On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Francis Davey <fjm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 29 August 2010 00:40, Nic Roets <nro...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Mike, my understanding (and I think Grant will agree) is that copyleft is an >> idea: I publish something in such a way that coerce others into sharing >> their work with me. The implementation details of that idea (copyright law, >> contract law, unenforceable moral clauses etc) is left to the lawyers and >> the managers.
> As follows: if X uses your data under a contract with you that > requires use in a particular way (eg to mimic something like the GPL) > and X, in breach of that agreement, passes data to Y then barring > certain special circumstances (such as X and Y colluding) it will be > virtually impossible to prevent Y from using the data in any way they > please. unless the work is copyrighted or copylefted as well. What right does Y have to the data to begin with? under copyright law, he has no rights. > Of course if there's an IP right as well Y might be breaching that, > but then you wouldn't need to use the contract, only a licence. yes, i think i see what you are saying: the license will be the only protection against third party abuse. I think that copyleft is good enough. mike _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
