On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:03:57PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:31:44PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > Damn. Did some more research, and you appear to be correct with respect > > to the most recent interpretations of the law. :-P The current > > interpretation of 17 USC Sect. 105 is that such works are > > copyright-controlled in countries which have copyright control over the > > works of their own governments. > > Also, public domain in the U.S. means that any U.S. citizen can assert > copyright over such works (or derivatives). > > So we can GPL such works, for all the difference that makes.
Er, this only applies if you commingle the public domain work with an
original contribution of your own, AIUI.
If I can discern the public domain version of the work from your
"copyrighted" version, then your version is not copyrighted at all.
Things cannot leave the public domain except through an act of Congress.
As Lawrence Lessig has pointed out, this has happened[1], but it's
relatively rare, and typically reserved for major campaign contributors
like large movie studios, record companies, and music publishers.
[1] "Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), Pub. L. No.
103-465 (1994) (codified at 17 U.S.C. §§ 104A, 109(a), goes a step
further: it removes thousands of works from the public domain and
retroactively grants them copyrights, thereby depriving the public of
its ability – and right – to freely use materials that were, for many
years, open to all. These laws have greatly harmed plaintiffs’
artistic endeavors, and their ability to perform, teach, and
disseminate works to the public."
-- http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/golanvashcroft/golan-reply.html
--
G. Branden Robinson | Intellectual property is neither
Debian GNU/Linux | intellectual nor property.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Discuss.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Linda Richman
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
