Copyright

[GRAHAM MULLAN]

Andy wrote:

| This dispute seems to be the result of wanting to overprotect your work.
| Had you published the work under a creative commons license, or something
| similar, there would have far less to fight over. Copyright would still
| exist, of course, and such a licence would oblige (to the extent that was
| possible without spending money on lawyers) your offender to publish his
| book under a similar licence. Or, of course, you could take it as read 
that
| he had done so and use his work freely. Any protest on his part would be
| refuted by noting that he had used your work which had been published 
under
| an explicit licence. You would need to be a bit careful about using work
| he had stolen from third parties...
|
Surely the nonsensical nature of this post is epitomised in the last 
sentence given that "he" had actually stolen Ed Stevenhagen's work in the 
first place?

What Andy appears to be missing is that Ed had previously stated that he 
would have refused permission for this work to be used by this person in 
this way had he been asked. All that the type of licensing that Andy 
suggests would have done is to have granted that permission anyway. I do not 
know what Ed's reason for withholding his consent might have been, but then 
neither does Andy.

Graham Mullan