Difference between revisions of "List of references on data licenses (Q2008)"

From Wikibase Personal data
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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
    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