Not A Good Faith Error Or License Proliferation Problem
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dcparris Mar 17, 2006 7:28 PM EDT |
I have to disagree that this was a good faith error. As the court found, a professional publication has a responsibility to perform "due dilligence". The misleading notice is not an excuse. This was a case of blatantly ignoring their responsibility. It would have been all to easy for them to have just paid more attention to the information on the web page. It would have been far less costly as well. I also disagree that this has anything at all to do with proliferation or variations of FOSS licenses. The publication would be required to perform due dilligence in any case. Additionally, given that many people view 'content' as being somewhat different from software, the Creative Commons licenses are an invaluable contribution to society. For example, if I were writing a novel, I would release it under a CC license that allows modification. The same goes for a manual. However, "Penguin in the Pew" is not modifiable because I present arguments. In my view, shared by others, arguments of this nature are not modifiable. I'm sure that some might prefer to allow their arguments (or theses or apologies) to be modified. However, I do not. Most FOSS licenses do not offer that option. The Creative Commons licenses do. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!