| |
All what follows is my opinion only.
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger wrote:
> Steve said:
> > > I'm not philosophically opposed to an old/new library, but it would
> > > be awkward to administer.
>
> ...
>
> And Larry said:
> > Although you can argue that people agreed to the distribution tacitly,
> > because they submitted parts via the newsgroups or via the Parts
> > Tracker...
>
> Had to look up "tacitly":
>
> in a tacit manner; by unexpressed agreement; "they are tacitly
> expected to work 10 hours a day"
>
> "I know it's a common assumption that everything posted to a newsgroup
> is public domain ... but guess what, just posting something does not
> mean you give up your copyright."
>
> (from http://www.tipz.net/sins_copyright.htm)
"just posting" to *usenet* isn't the basis I am using here. Nor am I saying that
authors "give up copyright". Let's not confuse PD with right of redistribution.
Let's not confuse giving up copyright with right of redistribution.
What I am suggesting is that by posting a part to the specific *LUGNET*
newsgroup for where parts are to be placed (which posting is already covered by
the Lugnet ToS, (mind you, not just usenet lack of any oS), in which specific
redistribution rights are claimed) the author has *granted a redistribution
right*. NOT given up copyright. It may not be exactly the redistribution right
we WANT, mind you, but it is **A** redistribution right
See point 7 of the LUGNET TOS (http://www.lugnet.com/admin/terms/agreement)
"By posting messages, uploading files, inputting data, or engaging in any other
form of communication through this service, you are granting LUGNET and its
owners a perpetual, irrevocable, royalty- free, unrestricted, non-exclusive,
worldwide license to:
(i) Use, copy, publish, sublicense, adapt, transmit, archive, restore, publicly
perform, or display any such communication in any medium, and to
(ii) Sublicense to third parties the unrestricted right to exercise any or all
of the foregoing rights granted with respect to the communication."
If LUGNET sublicenses to LDRAW (a "third party") the right to transmit archive,
use, copy etc, submitted parts, voila. note in particular the assertion of
license being granted with no claim as to assumption of copyright.
Ditto for submitting to the parts tracker, the act of uploading a file to the
website can be argued as tacitly giving redistribution rights (the purpose of
that part of site is, after all, to collect files FOR REDISTRIBUTION, it's hard
to argue that is not pretty clear to all who come there) even if the author
didn't check a particular check box.
Although the argument is weaker there... the site doesn't have such an all
encompassing ToS, it may not have had any at all when it first started. I
forget.
> I think we will be forced to drop files from the new library, until the
> authors either agree to the new license, or the parts get recreated from
> scratch. Of course, until we have some critical mass of authors
> agreeing to a license, the new library won't be of any use to anyone.
I'm coming around to the opposite view, that we actually *won't* have to drop
most of the parts (that we can't secure explicit license for) by the above
reasoning. Maybe a few are not covered by the above, but many are. A catalog or
reconstruction of what got submitted how might be in order.
Note that the above reasoning is NOT a substitute for trying to gather explicit
permission from as many authors as we can. I think it makes sense to do that
because it's rights preserving and is in the spirit we want to maintain.
But that said I think we need to be looking for ways to make things easy (while
preserving rights not granted already, and hewing to the spirit of the org)
rather than looking for difficulties. You can go off and Google for difficulties
all day long, but is that moving the org forward? I would suggest not.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: License Intent
|
| Steve said: (...) ... And Larry said: (...) Had to look up "tacitly": in a tacit manner; by unexpressed agreement; "they are tacitly expected to work 10 hours a day" And if I understand things correctly, you could argue that, but you'd be wrong :) (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
139 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
|
|
|
|
