Subject:
|
Re: LEGOFan.net - central community run hub for all areas of the LEGO community.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org, lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:17:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
78 times
|
| |
|
|
Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> 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.
No!
Read them carefully. They do among other things say:
»Sublicense to third parties the unrestricted right to
exercise any or all of the foregoing rights granted with
respect to the communication.«
That is just the same as the sublicensing rights in for
example the BSD license.
> From your comment, it seems that all LFN content would be
> treated the same as a discussion forum.
It's all data to me. But I can reveal that we at the moment
have no plans of acting as a general free hosting facility
for any kind of LEGO-related data.
> 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).
So I must presume that you never post building instructions
to the "lugnet.cad.dat" hierarchy?
> 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.
Considering that Todd seems to be considering to publish all
the newsgroup content under an Open Source license, I would
hope so.
> 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?
Distribution under an Open Source license doesn't remove
copyright. Rather the opposite. You can't publish
something under an Open Source license without having
copyright to it (or having received it under a license that
allows you to do it).
When LEGOFan.net gets as far as to discuss redistribution of
content with BZPower.com (and other sites), we might insist
that the content is delivered under an Open Source license.
If not, we would have to write a specific license allowing
LEGOFan.net and the first-level recipients (the other
cooperating sites) to redistribute the content, but not the
second-level recipients - and wouldn't that be a bit silly
and messy?
> 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.
Yes. But as long as we spend time answering questions here,
we don't get much time to code and finish our plans (as far
as they are ever likely to be finished).
Play well,
Jacob
--
LEGO furniture:
http://jacob.sparre.dk/LEGO/By/M%F8bler/
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
