Re: License for GroupsNearYou

Le vendredi 7 mars 2008, Jordan Hatcher's lists a écrit :
> On 6 Mar 2008, at 07:10, Philippe Aigrain wrote:
> > For pure data, the term license (in the sense of using a right to
> > restrict
> > usage - IP title for instance - to create a commons) is not adapted.
>
> I'm assuming you mean factual information when you say "pure data".
> I agree that if there is no underlying property right, then it would
> not be accurate to call this a licence. However, for a database,
> there can very likely be copyright in some aspect of it, and so
> saying "licence" is accurate. This can be true even if it is a
> database of wholly factual information not protected by copyright in
> the particular legal system, as their could be copyright over
> different aspects of the database.
OK, but one should be cautious not to create a spillover of rights from one 
(the copyrighted aspects) on the other (the pure data).

[...]
> I don't think that there is a problem with using database rights in
> the EU for open licences -- if you don't address them then people
> don't have permission to use the data/database and so that defeats
> the purpose of having an open licence.  You can address them but
> waive or fully license them, or you can use them as a part of the
> approach for the license to the problem by using them to restrict (BY-
> SA for example) what happens with data apart from the database.
>
> FYI, database rights and database copyright are not mutually
> exclusive, and it is not merely collections of data that get the
> rights -- there has to be a database.
I understand your point and it is legally sound. Hovever, I am at the same