Re: Using NASA Imagery
* Don Armstrong d...@debian.org [090117 20:01]: On Sat, 17 Jan 2009, Miriam Ruiz wrote: Does anyone know if NASA conditions [1] are DFSG-free? According to what's written there, it seems to me that they're public domain (NASA still images; audio files; video; and computer files used in the rendition of 3-dimensional models, such as texture maps and polygon data in any format, generally are not copyrighted.), but I want to make sure. Because NASA as a US government agency can't copyright things it produces directly, they're usually DFSG free. (It's the equivalent of public domain in the US.) [Specific examples of work are needed to figure out whether that's the case in a specific instance.] I know this is general accepted knowledge, but has anyone ever asked a layer knowledgable in international copyright law about it? It is sure public domain in the US, but I see no reason why it should be public domain outside. From what I have read the US goverment holds the copyright outside the US and the only way it could be public domain in other countries is that either US explicitly waives it rights even in other countries (which I think it does not) or other countries' law making it public domain. As other countries usually do not have a section stating things made for the US government are public domain, the only argument I've found is that most countries have some reciprocity for copyright of foreign subjects. But trying to understand the German law text (as some example, as I hope to understand that best), I think it says copyright of foreigners is protected if their country would protect the copyright of locals, and then applies the local rules of what is copyrightable and makes no exception for things that would not have been protectable abroad. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Yet another list statistics for debian-legal
Andreas Tille ti...@ravel.debian.org wrote: --- start of mailing list specific part -- http://people.debian.org/~tille/liststats/authorstat_legal.pdf The quite often observed wave-shaped pattern and only a view activists left to discuss legal problems. I don't understand what that is trying to say. Analysis by number of posts by year highlights people who make frequent small contributions to the mailing list over many months. Calling such people activists (if that's what the above means) is inaccurate: I suggest that an activist posting pattern would be proportional to the total traffic volume because activists send long emails commenting on everything, whether on-topic or not (a mistake I made when I first subscribed to participate in the FDL discussions). I suspect analysis by month and by volume would be more illuminating. I took a look at the code, but there's not much explanation. Is it possible to add volumes in an easy way? Thanks, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Which license am I looking for?
I have a small software project which I intend to release soon. I have already looked at several free (or, in some cases, claimed to be free) licenses, but I have not found one which I found convincing. What I am looking for: - Copyleft with source requirement, but should not contaminate other software. - No additional burden on anyone. In particular no requirements for derivatives to advertize, to not advertize, to follow some naming convention, or to convey source code at runtime. - No distinction between programs, libraries, images, scripts, documentation, or whatever. Formulations should equally apply to all sorts of software. The only distinction should be source vs. non-source. - Oh, and of course it should be DFSG-free. Also, I am very sceptical about patent retaliation clauses. I apologize for this question being off-topic until someone packages my software for Debian. If there is a better place to get an answer, please tell me. Best regards, Mark Weyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
Hello, On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:49:35 +0100, Mark Weyer wrote: What I am looking for: - Copyleft with source requirement, but should not contaminate other software. - No additional burden on anyone. In particular no requirements for derivatives to advertize, to not advertize, to follow some naming convention, or to convey source code at runtime. - No distinction between programs, libraries, images, scripts, documentation, or whatever. Formulations should equally apply to all sorts of software. The only distinction should be source vs. non-source. - Oh, and of course it should be DFSG-free. Also, I am very sceptical about patent retaliation clauses. What about a BSD-like license [0], or also the MIT/X11 license [1]? [0] /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD -- obviously change The Regents of the University of California (and all references to the University) to your name/company/whatever. [1] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php Both seem to conform to your requirements, if I'm not mistaken. Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Which license am I looking for?
Heya David Paleino wrote: Hello, On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:49:35 +0100, Mark Weyer wrote: What I am looking for: - Copyleft with source requirement, but should not contaminate other software. - No additional burden on anyone. In particular no requirements for derivatives to advertize, to not advertize, to follow some naming convention, or to convey source code at runtime. - No distinction between programs, libraries, images, scripts, documentation, or whatever. Formulations should equally apply to all sorts of software. The only distinction should be source vs. non-source. - Oh, and of course it should be DFSG-free. Also, I am very sceptical about patent retaliation clauses. What about a BSD-like license [0], or also the MIT/X11 license [1]? [0] /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD -- obviously change The Regents of the University of California (and all references to the University) to your name/company/whatever. [1] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php Both seem to conform to your requirements, if I'm not mistaken. One of the requirements is copyleft. BSD style licenses are not, eg Mac OS X is BSD-based but still proprietary. Kindly, David signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Which license am I looking for?
Mark Weyer wrote: I have a small software project which I intend to release soon. I have already looked at several free (or, in some cases, claimed to be free) licenses, but I have not found one which I found convincing. What I am looking for: - Copyleft with source requirement, but should not contaminate other software. - No additional burden on anyone. In particular no requirements for derivatives to advertize, to not advertize, to follow some naming convention, or to convey source code at runtime. - No distinction between programs, libraries, images, scripts, documentation, or whatever. Formulations should equally apply to all sorts of software. The only distinction should be source vs. non-source. - Oh, and of course it should be DFSG-free. Also, I am very sceptical about patent retaliation clauses. I apologize for this question being off-topic until someone packages my software for Debian. If there is a better place to get an answer, please tell me. Best regards, Mark Weyer Based on your requirements GPLv3 seems to hit all of your criteria, including patents stuff. For more information visit FSF[1] website. Somewhere around there there is also a GPLv3 compatibility chart, use it if you link libraries or use someone else's code under different license. Don't forget to put correct license preamble in EVERY source file, after you have chosen a license. [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Yet another list statistics for debian-project
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote: I suspect analysis by month and by volume would be more illuminating. I took a look at the code, but there's not much explanation. Is it possible to add volumes in an easy way? Sorry the code is crude at best - I will rewrite it from scratch if this analysis will be accepted. It should just use as a quick and dirty helper for a talks of mine at DebConf and I never thought that it became that popular. SO if you need explanations you will probably have to wait until this is done. You might get rough information about the volume if you analyse not only the index page in the archive but also the real mail content (and strip off quotings). But I personally do not intend to do this work. Kind regards Andreas. PS: I do not read this list. Please CC me. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
Sorry if this breaks threading. Subscription was not as quick as I thought. On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 01:49:35PM +0100, Mark Weyer wrote: - Copyleft with source requirement, but should not contaminate other software. - No additional burden on anyone. In particular no requirements for derivatives to advertize, to not advertize, to follow some naming convention, or to convey source code at runtime. - No distinction between programs, libraries, images, scripts, documentation, or whatever. Formulations should equally apply to all sorts of software. The only distinction should be source vs. non-source. - Oh, and of course it should be DFSG-free. Maybe I should have been less terse. - With source requirement I meant that source code of derived works must be made available. I think this rules out BSD and MIT licenses. - no contamination of other sofware was meant to imply, that if someone uses (a derived version of) my software as part of hers, she does not have to put her entire work under my license. I have always understood this to rule out all versions of GPL. On a quick glance I cannot find the relevant part of GLPv3, though. - no requirement to advertize was targetted at clauses like 5d of GLPv3: | d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display | Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive | interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your | work need not make them do so. Anyway, thanks for your replies, David and Dmitri. Best regards, Mark Weyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 15:58:06 +0100 Mark Weyer wrote: [...] On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 01:49:35PM +0100, Mark Weyer wrote: - Copyleft with source requirement, but should not contaminate other software. [...] Maybe I should have been less terse. - With source requirement I meant that source code of derived works must be made available. This is, IMO, one of the key features of a copyleft license. I think this rules out BSD and MIT licenses. I agree. - no contamination of other sofware was meant to imply, that if someone uses (a derived version of) my software as part of hers, she does not have to put her entire work under my license. I think the opposite of this is another key feature of a copyleft license! E.g.: the GNU GPL imposes that works incorporating a GPL'ed work (or a derivative of a GPL'ed work) may only be distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL itself. The only exception is the case of mere aggregation: see the license text for more details. Hence, I think your desiderata are somewhat inconsistent. I have always understood this to rule out all versions of GPL. On a quick glance I cannot find the relevant part of GLPv3, though. If I understand your desiderata correctly, yes, I think all versions of the GNU GPL are ruled out. - no requirement to advertize was targetted at clauses like 5d of GLPv3: | d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display | Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive | interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your | work need not make them do so. I personally very dislike this clause: I would have been way much happier, if the GNU GPL v3 didn't have it at all... Hence, I sympathize with your desire for a license that lacks such clauses. Back to your question: I personally think you should revise your desiderata, since you seem to search for a broken copyleft, which is, well... , not what I would really recommend! ;-) My personal suggestions are: * first, decide if you really want a copyleft * in case you really want a copyleft, I _strongly_ recommend a GPLv2-compatible license: for instance - the GNU GPL v2 itself (only v2, or, if you prefer, with the or later phrasing) http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl2.txt - or the GNU LGPL v2.1 http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.txt * in case you conclude you do not want a copyleft, I recommend a simple non-copyleft license: for instance - the Expat/MIT license http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt - or the 2-clause BSD license http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license (without clause 3.) - or the zlib license http://www.gzip.org/zlib/zlib_license.html Of course, all the above is my own personal opinion. Disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- On some search engines, searching for my nickname AND nano-documents may lead you to my website... . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpEW0eMVsHuU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Which license am I looking for?
In message 20090118174305.620e0088@firenze.linux.it, Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it writes On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 01:49:35PM +0100, Mark Weyer wrote: - Copyleft with source requirement, but should not contaminate other software. [...] Maybe I should have been less terse. - With source requirement I meant that source code of derived works must be made available. This is, IMO, one of the key features of a copyleft license. I think this rules out BSD and MIT licenses. I agree. - no contamination of other sofware was meant to imply, that if someone uses (a derived version of) my software as part of hers, she does not have to put her entire work under my license. I think the opposite of this is another key feature of a copyleft license! So if I use a little bit of copyleft code in my program I have to make the whole lot free? And I think RMS is a bit on my side - after all he did write the LGPL... E.g.: the GNU GPL imposes that works incorporating a GPL'ed work (or a derivative of a GPL'ed work) may only be distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL itself. The only exception is the case of mere aggregation: see the license text for more details. Hence, I think your desiderata are somewhat inconsistent. I have always understood this to rule out all versions of GPL. On a quick glance I cannot find the relevant part of GLPv3, though. If I understand your desiderata correctly, yes, I think all versions of the GNU GPL are ruled out. Actually, iiuc, no they are not. It sounds like the LGPL 2 would satisfy your requirements. And while there is no LGPL 3 (and I don't think there will be), the GPL 3 has optional relaxation clauses, one of which makes it a replacement for the LGPL. Basically, the LGPL requires that any code that is *strongly* linked to yours is affected by your licence, but if the person using your code keeps it as a self-contained library, they can link that library into their code without their main code being affected - just any modifications to the library are affected. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: So if I use a little bit of copyleft code in my program I have to make the whole lot free? If you don't want to require this, you don't want copyleft. There's no license that I'm aware of that distinguishes between little bit, but still copyrightable and entire thing. [And it'd be one of those things that you'd almost be asking for litigation to decide, so not terribly useful.] Plus, it's not like you couldn't use GPL and advertise that you'd license smaller bits under different licences for people who couldn't comply with the GPL. And I think RMS is a bit on my side - after all he did write the LGPL... For libraries so that they would be widely used, not for general copyleft usage. Don Armstrong -- Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other possibilities. -- W. Churchill http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Using NASA Imagery
On Sunday 18 January 2009 02:29:22 am Bernhard R. Link wrote: * Don Armstrong d...@debian.org [090117 20:01]: On Sat, 17 Jan 2009, Miriam Ruiz wrote: Does anyone know if NASA conditions [1] are DFSG-free? According to what's written there, it seems to me that they're public domain (NASA still images; audio files; video; and computer files used in the rendition of 3-dimensional models, such as texture maps and polygon data in any format, generally are not copyrighted.), but I want to make sure. Because NASA as a US government agency can't copyright things it produces directly, they're usually DFSG free. (It's the equivalent of public domain in the US.) [Specific examples of work are needed to figure out whether that's the case in a specific instance.] I know this is general accepted knowledge, but has anyone ever asked a layer knowledgable in international copyright law about it? It is sure public domain in the US, but I see no reason why it should be public domain outside. From what I have read the US goverment holds the copyright outside the US and the only way it could be public domain in other countries is that either US explicitly waives it rights even in other countries (which I think it does not) or other countries' law making it public domain. The US has done all it can on this via its domestic laws... the relevent section being: -- § 105. Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise. -- That is the only source of copyright that the United States has control over. Now, if a foreign government wants to say that, within their borders, works of the United States government are still copyrighted and controlled by the same, there really isn't a whole lot the US can do about it. But, by the same token, a government can also declare that the GPL is unenforceable and that the author has not issued a valid license. I sincerely hope we would not let a local government decision like that prevent distribution of GPLed works. Similarly, as my government has gone out of its way to share its creative works, I would hope the FOSS community avails themselves of it. That, however, doesn't make it an open and shut case: -- § 101. Definitions A “work of the United States Government” is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties. -- Which means you have to look closely at who is doing the work. A contractor/vendor for the government may not fall under this provision, depending on the kinds of work that is being done. There is also a weird exception for certain standard reference data where the Commerce Secretary can actually obtain a copyright. But note that such copyright requires affirmative action on the part of the Secretary, and presumably would come with notice. As other countries usually do not have a section stating things made for the US government are public domain, the only argument I've found is that most countries have some reciprocity for copyright of foreign subjects. But trying to understand the German law text (as some example, as I hope to understand that best), I think it says copyright of foreigners is protected if their country would protect the copyright of locals, and then applies the local rules of what is copyrightable and makes no exception for things that would not have been protectable abroad. The above only applies if it's true that the U.S. holds a copyright beyond its borders. Your logic is sound, but the premise is unsubstantiated. -Sean -- Sean Kellogg e: skell...@gmail.com w: http://blog.probonogeek.org/ Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
Thanks for your reply. On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 05:43:05PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 15:58:06 +0100 Mark Weyer wrote: [...] On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 01:49:35PM +0100, Mark Weyer wrote: - Copyleft with source requirement, but should not contaminate other software. [...] Maybe I should have been less terse. - With source requirement I meant that source code of derived works must be made available. This is, IMO, one of the key features of a copyleft license. Well, according to Wikipedia, copyleft just says that redistribution is allowed under the same terms, nothing about source. So I mentioned source requirement separately, just to make sure. - no contamination of other sofware was meant to imply, that if someone uses (a derived version of) my software as part of hers, she does not have to put her entire work under my license. I think the opposite of this is another key feature of a copyleft license! E.g.: the GNU GPL imposes that works incorporating a GPL'ed work (or a derivative of a GPL'ed work) may only be distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL itself. The only exception is the case of mere aggregation: see the license text for more details. Hence, I think your desiderata are somewhat inconsistent. I think what you refer to, is what GNU calls strong copyleft. What I want is more close to weak copyleft. I want, that in the event of my software becoming part of some larger software, that all recipients have access to my software in its best form, that is in source. Hence copyleft with source. While I would also prefer that recipients have access to the sources of the other parts of the larger software, I think it unwise to require that the other parts are put under the same license. The reason being, that if some other part of the larger software does the same, albeit with a different license, the larger software becomes undistributable, which is the worst possible outcome. I do not see that this is inconsistent. Or maybe I just understand mere aggregation much broader than you. Or than the GPL does. In particular, if my software becomes a library, I do not want a mere include to imply that the whole program is derived work. Back to your question: I personally think you should revise your desiderata, since you seem to search for a broken copyleft, which is, well... , not what I would really recommend! ;-) I have given arguments for my desiderata above, and I would be happy to provide more. But this leads away from my initial question. My personal suggestions are: * first, decide if you really want a copyleft * in case you really want a copyleft, I _strongly_ recommend a GPLv2-compatible license: for instance - the GNU GPL v2 itself (only v2, or, if you prefer, with the or later phrasing) http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl2.txt Among other shortcomings, GPL contaminates other software. - or the GNU LGPL v2.1 http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.txt LGPL 2.1 distinguishes all sorts of software right in the definitions: | A library means a collection of software functions and/or data | prepared so as to be conveniently linked with application programs | (which use some of those functions and data) to form executables. Similar LGPL 3.0: | The object code form of an Application may incorporate material from | a header file that is part of the Library. You may convey such object | code under terms of your choice, provided that, if the incorporated | material is not limited to numerical parameters, data structure | layouts and accessors, or small macros, inline functions and templates | (ten or fewer lines in length), you do both of the following: I do not want to distinguish between different kinds of software. The reason is, that while at this time my software is best described as program, I acknowledge, that through a sufficient number of mutations (in the process of deriving works) it might as well become a picture, a library, documentation, or whatnot. (More likely, it will first become something which does not fall into any category.) I do not want the semantics of the license to depend on such. In particular, I want to understand, for myself, what the semantics are in any such case. * in case you conclude you do not want a copyleft, I recommend a simple non-copyleft license: for instance - the Expat/MIT license http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt - or the 2-clause BSD license http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license (without clause 3.) - or the zlib license http://www.gzip.org/zlib/zlib_license.html I do want copyleft. Best regards, Mark Weyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 20:27:16 +0100 Mark Weyer wrote: Thanks for your reply. You're welcome! :) On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 05:43:05PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] Hence, I think your desiderata are somewhat inconsistent. I think what you refer to, is what GNU calls strong copyleft. What I want is more close to weak copyleft. I want, that in the event of my software becoming part of some larger software, that all recipients have access to my software in its best form, that is in source. Hence copyleft with source. While I would also prefer that recipients have access to the sources of the other parts of the larger software, I think it unwise to require that the other parts are put under the same license. IMHO, the problem with this form of weak copyleft is: what if your code is incorporated as part of the larger work so that the boundaries are not so well defined? I mean: your code could, for instance, be included inside one source file of the larger work, blended with other parts of the larger work. At that point, having access to the source for your code under its original license terms (and nothing else) would be of little or no use, in order to have freedom on the larger work. Of course, it would provide freedom on your original code, but that would be guaranteed (almost) equivalently by a simple non-copyleft license (such as the Expat/MIT license), as long as your original code remains available from other places under these non-copyleft free terms. The reason being, that if some other part of the larger software does the same, albeit with a different license, the larger software becomes undistributable, which is the worst possible outcome. In other words, you want to maximize compatibility with other copyleft licenses and still have a copyleft license... I think these two requirements are _very_ hard to satisfy at the same time; it could be that they are actually incompatible with each other. [...] I do not want to distinguish between different kinds of software. The reason is, that while at this time my software is best described as program, I acknowledge, that through a sufficient number of mutations (in the process of deriving works) it might as well become a picture, a library, documentation, or whatnot. I share this desire for a license written without distinguishing between different kinds of software. The GNU GPL is not far from being such a license: it talks all the way about a Program, but defines this term as any program or other work (GPLv2, Section 0.) or as any copyrightable work (GPLv3, Section 0.). Hence you may think Work whenever you read Program in the GPL text. Same disclaimers as before: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- On some search engines, searching for my nickname AND nano-documents may lead you to my website... . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpDGsf3h4N99.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Using NASA Imagery
* Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com [090118 19:37]: The US has done all it can on this via its domestic laws... the relevent section being: -- § 105. Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise. -- That is the only source of copyright that the United States has control over. No, there could for example also a law that the US government is not allowed to enforce copyright of government made works outside of the USA. Or at least some promise not to do. But, by the same token, a government can also declare that the [...] Of course governments can do many stupid things (some people may even claim copyright at all is evil and stupid), but my question was not about some theoretical country, but about the current state of the world. I'm not a layer but I'm not sure about Germany's law and perhaps it might be similar in many other countries might do the same. Does anyone have any information about if such US goverment works are really free outside the US? Or can someone try to understand what in http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_0105000-notes.html is the meaning of The prohibition on copyright protection for United States Government works is not intended to have any effect on protection of these works abroad. Works of the governments of most other countries are copyrighted. There are no valid policy reasons for denying such protection to United States Government works in foreign countries, or for precluding the Government from making licenses for the use of its works abroad. and explain? Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Using NASA Imagery
On Sunday 18 January 2009 03:24:52 pm Bernhard R. Link wrote: * Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com [090118 19:37]: The US has done all it can on this via its domestic laws... the relevent section being: -- § 105. Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise. -- That is the only source of copyright that the United States has control over. No, there could for example also a law that the US government is not allowed to enforce copyright of government made works outside of the USA. Or at least some promise not to do. That seems like an awfully specific request, if you ask me. The GPL, for example, doesn't promise the Author won't or can't sue... it simply says a license is granted, which comes with all manner of implications. I think § 105 is the best you are going to see out of the US government. But, by the same token, a government can also declare that the [...] Of course governments can do many stupid things (some people may even claim copyright at all is evil and stupid), but my question was not about some theoretical country, but about the current state of the world. I'm not a layer but I'm not sure about Germany's law and perhaps it might be similar in many other countries might do the same. Does anyone have any information about if such US goverment works are really free outside the US? Well, lucky for us, I happen to be a trained lawyer. Although, in the interest of full disclosure, I have not paid by bar dues and thus am not an actual factual lawyer, but I play one on the internet from time to time. Or can someone try to understand what in http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_0105000-notes.html is the meaning of The prohibition on copyright protection for United States Government works is not intended to have any effect on protection of these works abroad. Works of the governments of most other countries are copyrighted. There are no valid policy reasons for denying such protection to United States Government works in foreign countries, or for precluding the Government from making licenses for the use of its works abroad. and explain? Couple of critical points about this. First up, nothing on that page is law in the enforceable sense. That page is from the House Committee Report on the 1976 Copyright Act. Now, unlike most legislative committee reports, this particular house report has been given a LOT of weight by courts when trying to figure out what the Congress meant when it enacted revised Title 17. The net result is you see this report cited a lot because it provides useful contextual clues. Don't ask me why this ONE report gets special privileges while the others are treated like garbage. Having said all that, the meaning of this paragraph -- to me, at least -- is straight forward. It says that the U.S. Government, having decided to deny itself a copyright in the U.S., does not preclude itself from accepting a copyright from a different jurisdiction. If the Canadians wish to grant U.S. Governments works a copyright, then § 105 doesn't stop that. Nor does it stop the U.S. Government from enforcing such a copyright once it is issued. What it *doesn't* say is that a foreign government is required to grant a copyright. It's up to them... if they do, then the U.S. will take it... if they don't, not a big deal. Now, I will admit I am not a Berne Convention expert... but I was under the impression that a big part of that convention was the idea of reciprocity. A member nation is obligated to provide coyright protection domestically IF the author's home nation provides protection. Put another way, a foreign nation has no obligation to provide protection if the home nation does NOT provide protection. Which, to me at least, means a foreign government is under no obligation to protect U.S. government works. But, like I said before, it's really a matter of local jurisdiction. -Sean -- Sean Kellogg e: skell...@gmail.com w: http://blog.probonogeek.org/ Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Actual legal training: thanks (was: Using NASA Imagery)
Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com writes: Well, lucky for us, I happen to be a trained lawyer. Although, in the interest of full disclosure, I have not paid by bar dues and thus am not an actual factual lawyer, but I play one on the internet from time to time. Have I said recently how grateful I am that you come here to share your actual legal training with us? Well, regardless, I reiterate my thanks. Legal training and passion for free software are all too infrequently found in the same person. -- \ “Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?” “I think so, | `\ Brain, but can the Gummi Worms really live in peace with the | _o__) Marshmallow Chicks?” —_Pinky and The Brain_ | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Actual legal training: thanks (was: Using NASA Imagery)
On Sunday 18 January 2009 10:00:01 pm Ben Finney wrote: Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com writes: Well, lucky for us, I happen to be a trained lawyer. Although, in the interest of full disclosure, I have not paid by bar dues and thus am not an actual factual lawyer, but I play one on the internet from time to time. Have I said recently how grateful I am that you come here to share your actual legal training with us? Well, regardless, I reiterate my thanks. Legal training and passion for free software are all too infrequently found in the same person. Thanks. It's helpful that I don't actually practice, otherwise the firm I would be working for would likely never allow me to contribute here. But since I write software for a living, use Debian in my everyday life, and generally believe in the goals of the project, it's nice to be able to contribute from time to time... even if it means I don't always see eye to eye with debian-legal about the meaning of the DSFG :) -Sean -- Sean Kellogg e: skell...@gmail.com w: http://blog.probonogeek.org/ Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
