On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 03:39:17PM -0600, Ross Werner wrote: > On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, Michael Halcrow wrote: > >On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 10:56:41PM -0600, stuporglue wrote: > >>The Book of Mormon: http://wikisource.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Mormon > > > >The part that concerns me is at the bottom: > > > >``Content is available under GNU Free Documentation License.'' > > > >Ummmmm... most of that content IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. You can't > >apply a license to something without a copyright. Are these people > >trying to claim copyright over the Book of Mormon text that fell > >into the public domain decades ago, and then trying to impose a set > >of restrictions on that text (i.e., derivative works must fall > >under the same conditions, license statement must accompany copies, > >etc.)? > > That's perfectly legal. I can take something that's in the public > domain, publish it myself, and claim copyright on that text, calling > it a "derivative work". Now nobody can take the work that *I* > published and distribute it unless they follow my license > restrictions.
You've just opened up a can of worms regarding the distinction between information and the instantiation of information. At exactly what point does your representation of the information constitute a ``derivative work''? It's one of the reasons why copyright has become a fundamentally flawed concept. Mike
pgp6rJXtQVI12.pgp
Description: PGP signature
____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
