Copyright

[Andrew Atkinson]

The other way to protect things is to make them long and contain so little
information that know one can be bothered to copy or extract the
information. (I believe that they use this tactic as a secondary
protection to patents)

Got no idea what brought this tactic to mind

AndrewA

> On Tuesday 2006-05-16 12:42, GRAHAM MULLAN wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> That is why I suggested that the dispute arose because of wanting to
> overprotect !! Precisely my point.
>
>> I do not
>> know what Ed's reason for withholding his consent might have been, but
>> then
>> neither does Andy.
>
> I didn't suggest that I did. Merely that this sort of dispute only arises
> because people are, for whatever reason, overprotective of IP. Now that Ed
> has told us his reasons (which I won't quote at length here) I would still
> suggest that a Creative Commons licence would have been appropriate, with
> an Attribution-non-commercial-sharealike version seeming most appropriate.
> With a CC licence, you have a large community behind you when you
> complain,
> and this is a force that reputable publishers (and even printers, for
> books
> privately published) won't want to come into conflict with.
>
> It's clear that in the gift economy that characterises free software and
> creative commons work, Luck Walschot has thrown away the most valuable
> commodity of all - reputation. He is now morally impoverished and a
> pariah in the circles that should matter. He has very little left to
> live for and may as well give up and kill himself - what further external
> action is required ?
>
> Andy
>
> --
> Cave-Surveying http://lists.survex.com/mailman/listinfo/cave-surveying
>
>