On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 4:47 PM Smith, McCoy <mccoy.sm...@intel.com> wrote:
> > > >>Gov’t regularly distributes software that otherwise has *no* Title 17 > protections to foreign and domestic recipients, under contractual terms. > I’m told these have held up in court, though I admit to not having a > citation handy. > > > > Yeah, I found the idea that one could contractually restrict something > that is in the public domain (or in the parlance of 17 USC 105, not subject > to copyright) odd. Here’s a more than decade old presentation that talks > about that: > http://www.archivists.org/conference/sanfrancisco2008/docs/session101-Frankel.pdf > > Maybe someone knows of better, newer, case law or scholarship on that > point. > > <http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org> It may be relevant that the NOSA was designed to keep public domain works (and "derivative works") available to the public, as opposed to the examples in the deck cited, where the contract is used to prevent various uses in a manner akin to copyright. Thanks, Van
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
