this: even at the time, Science Commons correctly pointed out that ODbL’s attempt to create database rights by contract outside of the EU was a bad idea.
Unfortunately, well-intentioned people (including me!) pushed it through anyway. Similarly, open hardware proponents have tried to stretch copyright to cover functional works, with predictably messy results.
0 references
0 references
copyright-based copyleft licenses are a dead-end if the work is not copyrightable, but patent or trademark based solutions might be an option
Without copyright, the conditions baked into OSS/CC become legally meaningless. The “stick” that backs them up disappears.
Within the world of copyrightable stuff, these limitations are enforceable because failing to follow them voids the license. And without a license, the now-unauthorized sharing is a violation of the creator’s copyright.
Among other things, this has allowed to OSS/CC community to impose its ethos on people who do not care about openness. Threat of a copyright lawsuit means people and companies who just want to access the shared stuff have to play by the openness rules too.
0 references
Eben Moglen has often pointed out that anyone who attacks the GPL is at a disadvantage, because if they somehow show that the license is legally invalid, then they get copyright’s “default”: which is to say, they don’t get anything. So they are forced to fight about the specific terms, rather than the validity of the license as a whole.
0 references