amicus_curious wrote:
What part of 17 USC 109 did you miss? That holds for the USofA
> and as far as I know it is followed in most other countries.
Just a reminder to everyone - copyright law is an arbitrary and capricious set of rules made up by people with vested interests. You should not expect logic and consistency to carry the day. For example, here's what used to be part of the law in the US: <http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap6.html> ยง 601. Manufacture, importation, and public distribution of certain copies (a) Prior to July 1, 1986, and except as provided by subsection (b), the importation into or public distribution in the United States of copies of a work consisting preponderantly of nondramatic literary material that is in the English language and is protected under this title is prohibited unless the portions consisting of such material have been manufactured in the United States or Canada. The subsection (b) exclusions are even more weird - read it for yourself. What was this about? Publishers didn't want booksellers to be able to import English books published in the U.K. to the U.S., like the movie studios who use region-coded DVDs, and got the law to prohibit it. What this means for free software is that should there be a high enough profile dispute, you can expect lawmakers to get involved and to carve out some special language to cover it. Which way, I wouldn't venture to guess. Think about the net neutrality fights as an example. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
