graham.mullan at wotcc.org.uk
Tue May 16 12:42:07 BST 2006
| 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
| 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
| 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
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.
More information about the Cave-Surveying