Subject:
|
Re: LEGOFan.net - central community run hub for all areas of the LEGO community.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org, lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 22 Feb 2004 18:24:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4724 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> Abe Friedman wrote:
>
> > > But if a developer creates a really cool module, and
> > > the LEGOFan.net system administrators are some jerks
> > > that will not put his module into the central site, he
> > > has all the code and data needed to set up a competing
> > > and (due to his new module) much cooler site.
>
> > It sounds like anyone can take the entire contents of
> > LEGOFan.net and create their own version.
>
> That's also exactly what I wrote.
>
> > This doesn't sound right to me.
>
> Why? It will really push the group operating LEGOFan.net
> to keep doing their best. Isn't that good?
>
> > I understand that the server side code to display the
> > contents of the site will be open source. Yes, I can
> > download a copy of that and run it on my server. The
> > content, on the other hand, is a different matter.
>
> Why?
The courts of the US have repeatedly upheld the distinction of infrastructure
vs. content. For example, spammers using an ISP to send millions of
non-solicited emails are liable for their actions, while the ISP is not (unless
the ISP knowingly breaks a law). Another example is a web site that hosts music
files for download without appropriate persmission; the web site (content)
creator/owner is the one who is liable for having broken any applicable laws,
not the host (e.g. AOL - again, as long as the ISP hasn't knowingly broken a
law).
Both of these are negative examples, but they do serve to illustrate the fact
that the person who creates the content has both rights and responsibilities for
that content. From the messages I've seen here, the person who would provide
content (e.g. non-code) to LFN is essentially giving away their copyright on
their work. I can't speak for anyone else about this, but as a writer I'd be
reluctant to give up my copyright on anything I create. (Granting an open source
license to content isn't precisely "giving it up" but it's the next thing to it,
from a copyright standpoint.)
I'm kind of surprised LEGO would make exceptions from their "Fair Use" policy to
allow their content to be distributed under an Open Source licensing agreement,
but then again, stranger things have happened.
Regards,
Kelly
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
208 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
