Subject:
|
Re: LEGOFan.net - central community run hub for all areas of the LEGO community.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org, lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 24 Feb 2004 02:03:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4739 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> Kelly McKiernan wrote:
>
> > The courts of the US have repeatedly upheld the
> > distinction of infrastructure vs. content.
>
> Have I rejected that distinction anywhere?
Not that I've seen. However, this comment was in reply to your asking why
content was different than code, which I hadn't seen addressed elsewhere.
> > 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.
>
> Wrong. They would have to give LFN a license to distribute
> their work, just as you have given Lugnet a license to
> distribute your work, when you signed up to get posting
> rights to Lugnet.
Actually, the Lugnet T&Cs reserve Lugnet's right to redistribute all content
posted, while an open source license doesn't require anyone's permission to
copy and use. So there is some difference between the two.
From your comment, it seems that all LFN content would be treated the same
as a discussion forum. Speaking only for myself, I treat "discussion posts"
much differently than I treat other content I create. If LFN were simply a
discussion forum, the issue wouldn't be as important to me. I tend to think
of forum posts mostly as "just talking," while other content has more value
to me, which I would want to retain more control over. This includes news
articles I've written for various web sites (more below).
> > (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.)
>
> It is a _little_ bit similar (how similar depends on the
> exact license). But you have given up as many rights to
> your writings by agreeing to the rules for Lugnet, as you
> would with the most _extreme_ Open Source license, so I
> honestly can't understand your problem.
The way I see it, granting rights to Lugnet is granting it to one entity, who
then has control over what happens to that content (see above). There's a level
of trust that Lugnet won't choose to misuse the content. With an Open Source
license, that level of trust is no longer available. However, that's a side
issue.
My main concern is more about other types of content, such as news articles
(not NNTP), reference articles, or things like set data that would be
incorporated on LFN from other sources. These are generally less ephemeral
and have more intrinsic value to the creator(s) than a message in a
discussion forum. I guess what I'm really asking is, would the copyright
notice be attached to a news story originally published on BZPower, such as
"(c)2004 BZPower.com"? Or is that overruled by agreeing to be distributed by
an open source license?
Maybe I'm incorrectly assuming that this type of content from external
sources would be used on LFN, since the details regarding LFN are still
rather vague. If the "value-added" content (for lack of a better term) will
not be solicited from external sources, then this isn't an issue.
Rather than those of us in the peanut gallery continuing to make
assumptions, it would help to have more concrete information about what LFN
will actually consist of. That may help dispel a lot of inaccurate
assumptions.
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
|
|
|
|
