No licence granted: Difference between revisions

No licence granted (view source)

Revision as of 11:25, 31 July 2020

12 bytes added , 31 July 2020

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

81,695

edits

Revision as of 11:25, 31 July 2020 (view source) Amwelladmin (talk \| contribs) (Created page with "{{a\|confi\|}}A classic part of overreach, confusing the contractual obligation of ''confidentiality'' with the intellectual property concepts of ''ownership''. Conf...")		Revision as of 11:25, 31 July 2020 (view source) Amwelladmin (talk \| contribs) No edit summary Newer edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~a\|confi~~\|}}A classic part of overreach, confusing the contractual obligation of ''[[confidentiality]]'' with the [[intellectual property]] concepts of ''[[ownership]]''. Confidentiality agreements are not about ownership. They’re about keeping ''shtum''.		{{confianat\|no licence}}A classic part of overreach, confusing the contractual obligation of ''[[confidentiality]]'' with the [[intellectual property]] concepts of ''[[ownership]]''. Confidentiality agreements are not about ownership. They’re about keeping ''shtum''.

	so firstly, in giving information to a counterparty under a [[confi]], you ''are'' licensing them to use the information for the {{confiprov\|purpose}} — to the extent that you’re even ''entitled '' to do that, of course, and that is ''your'' problem, not the receiving party’s — and there’s not really anything to be gained by denying that fact. Secondly, in giving information under a [[confi]], as thefg foregoing implies, you are not necessarily the owner of the confidential information yourself — ''you'' may be a licensee of someone else’s proprietary information, and indeed the information may not be owned, or even capable of being owned, by anyone. Raw data is not susceptible of copyright.		so firstly, in giving information to a counterparty under a [[confi]], you ''are'' licensing them to use the information for the {{confiprov\|purpose}} — to the extent that you’re even ''entitled '' to do that, of course, and that is ''your'' problem, not the receiving party’s — and there’s not really anything to be gained by denying that fact. Secondly, in giving information under a [[confi]], as thefg foregoing implies, you are not necessarily the owner of the confidential information yourself — ''you'' may be a licensee of someone else’s proprietary information, and indeed the information may not be owned, or even capable of being owned, by anyone. Raw data is not susceptible of copyright.