[od-discuss] Schema for open licenses - prototype

Sat Jun 30 00:35:34 UTC 2012

Okay, understood.  Makes sense.  At some point I would be interested in
hearing your thoughts about how this could be addressed through policy.

So, if none of the licenses offer any real protection to developers, in
terms of liability, then I guess it comes down to what one feels most
comfortable with at this point.

Thanks for the clarification Kent.

Herb

On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Kent Mewhort <kmewhort at cippic.ca> wrote:

> >
> > So, am I right in my new understanding that there are no
> > (non-obsolete) licenses that deal with rights clearing?
> >
> > i.e. whenever I use open data, under any current license, I
> > risk infringing on copyrights of 3rd parties that I am unaware of.
> >  So, there is always the chance that someone might crawl out of the
> > woodwork later claiming that I am infringing.
> Yes, this is correct, at least under the terms of all the common open
> licenses that I'm familiar with.  It's "buyer beware" for any 3rd party
> copyrights.
>
> These risks of 3rd party infringements aren't unique to the open world
> though.  Foremost, liability for innocent infringements is a major issue
> in the context of websites.  For example, I might contract out the
> development of my website development.  The web developer might use a
> copyrighted image without a license, unbeknownst to me.  I'll still be
> on the hook for infringement (unless I made sure that my contract
> included a warranty of noninfringement, or least didn't disclaim
> warranties such that I can try to argue for an implied warranty -- but
> this often not the case, or, if it is, the warranty can be difficult to
> enforce if I contracted overseas).
>
> In fact, copyright trolls often make it a cornerstone of their
> businesses to look for and pursue damages or settlements from just these
> types of innocent infringements.
>
> IMO, the solution lies with policy changes, not making the licensor take
> on additional liabilities here.  The problem is with copyright law, not
> the allocation of risk.  There should be only very low stat damages, or
> no stat damages at all, available for innocent infringements (noting
> that, in many, if not most cases of open data use, the actual damages
> are low).  This way, if the licensor is being negligent about clearing
> rights, the copyright owners can still go after the original licensor,
> but just not the innocent bystander.
>

-- 
Herb Lainchbury
Dynamic Solutions Inc.
www.dynamic-solutions.com
http://twitter.com/herblainchbury
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20120629/f29030bf/attachment-0001.html>