cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses
List archive
Re: Licenses for XML Schemas and the content of associatedXMLdocuments
- From: "Greg London" <email AT greglondon.com>
- To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts" <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: Licenses for XML Schemas and the content of associatedXMLdocuments
- Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 09:41:36 -0500 (EST)
Steven Ericsson-Zenith said:
> J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote ..
>> Steven Ericsson-Zenith wrote:
>> > An open source license also licenses the use of intellectual property
>> > - not only the copyright of the source. Copyright pertains only to
>> > the substantive document it is applied to - not the intellectaul
>> > property within. Or am I mistaken ?
>>
>> I think you are mistaken, but more on the use of a concept that has no
>> meaning. "Intellectual property" is not a real subject, thus no
>> substantive questions can be asked about it and one cannot answer the
>> question you have asked except to point out that the question makes no
>> sense.
>
> That's very funny - since I have spent a good deal of my career developing
> "Intellectual Property" for myself and others. In addition, I have spent
> much
> of that time asking substantive questions about it. Be that as it may ...
Steven,
Here's your prior message:
:: An open source license also licenses the use of intellectual property -
:: not only the copyright of the source. Copyright pertains only to the
:: substantive document it is applied to - not the intellectaul property
:: within. Or am I mistaken ?
Your choice of language suggests that (1) you are overcomplicating
the issue with concepts that have no legal meaning or (2) you don't
understand the law and are making stuff up or (3) you understand it
perfectly but communicate it poorly.
JB's assessment is accurate in pointing to a problem on your part,
be it point 1, 2, or 3 above.
Put simply, you're question cannot be answered because it cannot be parsed.
Whether it is a typo or a bad choice of verbage or that you don't understand
the concepts is impossible to know. But the short of it is your question,
as it stands, doesn't make sense.
Getting indignant towards the people who donate their time for free here,
insisting that you know what you are talking about while demanding someone
answer your question will only guarantee that your question remain unanswered.
I suggest you try a fresh start, reword your question, and perhaps
someone can answer it for you.
-
Re: Licenses for XML Schemas and the content of associated XMLdocuments,
Steven Ericsson-Zenith, 02/01/2005
-
Re: Licenses for XML Schemas and the content of associated XMLdocuments,
J.B. Nicholson-Owens, 02/01/2005
-
Re: Licenses for XML Schemas and the content of associatedXMLdocuments,
Steven Ericsson-Zenith, 02/01/2005
-
Re: Licenses for XML Schemas and the content of associatedXMLdocuments,
Greg London, 02/01/2005
-
Re: Licenses for XML Schemas and the content of associatedXMLdocuments,
Steven Ericsson-Zenith, 02/01/2005
-
Re: Licenses for XML Schemas and the content of associatedXMLdocuments,
Greg London, 02/01/2005
- Re: Licenses for XML Schemas and the content of associatedXMLdocuments, Steven Ericsson-Zenith, 02/01/2005
-
Re: Licenses for XML Schemas and the content of associatedXMLdocuments,
Greg London, 02/01/2005
-
Re: Licenses for XML Schemas and the content of associatedXMLdocuments,
Steven Ericsson-Zenith, 02/01/2005
-
Re: Licenses for XML Schemas and the content of associatedXMLdocuments,
Greg London, 02/01/2005
-
Re: Licenses for XML Schemas and the content of associatedXMLdocuments,
Steven Ericsson-Zenith, 02/01/2005
-
Re: Licenses for XML Schemas and the content of associated XMLdocuments,
J.B. Nicholson-Owens, 02/01/2005
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.