Re: Not copyrighting facts (RE: copyrighting FACTS???)

["Heather Morrison" <hmorrison@ola.bc.ca>]

The phrase "information is instrinsically free" may paint with too broad a
brush, as "information" can be interpreted in so many ways.  However, if
we subsitute "information" with "ideas and facts", then we have a concept
that I think is fairly close to many current copyright laws, not that I'm
an expert on these!

Another good point Seth makes is that we seem sometimes to be focussing on
controlling the new technology, when it might make more sense in the long
run to embrace its potential.

For example, I would like to submit the idea that a freely available
listserv like Liblicense is a tremendous advance in scholarly
communications.  Even if not all the posts have the quality of a
peer-reviewed journal (although one could argue that a fair bit of open
peer review does occur), in my opinion they have helped many people,
including me, to understand this complex and important area of human
endeavour, in a more timely fashion than could have occurred with the more
traditional approach to scholarly communications.

my two bits,

Heather Grace Morrison

liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu writes:
>All I can say is that I very much hope Mr Johnson's opinion is not typical
>of liblicense readers!
>
>Charles
>
>Professor Charles Oppenheim
>Loughborough University