Re: Short copyright notice in script file
First sale in the US only applies if the product was made in the US. Where on Earth did you hear or read that? I've never head such a thing. http://supreme.justia.com/us/523/135/case.html Read carefully the sections describing 602(a), particularly page 148. # copies that are not subject to the first sale doctrine-e. g., copies # that are lawfully made under the law of another country -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Short copyright notice in script file
Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote in message news:20090322071908.98b07b...@violet.rahul.net... First sale in the US only applies if the product was made in the US. Where on Earth did you hear or read that? I've never head such a thing. http://supreme.justia.com/us/523/135/case.html Read carefully the sections describing 602(a), particularly page 148. # copies that are not subject to the first sale doctrine-e. g., copies # that are lawfully made under the law of another country Hmm, interesting... Without scutinizing the code, and reading the entire order I cannot see what exactly is being implied there. Some of the text appears at a quick glance to imply that giving away a legally owned copy is always allowed unless barred by contractual restircitions, regardless of origin, and it is the right of sale may be lacking in some imported works. But I only read bits very quickly so I may be completely wrong. IANAL, IANADD. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Short copyright notice in script file
Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: First sale in the US only applies if the product was made in the US. Where on Earth did you hear or read that? I've never head such a thing. IANAL, IANADD. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Short copyright notice in script file
As I pointed out, in the US, First Sale is in title 17, chapter 1, section 109. # Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a # particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any # person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of # the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of # that copy or phonorecord. This would seem to cover it, as long as the work was copyrighted in the US. (US courts have not decided on First Sale applied to works copyrighted outside the US.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Short copyright notice in script file
Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday 16 March 2009 04:17:35 am MJ Ray wrote: Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com wrote: Just in the interest of clearing up common copyright law misunderstandings, the right to redistribute is not a matter of copyright law. [...] Distribution is mentioned explicitly [...CDPA 1988...] Damned if I do... damned if I don't. Can't really help the UK if they have decided to extend copyright law to mean something beyond the rights surrounding copying of a thing. Copyright law has no more business governing what one does with a *thing* after it has been produced than patent law has to do with trademarks. The concepts all intersect in interesting ways, but the scope of the subject matter is reasonable well defined. I used to write similar things, then I sat on my lawyer's knee[*] and he explained to me that copyright is now an arbitrary property of a work and not only the right to copy it. While the Berne Convention doesn't explicitly mention distribution in this context, it does mention other non-copying acts and distribution is mentioned for cinematographic adaptations, I think it's pretty clear that distribution is regarded as part of the Convention's copyright concept. http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html [*] - this event has been invented for the dramatisation. I think the provisions in UK legislation mostly appear in EU directives, so most of the EU is probably similar and this isn't as bizarre and marginal a problem as the above suggests. I'd probably agree that copyright should limit itself to copying and distribution methods should be a topic for moral rights, but the US approach to moral rights is even more bizarre than the EU approach to copyright IIRC. But, seriously, I'm not gonna play the not in my jurisdiction game... it's a game one cannot possible win, and ultimately not very interesting or helpful. Sure, but one also needs to acknowledge one's limitations and avoid things like labelling correct understanding of the horrible EU copyright law as common copyright law misunderstandings. It's stupid, evil, bad and wrong, but not misunderstood! Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Short copyright notice in script file
Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com wrote: Just in the interest of clearing up common copyright law misunderstandings, the right to redistribute is not a matter of copyright law. [...] Distribution is mentioned explicitly as secondary infringement of copyright in UK legislation (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 as amended, s23). There's also Section 18: Infringement by issue of copies to the public; and Section 20: Infringement by communication to the public. Please give references that illustrate the scope of opinions stated here. Sadly, debian cannot always rely on US law, can it? 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
Re: Short copyright notice in script file
* Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it [090315 17:22]: Your main point seems to be that, apart from some fringe cases (people misusing the term as if it were equivalent to shareware), there's no serious dispute as to what public domain means. There is the problem with US goverment works. Those are public domain in the USA but one of the recent discussions showed they are not public domain outside. 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: Short copyright notice in script file
On Friday 13 March 2009 04:54:49 pm Francesco Poli wrote: On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:45:38 -0700 Sean Kellogg wrote: On Friday 13 March 2009 03:23:55 pm Ben Finney wrote: Alexander Block abl...@blocksoftware.net writes: So does this mean that it's not possible to use this script inside Debian? It means that Debian has no license to redistribute the work. Just in the interest of clearing up common copyright law misunderstandings, the right to redistribute is not a matter of copyright law. If I have the right to copy a work with no further explicit conditions or restrictions, I have the right to distribute those copies in the same way I have the right to give away my initial copy under the first sale doctrine. Copyright law is only interested in the acts that involve *copying*, everything after that is controlled by contract law. Alexander, if you want your address to be dropped from this sub-thread, just say so... Sean, what you say seems to make perfectly sense, and indeed I cannot find any reference to distribution in the Berne Convention. But, on the other hand, could you please explain me how it reconciles with the actual text of copyright laws? Sorry for the delay in responding... I was away this weekend on a much needed mini-vacation. U.S. copyright law [1] states, in section 106: [...] | the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do | and to authorize any of the following: [...] | (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to | the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, | lease, or lending; Italian authors' right law (legge sul diritto d'autore) [2] states, in article 17: | 1. Il diritto esclusivo di distribuzione ha per oggetto la messa in | commercio o in circolazione, o comunque a disposizione, del pubblico, | con qualsiasi mezzo ed a qualsiasi titolo, dell'originale dell'opera o | degli esemplari di essa [...] which roughly translates in: ] 1. The exclusive right to distribute deals with the act of selling or ] circulating, or anyway making available, to the public, by any means ] and for any title, the original work or its copies [...] Since IANAL, I am probably missing something important in the picture. Could you please explain? Honestly... I can't reconcile the two. Not without doing a bunch of research that would require access to legal text that I don't have anymore... and even then, it may be an unanswered question (there are a bunch in copyright law). The First Sale doctrine is, of course, the best example of why Sec. 106(3) is problematic. Once I have a rightfully acquired copy of a book, I can resell that book and the copyright holder cannot restrict that. My only guess is that we need to read the phrase distribute copies as a very unified term. You can distribute your one copy, but you cannot copy for the purposes of distribution... that sort of thing. It's not a very satisfying answer... but it's certainly a good question. I think, in practice, it doesn't come up and certainly isn't litigated because if someone has been given the right to duplicate freely, they probably have contractual obligations that restrain the purpose and distribution of those copies. It's the rare case that an author would allow for unlimited duplication but have a problem with distribution. If you have a problem with distribution, just limit the duplication grant. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful, 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: Short copyright notice in script file
On Monday 16 March 2009 04:17:35 am MJ Ray wrote: Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com wrote: Just in the interest of clearing up common copyright law misunderstandings, the right to redistribute is not a matter of copyright law. [...] Distribution is mentioned explicitly as secondary infringement of copyright in UK legislation (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 as amended, s23). There's also Section 18: Infringement by issue of copies to the public; and Section 20: Infringement by communication to the public. Please give references that illustrate the scope of opinions stated here. Sadly, debian cannot always rely on US law, can it? Damned if I do... damned if I don't. Can't really help the UK if they have decided to extend copyright law to mean something beyond the rights surrounding copying of a thing. Copyright law has no more business governing what one does with a *thing* after it has been produced than patent law has to do with trademarks. The concepts all intersect in interesting ways, but the scope of the subject matter is reasonable well defined. But, seriously, I'm not gonna play the not in my jurisdiction game... it's a game one cannot possible win, and ultimately not very interesting or helpful. -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: Short copyright notice in script file
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 09:25:42AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: The Expat license terms URL:http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt are very simple and seem closest to his apparent intent. For some scripts, even that is excessively long. What I personally use is a note of the form You may treat this file as if it were in the public domain. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä, Finland http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/antti-juhani/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Short copyright notice in script file
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 10:14:32 +0200 Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 09:25:42AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: The Expat license terms URL:http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt are very simple and seem closest to his apparent intent. For some scripts, even that is excessively long. What I personally use is a note of the form You may treat this file as if it were in the public domain. I think this is a bit vague, since there's no clear explicit definition of public domain in copyright laws I am aware of. There are some references to public domain in U.S. copyright law and in Italian author's right law, but the term seems to never be really defined in a precise manner. The CC public domain dedication (one of the few things Creative Commons got right, IMHO), is much more verbose: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ I think adopting the Expat license is clearer, more widespread, and not more lengthly... Disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpxqIGG3MyF6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Short copyright notice in script file
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 10:56:01AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: I think this is a bit vague, since there's no clear explicit definition of public domain in copyright laws I am aware of. Laws don't define all the phrases they use, and they generally avoid defining phrases they don't use. This one is probably not defined because the laws do not actually need to use the phrase. Aside from some people incorrectly using public domain as a synonym for shareware (and similar misuses), I am not aware of any serious dispute as to what the term means. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä, Finland http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/antti-juhani/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Short copyright notice in script file
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 12:37:58 +0200 Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 10:56:01AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: I think this is a bit vague, since there's no clear explicit definition of public domain in copyright laws I am aware of. Laws don't define all the phrases they use, and they generally avoid defining phrases they don't use. This one is probably not defined because the laws do not actually need to use the phrase. As I said, the laws *do* use that term... -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpXuxxnwkbA5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Short copyright notice in script file
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 12:05:51PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: As I said, the laws *do* use that term... My mistake, sorry. Still, the main point stands. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä, Finland http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/antti-juhani/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Short copyright notice in script file
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it wrote: The CC public domain dedication (one of the few things Creative Commons got right, IMHO), is much more verbose: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ There is also CC0, which is intended as a more universal PD dedication http://creativecommons.org/license/zero/ -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Short copyright notice in script file
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 13:18:16 +0200 Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 12:05:51PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: As I said, the laws *do* use that term... My mistake, sorry. Still, the main point stands. Your main point seems to be that, apart from some fringe cases (people misusing the term as if it were equivalent to shareware), there's no serious dispute as to what public domain means. You're lucky to almost always deal with knowledgeable people! :-) In my own experience, I've heard the term public domain used and abused in every possible (and impossible) meaning... The main legitimate meanings are: * not covered by copyright (since copyright terms have already expired or for any other reason) * that may be disclosed, i.e.: not restricted by any secrecy or non-disclosure agreement but I've heard (misinformed) people abusing the term as if it meant: * freeware * shareware * free software (e.g.: Linux is in the public domain [sic]) * published on the web or more generally on the Internet (e.g.: I found it on the Internet, hence it's in the public domain [sic]) * gratuitously obtained * ... Hence, I do _not_ think that the meaning of public domain is so unambiguous. -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpFbAOn0IYHm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Short copyright notice in script file
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 05:22:54PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: Your main point seems to be that, apart from some fringe cases (people misusing the term as if it were equivalent to shareware), there's no serious dispute as to what public domain means. More or less, yes. You're lucky to almost always deal with knowledgeable people! :-) In my own experience, I've heard the term public domain used and abused in every possible (and impossible) meaning... [...] but I've heard (misinformed) people abusing the term as if it meant: * freeware * shareware * free software (e.g.: Linux is in the public domain [sic]) * published on the web or more generally on the Internet (e.g.: I found it on the Internet, hence it's in the public domain [sic]) * gratuitously obtained * ... These all were implicitly included in the caveat I made. The key test is whether a court of law would decide that I did not mean the dictionary definition of the term AND that any reasonable person would realize that. I do not think it is that bad yet. I fully agree that an established license is generally a good idea. However, there are situations where you really want a oneliner; the one I gave is the best one I've been able to devise (or seen written by others), and is unambiguous to anyone who knows the relevant terminology. (Somehow this discussion reminds me of Guy Steele's Growing a Language.) -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä, Finland http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/antti-juhani/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Short copyright notice in script file
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Francesco Poli wrote: U.S. copyright law [1] states, in section 106: [...] | the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do | and to authorize any of the following: [...] | (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to | the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, | lease, or lending; 109 has this: Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord. That's first sale (and notice it doesn't actually require the copy be sold for money). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Short copyright notice in script file
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Ken Arromdee wrote: 109 has this: Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord. That's first sale (and notice it doesn't actually require the copy be sold for money). Actually it turns out there's a little problem with using first sale here. First sale in the US only applies if the product was made in the US. Which means that if you copy Debian outside the US, then come into the US, you may not necessarily be allowed to give the copies to anyone. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Short copyright notice in script file
Hello, I'm not in this list, please set me in CC when replying. I'm packaging a script (cnetworkmanager) at the moment which contains a small python script [1] that contains a very short copyright/legal notice: # (c) 2004 Matt Johnston matt @ ucc asn au # This code may be freely used and modified for any purpose. Is it ok to use such code in debian packages? Best regards, Alex [1] A current version of this script can be found in the git repo: http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-utopia/cnetworkmanager.git;a=blob;f=pbkdf2.py;h=fd22e73bf91d0e2adf87d8a47b0088f0f7cffe06;hb=bb7a77dc139adcb3121c0fa12aa4f385b3d2bca5 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Short copyright notice in script file
Alexander Block wrote: Hello, I'm not in this list, please set me in CC when replying. I'm packaging a script (cnetworkmanager) at the moment which contains a small python script [1] that contains a very short copyright/legal notice: # (c) 2004 Matt Johnston matt @ ucc asn au # This code may be freely used and modified for any purpose. Is it ok to use such code in debian packages? No mention about distribution of code and distribution of modified code. ciao cate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Short copyright notice in script file
Alexander Block abl...@blocksoftware.net wrote: I'm not in this list, please set me in CC when replying. I'm packaging a script (cnetworkmanager) at the moment which contains a small python script [1] that contains a very short copyright/legal notice: # (c) 2004 Matt Johnston matt @ ucc asn au # This code may be freely used and modified for any purpose. Is it ok to use such code in debian packages? There's no clear permission to distribute in any way, so it's not great. I believe we're unlikely to get sued for it, but it would be better if Matt Johnston had used a widely-known licence instead of that. Best course of action is to request relicensing. I'm not sure whether ftpmaster would let that in as-is or not. Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Short copyright notice in script file
Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: Alexander Block wrote: Hello, I'm not in this list, please set me in CC when replying. I'm packaging a script (cnetworkmanager) at the moment which contains a small python script [1] that contains a very short copyright/legal notice: # (c) 2004 Matt Johnston matt @ ucc asn au # This code may be freely used and modified for any purpose. Is it ok to use such code in debian packages? No mention about distribution of code and distribution of modified code. ciao cate So does this mean that it's not possible to use this script inside Debian? If not, I'm going to ask the author (Matt Johnston) if he can send me a version with a modified copyright notice. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Short copyright notice in script file
MJ Ray wrote: Alexander Block abl...@blocksoftware.net wrote: I'm not in this list, please set me in CC when replying. I'm packaging a script (cnetworkmanager) at the moment which contains a small python script [1] that contains a very short copyright/legal notice: # (c) 2004 Matt Johnston matt @ ucc asn au # This code may be freely used and modified for any purpose. Is it ok to use such code in debian packages? There's no clear permission to distribute in any way, so it's not great. I believe we're unlikely to get sued for it, but it would be better if Matt Johnston had used a widely-known licence instead of that. Best course of action is to request relicensing. I'm not sure whether ftpmaster would let that in as-is or not. Hope that helps, Hello again, thanks for the response. I asked Matt about changing the copyright notice and he changed it to the following: # (c) 2004 Matt Johnston matt @ ucc asn au # This code may be freely used, distributed, relicensed, and modified for any # purpose. Does that sound ok for Debian? Best regards, Alex -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Short copyright notice in script file
Alexander Block abl...@blocksoftware.net writes: So does this mean that it's not possible to use this script inside Debian? It means that Debian has no license to redistribute the work. If not, I'm going to ask the author (Matt Johnston) if he can send me a version with a modified copyright notice. You would do well to recommend he choose an existing license that is widely used, long examined, and known to result in works that are free software. The Expat license terms URL:http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt are very simple and seem closest to his apparent intent. -- \ “A cynic is a man who, when he smells flowers, looks around for | `\ a coffin.” —Henry L. Mencken | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Short copyright notice in script file
Alexander Block abl...@blocksoftware.net writes: So does this mean that it's not possible to use this script inside Debian? It means that Debian has no license to redistribute the work. If not, I'm going to ask the author (Matt Johnston) if he can send me a version with a modified copyright notice. You would do well to recommend he choose an existing license that is widely used, long examined, and known to result in works that are free software. The Expat license terms URL:http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt are very simple and seem closest to his apparent intent. -- \ “A cynic is a man who, when he smells flowers, looks around for | `\ a coffin.” —Henry L. Mencken | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Short copyright notice in script file
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:45:38 -0700 Sean Kellogg wrote: On Friday 13 March 2009 03:23:55 pm Ben Finney wrote: Alexander Block abl...@blocksoftware.net writes: So does this mean that it's not possible to use this script inside Debian? It means that Debian has no license to redistribute the work. Just in the interest of clearing up common copyright law misunderstandings, the right to redistribute is not a matter of copyright law. If I have the right to copy a work with no further explicit conditions or restrictions, I have the right to distribute those copies in the same way I have the right to give away my initial copy under the first sale doctrine. Copyright law is only interested in the acts that involve *copying*, everything after that is controlled by contract law. Alexander, if you want your address to be dropped from this sub-thread, just say so... Sean, what you say seems to make perfectly sense, and indeed I cannot find any reference to distribution in the Berne Convention. But, on the other hand, could you please explain me how it reconciles with the actual text of copyright laws? U.S. copyright law [1] states, in section 106: [...] | the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do | and to authorize any of the following: [...] | (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to | the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, | lease, or lending; Italian authors' right law (legge sul diritto d'autore) [2] states, in article 17: | 1. Il diritto esclusivo di distribuzione ha per oggetto la messa in | commercio o in circolazione, o comunque a disposizione, del pubblico, | con qualsiasi mezzo ed a qualsiasi titolo, dell'originale dell'opera o | degli esemplari di essa [...] which roughly translates in: ] 1. The exclusive right to distribute deals with the act of selling or ] circulating, or anyway making available, to the public, by any means ] and for any title, the original work or its copies [...] Since IANAL, I am probably missing something important in the picture. Could you please explain? [1] http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106 [2] http://www.interlex.it/testi/l41_633.htm#17 -- 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 pgpCDyrnrVDbI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Short copyright notice in script file
Alexander Block wrote: MJ Ray wrote: There's no clear permission to distribute in any way, so it's not great. I believe we're unlikely to get sued for it, but it would be better if Matt Johnston had used a widely-known licence instead of that. Best course of action is to request relicensing. [snip] thanks for the response. I asked Matt about changing the copyright notice and he changed it to the following: # (c) 2004 Matt Johnston matt @ ucc asn au # This code may be freely used, distributed, relicensed, and modified for any # purpose. Does that sound ok for Debian? It is still not a great license, but the reference to distributing helps, and I belive the word relicense implicitly grants rights to create derivitives, (since there are no restirctions placed on the new license the new license can allow derivitives.) If the version distributed is modified, you should extend the notice to declare what license you choose to relicense it under. The Expat license is a good choice. IANAL, IANADD. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
