Raul writes:
> Only if they can do the extraction (can identify the changes). This can
> be rather hard if we're talking about a binary which was derived from PD
> information -- you might not even know that part of it was PD.
I am not disputing this, just the notion that on can change the license.
> However, in this case, the issue is not "can we restrict distribution"
> but "can we keep distribution from being restricted". And, since (a) the
> actual copyright statement is somewhat loose and ambiguous and (b) the
> U.S. Government will *not* take action against a U.S. citizen who slaps
> another copyright on the work, I think the idea is plausible.
I don't.
United States Code
TITLE 17 - COPYRIGHTS
CHAPTER 1 - SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT
...
Sec. 103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works
(a) ...
(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to
the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished
from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply
any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such
work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope,
duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in
the preexisting material.
...
Sec. 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.
--
John Hasler This posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind.
Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
