Re: Using NASA Imagery
Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org writes: If this is the case, then I guess we have quite an big problem, as I guess such code and especially data is to be found in quite a large amount of places. Actually, I don't think that's much of an issue. Software seems to be mostly unaffected as US government entities usually properly license their works, e.g., under the NASA Open Source Agreement in NASA's case. When it comes to images and related data I suppose there will be more problems. FlightGear (the LaRCSim code seems to miss proper licensing anyway) and VegaStrike are probably affected. Celestia seems to use ESA data (for which I could not find a license, but that's another story). Maybe we also should contact our friends at Wikipedia and other open content projects. I've documented this issue in a blog post (http://www.quantenblog.net/free-software/us-copyright-international), which might be used as a reference. Hendrik -- 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?
In message 200901201403.48978.skell...@gmail.com, Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com writes On Tuesday 20 January 2009 12:49:28 pm Anthony W. Youngman wrote: No it's not a problem at all. What IS the problem is that you are telling me I should abide by American law, when I am not American, have only ever ONCE set foot on American soil, and have no desire to do so again. That's a shame. It's a very lovely country, with lots to see and do. I don't think I've ever been to a country that I could categorically state I would never wish to return. I hesitate to wonder what horrible thing we must have done to earn such hate from you. I hope some day you reconsider and come visit us in all of our many triumphs and failures. You haven't earned any hate. I said I have no desire to set foot on American soil. Why should I want to go there? I'm a European, with a strong socialist streak, and have a far more eastern outlook on life. I have no hate for America (and have family who are naturalised/by birth American), it just has no appeal for me. Given the choice, I'd go east to Central/Eastern Europe, not west to America. That's called extra-territoriality, which is frowned upon in most civilised jurisdictions ... I honestly don't know what you are talking about here... I do know that Germany, for example, has a universal jurisdiction statute for human rights violations, allowing them to bring suit against anyone, anywhere, for violation of that statute. Of course, you've got a problem with enforcement, but you are still certainly breaking the German law if you commit human rights violations beyond their territory. Is Germany not a civilized jurisdiction? Ummm ... I thought the UK was unusual, in that we have only very recently made sex crimes a prosecutable offence in British courts against British nationals, regardless of where the act actually took place. But even there, British sovereignty is only claimed over British nationals. Germany is civilised. But I don't think they're enforcing NATIONAL law (at least, not the way you think). Human Rights is an INTERNATIONAL issue, covered by INTERNATIONAL treaties, and they have simply given their courts the right to enforce INTERNATIONAL law. Certainly from my point of view, living in another (allegedly) civilised society, if I fell foul of the German law, I would have broken British law as well, and the British courts would probably claim jurisdiction too. I am somewhat at a loss... just as Francesco is in Italy, I am in the United States, and if he were to give me legal advice, he would be in violation of California statutes. Perhaps violating other country's laws doesn't bother him... perhaps he can simply declare my laws as irrelevant... but it would not be my advice, as I very much wonder what the controlling law would be when someone gives advice to another with knowledge that they are in a jurisdiction that requires a license even though they don't have one. Certainly if I were to give advice to someone in Utah, even though I live in California, I could be hauled into a Utah court... even though the legal practice law in a State law not a federal one. Even easier, the Utah fellow could sue me in a CA court under their own laws. But surely, in order to do so, you must have broken a Federal statute? Not knowing the American legal system, I find it very odd that you could be sued in Utah, or in California under Utah law, if you've never been anywhere near Utah. Nope, in the federal system a state can enforce the laws of another state if it so chooses. It's not required to, and in practice, most folks would remove the case to federal jurisdiction. But with federal removal, you've got a Federal Court, applying a state law, against a resident of a different state. Happens all the time. So you're saying that, even if you have NO CONNECTIONS WHATSOEVER with Utah, you can be forced to follow Utah state law (of which, not having any contact with Utah, you cannot be expected to know)? That's absurd! (Certainly to my mind!) Mind you, if that's the case, maybe that's why Americans think American law can be enforced outside their own borders, if State law can be enforced outside of a state's borders. We think it if the treaties between the nations allow for it. I know it has happened in the past, I really can't speak with any authority as to how often that happens and what sorts of law it covers. But in the world of torts (which is what we are talking about), I wouldn't be at all surprise to learn that I can bring a tort suit against a foreign national in their own jurisdiction but under *my* law. Understand the very important distinction between a criminal case and a civil case, such as torts. Different concepts, different policy objectives, different enforcement. As I understand it, if it is legal in Britain then you cannot touch me. End of story. Unless there exists a contract between you and me that our
Re: Which license am I looking for?
Anthony W. Youngman deb...@thewolery.demon.co.uk writes: Dry Roast Peanuts Caution! This product may contain nuts! This warning isn't as silly as it sounds: peanuts are legumes rather than nuts, so if you're allergic to nuts you may still be able to eat peanuts provided they've not been mixed with other nuts during processing. (Contents may be hot after heating is probably a better example...) -- Adam Sampson a...@offog.org http://offog.org/ -- 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 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:14:37 -0800 Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote: On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:45:23PM +, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: But surely, in order to do so, you must have broken a Federal statute? Not knowing the American legal system, I find it very odd that you could be sued in Utah, or in California under Utah law, if you've never been anywhere near Utah. Nope, in the federal system a state can enforce the laws of another state if it so chooses. It's not required to, and in practice, most folks would remove the case to federal jurisdiction. But with federal removal, you've got a Federal Court, applying a state law, against a resident of a different state. Happens all the time. So you're saying that, even if you have NO CONNECTIONS WHATSOEVER with Utah, you can be forced to follow Utah state law (of which, not having any contact with Utah, you cannot be expected to know)? That's absurd! (Certainly to my mind!) No, he's saying that if you *commit a tort against someone located in Utah*, you are subject to Utah state law. If you've committed a tort against someone located in Utah, it is absolutely not true that you have no connections with Utah. The question of how *much* of a connection you must have to a state in order to be subject to their law is a fuzzy one that does get debated by courts. We think it if the treaties between the nations allow for it. I know it has happened in the past, I really can't speak with any authority as to how often that happens and what sorts of law it covers. But in the world of torts (which is what we are talking about), I wouldn't be at all surprise to learn that I can bring a tort suit against a foreign national in their own jurisdiction but under *my* law. Understand the very important distinction between a criminal case and a civil case, such as torts. Different concepts, different policy objectives, different enforcement. As I understand it, if it is legal in Britain then you cannot touch me. End of story. Unless there exists a contract between you and me that our dealings are covered by US law, then as a British National resident in Britain, then any claim you make against me must be under English law. Even if this is nominally true under British law, there is certainly no reason for this to be the accepted norm under international law, and therefore not grounds for dismissal of a case brought against you in a US court. Just because you think you can *get away with* committing torts against US citizens doesn't mean the tort does not occur. Jurisdiction and enforceability are two different questions. For comparison with other European countries: it's been discussed on this list in the past (in connection with choice of venue clauses) that French law guarantees its citizens the right to defend themselves in their home court - but it does not say that the claim has to be brought under French law. This thread gets into two separate doctrinal areas that even specialist lawyers can regard as arcane for edge cases: personal jurisdiction and choice of law. I read some postings on this list out of personal interest, but I have little to contribute to most of the discussion. I have done work on these issues, however, so maybe I can add some clarity, even if it wanders further off-topic from the original inquiry. When a court concludes that it has personal jurisdiction over a defendant, it means this court, for this defendant, for this claim, has proper authority to deliver a judgment that may be enforced against the defendant. For non-criminal cases, the court's analysis generally will focus on the defendant's contacts with the residents and territory of the government of which the court is a part. Two variations of a simple hypothetical fact pattern may illustrate this. A New York resident is injured by a product manufactured and sold by a German company in Germany and wants to sue that company in a New York court for negligence in the manufacturing process. In variation 1, the German company gets most of its revenue from export sales and the New York resident bought the product in New York from a store authorized by the German company to sell its products. In variation 2, the German company is small and has no export sales; the New York resident bought the product in Germany while on a visit; and the injury occurred in Germany during that visit. The New York court is more likely to find that it has personal jurisdiction over the German company in variation 1 than in variation 2. (Even though, in both variations, the claimed negligent manufacture took place in Germany.) Take a different case. A New York author writes and a New York publisher distributes, only in the United States, a book that a UK citizen claims to be libelous in a UK court. What threshold facts must be present for the UK court to decide that it has some power over the New York author?
Re: Which license am I looking for?
In message 20090121115624.27b9b...@glh-hp-dv2940se, Greg Harris glhar...@panix.com writes On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:14:37 -0800 Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote: No, he's saying that if you *commit a tort against someone located in Utah*, you are subject to Utah state law. If you've committed a tort against someone located in Utah, it is absolutely not true that you have no connections with Utah. The question of how *much* of a connection you must have to a state in order to be subject to their law is a fuzzy one that does get debated by courts. We think it if the treaties between the nations allow for it. I know it has happened in the past, I really can't speak with any authority as to how often that happens and what sorts of law it covers. But in the world of torts (which is what we are talking about), I wouldn't be at all surprise to learn that I can bring a tort suit against a foreign national in their own jurisdiction but under *my* law. Understand the very important distinction between a criminal case and a civil case, such as torts. Different concepts, different policy objectives, different enforcement. As I understand it, if it is legal in Britain then you cannot touch me. End of story. Unless there exists a contract between you and me that our dealings are covered by US law, then as a British National resident in Britain, then any claim you make against me must be under English law. Even if this is nominally true under British law, there is certainly no reason for this to be the accepted norm under international law, and therefore not grounds for dismissal of a case brought against you in a US court. Just because you think you can *get away with* committing torts against US citizens doesn't mean the tort does not occur. Jurisdiction and enforceability are two different questions. For comparison with other European countries: it's been discussed on this list in the past (in connection with choice of venue clauses) that French law guarantees its citizens the right to defend themselves in their home court - but it does not say that the claim has to be brought under French law. This thread gets into two separate doctrinal areas that even specialist lawyers can regard as arcane for edge cases: personal jurisdiction and choice of law. I read some postings on this list out of personal interest, but I have little to contribute to most of the discussion. I have done work on these issues, however, so maybe I can add some clarity, even if it wanders further off-topic from the original inquiry. When a court concludes that it has personal jurisdiction over a defendant, it means this court, for this defendant, for this claim, has proper authority to deliver a judgment that may be enforced against the defendant. For non-criminal cases, the court's analysis generally will focus on the defendant's contacts with the residents and territory of the government of which the court is a part. Put differently, do you mean that the court believes it actually has the ability to enforce a judgement? Two variations of a simple hypothetical fact pattern may illustrate this. A New York resident is injured by a product manufactured and sold by a German company in Germany and wants to sue that company in a New York court for negligence in the manufacturing process. In variation 1, the German company gets most of its revenue from export sales and the New York resident bought the product in New York from a store authorized by the German company to sell its products. In variation 2, the German company is small and has no export sales; the New York resident bought the product in Germany while on a visit; and the injury occurred in Germany during that visit. The New York court is more likely to find that it has personal jurisdiction over the German company in variation 1 than in variation 2. (Even though, in both variations, the claimed negligent manufacture took place in Germany.) Hmmm ... two very interesting examples. Let's look at the German example ... I'd have said that variation 2 was a clear example of jurisdiction belonging in Germany. The only reason that a New York court might have to claim jurisdiction is that the victim is American. imho that's a clear case of extra-territoriality. Variation 1, imho, is also a clear case where New York jurisdiction *over* *the* *german* *company* doesn't apply. The company's agent is liable, and how the liability is split between them and the german company is a matter of contract. Note I'm a brit, so I can't speak for American law, but in both of those variations, for a New York court to claim jurisdiction over the German company seems to me to be a breach of natural/sensible justice. Take a different case. A New York author writes and a New York publisher distributes, only in the United States, a book that a UK citizen claims to be libelous in a UK court. What threshold facts must be present for the UK court to decide that it has
Re: Which license am I looking for?
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:25:51PM +, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: At the end of the day, what I do, I do it IN ENGLAND, No, you don't. When you post to this mailing list, you are deliberately engaged in an act that crosses national boundaries (both your interlocutors in this discussion, and the lists.debian.org mailserver, are located outside of England), and any choice of law questions will be adjudicated according to the relevant international treaties. You can't lob bombs across the English Channel and expect the recipients not to press charges in French court, and you can't give Americans legal advice over the Internet and expect not to be held to American standards for the same. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- 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 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 23:25:51 + Anthony W. Youngman deb...@thewolery.demon.co.uk wrote: In message 20090121115624.27b9b...@glh-hp-dv2940se, Greg Harris glhar...@panix.com writes On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:14:37 -0800 Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote: No, he's saying that if you *commit a tort against someone located in Utah*, you are subject to Utah state law. If you've committed a tort against someone located in Utah, it is absolutely not true that you have no connections with Utah. The question of how *much* of a connection you must have to a state in order to be subject to their law is a fuzzy one that does get debated by courts. We think it if the treaties between the nations allow for it. I know it has happened in the past, I really can't speak with any authority as to how often that happens and what sorts of law it covers. But in the world of torts (which is what we are talking about), I wouldn't be at all surprise to learn that I can bring a tort suit against a foreign national in their own jurisdiction but under *my* law. Understand the very important distinction between a criminal case and a civil case, such as torts. Different concepts, different policy objectives, different enforcement. As I understand it, if it is legal in Britain then you cannot touch me. End of story. Unless there exists a contract between you and me that our dealings are covered by US law, then as a British National resident in Britain, then any claim you make against me must be under English law. I'm afraid that you are simply wrong about this. Whether you think this makes sense or not is not terribly relevant. Let me give you an example. In the early 1980's the managers of various Lloyds' syndicates, among others, were claimed to have agreed they would not underwrite certain US reinsurance unless the primary coverage (by US companies to their insureds) was written on certain terms. Various parties in the US claimed that this conduct violated US antitrust laws (as a boycott). The Lloyds' and other UK defendants argued that their conduct (if it actually happened, which never got to a factual determination) was expressly protected by UK law. The US Supreme Court found that the UK defendants were subject to US personal jurisdiction and their conduct was subject to US antitrust laws. The case is ridiculously complicated and not really worth the effort, but if you want to look it up it's available at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-.ZS.html This is not just some insane US drivel. It's really no different in substance than EU competition law being applied to Microsoft. If you want to derive benefit from doing business somewhere, you are subject to the laws of that place. Even if this is nominally true under British law, there is certainly no reason for this to be the accepted norm under international law, and therefore not grounds for dismissal of a case brought against you in a US court. Just because you think you can *get away with* committing torts against US citizens doesn't mean the tort does not occur. Jurisdiction and enforceability are two different questions. For comparison with other European countries: it's been discussed on this list in the past (in connection with choice of venue clauses) that French law guarantees its citizens the right to defend themselves in their home court - but it does not say that the claim has to be brought under French law. This thread gets into two separate doctrinal areas that even specialist lawyers can regard as arcane for edge cases: personal jurisdiction and choice of law. I read some postings on this list out of personal interest, but I have little to contribute to most of the discussion. I have done work on these issues, however, so maybe I can add some clarity, even if it wanders further off-topic from the original inquiry. When a court concludes that it has personal jurisdiction over a defendant, it means this court, for this defendant, for this claim, has proper authority to deliver a judgment that may be enforced against the defendant. For non-criminal cases, the court's analysis generally will focus on the defendant's contacts with the residents and territory of the government of which the court is a part. Put differently, do you mean that the court believes it actually has the ability to enforce a judgement? No. Judgments are not self-enforcing. It does mean the court believes its judgment is entitled to be enforced. Enforcing a foreign judgment as a practical matter is yet another can of worms, but a UK court, for example, is highly likely to accord great deference to a US judgment as a matter of comity. Two variations of a simple hypothetical fact pattern may illustrate this. A New York resident is injured by a product manufactured and sold by a German company in Germany and wants to sue that company in a New York
