I think this may have a bearing on the copyright aspects of Webwise and would appreciate it if our resident copyright experts could give it a browse and comment.
Legal milestone for open source
I think it may have a bearing on the Emma Sanderson "If it's on the internet there is an implied consent to copy" argument.
It relates to the licencing and commercial exploitation of open source software, and material in the public domaiin. It's a US case but that is still significant to Webwise issues in relation to Websites.
I rather like this quote: (my emphasis with bolds)
The ruling has implications for the Creative Commons licence which offers ways for work to go into the public domain and still be protected. These licenses are widely used by academic organisations like MIT for distributing coursework, scientific groups, artists, movie makers and Wikipedia among others.
Creative Commons filed an amicus or friends brief on behalf of Mr Jacobsen. Its general counsel Diane Peters told BBC News "The federal court recognised that even though licensors give up some rights it doesn't mean they have any less rights to access the remedies our law provides.
"This opinion demonstrates a strong understanding of a basic economic principle of the internet; that even though money doesn't change hands, attribution is a valuable economic right in the information economy."
It seems to me that my website content may be freely available but if Kent Ertugrul or Emma Sanderson want to make copies of it, make derivative works based on it, and gain commercially from it, they need my active, explicit informed consent. And if I have put a copyright notice on my site, they are bound by it, EVEN IF THE WORK IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.
They have previously denied this point. Does anyone think this US ruling may dent their confidence?