> Yes, of course it is. But the license really only applies to that portion
> of the derivative that is your work. The term "relicensing" implies
> otherwise, which is why I object to it.
why does it imply that? a licence is merely a contract; i can slap any
licence i want on a public domain work
I wrote:
> Yes, of course it is. But the license really only applies to that
> portion of the derivative that is your work. The term "relicensing"
> implies otherwise, which is why I object to it.
Raul writes:
> Hmm.. are you saying that U.S. citizens do *not* have the right to
> distribute [uncla
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If there is a license, no problem. But if there is no license neither
> U.S. or non-U.S. citizens have that right outside of the USA.
Hmm... yes, I have to agree with this.
Thanks, sorry if I've been a bit dense,
--
Raul
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmm.. are you saying that U.S. citizens do *not* have the right to
> distribute [unclassified] U.S. government works overseas, under any
> license?
If there is a license, no problem. But if there is no license neither
U.S. or non-U.S. citizens have that r
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, of course it is. But the license really only applies to that
> portion of the derivative that is your work. The term "relicensing"
> implies otherwise, which is why I object to it.
Hmm.. are you saying that U.S. citizens do *not* have the right to
dist
Raul writes:
> It's possible to a take a public domain work, derive some other work from
> it (for example, by compiling the program -- perhaps with other changes)
> and sell it for a lot of money under a restrictive license.
Yes, of course it is. But the license really only applies to that portio
Richard Braakman writes:
> This is what I was afraid of. It means that as a global organization, we
> will need a license for all such works, in order to consider them
> DFSG-free.
I missed this when I glanced over the report Raul posted. This would tend
to support my theory that the US Governme
I wrote:
> Stuff like these house reports do have some weight, but it's mostly
> the weight of agreement. But books have been written on the nature
> of the U.S. legislative process.. it's a lot more complex than Debian's
> btw, and I think I've said enough in that direction for now.
I should hav
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Right. The author is forbidden to enforce its copyright. No one else has
> any standing to do so. You have no rights to the material: you cannot sue
> people who make copies without your permission. Neither can anyone else,
> so everybody is free to do a
Raul Miller wrote:
> from the House report:
>
> > The prohibition on copyright protection for United States Government works
> >is not intended to have any effect on protection of these works abroad. Works
> >of the governments of most other countries are copyrighted. There are no
> >valid policy
Raul writes:
> The fundamental question is: does this governmental work meet DFSG
I don't believe that I have ever disputed that.
> Secondly, 17 USC 103 isn't the right section. Let's start with 17 USC
> 105:
I already cited that.
> In other words, there's no limits on distribution, modificatio
Raul Miller wrote:
from the House report:
> The prohibition on copyright protection for United States Government works
>is not intended to have any effect on protection of these works abroad. Works
>of the governments of most other countries are copyrighted. There are no
>valid policy reasons fo
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't see any way that the law is about to let you take material
> to which you own no rights, attach a license to it, and enforce that
> license.
Ok, I sat down for a couple minutes and looked things up for myself.
The fundamental question is: does this
Raul writes:
> But there is no copyright on U.S. Government issued materials, nor on
> public domain materials, so this paragraph isn't really relevant.
(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to
the material contributed by the author of such work, as disting
> It says that you can't enlarge the scope, etc. of any copyright
> protection in the prexisting material.
>
> There is no copyright protection in the prexisting material, so I fail
> to see how that paragraph is relevant.
there is no copyright protection; therefore the scope of any existing
copy
You can re-license any work that allows re-licensing. These include all
public-domain works, and any other works whose license terms allow it, such
as works under the BSD and X licenses. You can, for example, put the GPL
on any X-licensed work _in_addition_ to the X license. Your modifications
will
Henning Makholm writes:
> They probably won't. That doesn't mean that a third-party copyright
> statement will have any validity in court, whatsoever.
Except perhaps as evidence of fraud.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quotes Title 17:
> > (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
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quotes Title 17:
> (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 employ
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quotes Title 17:
> (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 exclusi
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 licens
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
They probably won't. That doesn't mean that a third-party copyright
statement will have any validity in court, what
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There's plenty of examples where a public domain work was relicensed and
> > sold for a lot of money.
>
> And those who paid that money can extract the PD work and distribute copies
> with impunity no matter how the seller "relicensed" it.
Only if they c
Raul writes:
> It ["relicensing"] doesn't mean much if you don't put original content
> into your derived copy, but there's nothing that prevents multiple
> licenses.
It doen't mean anything. The original work retains its original license
while whatever you added to create the derivative gets wha
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > thus, anybody can reuse and relicence it in any way one wishes.
>
> No one can relicense anyone else's work, PD or not.
Er.. yes you can.
It doesn't mean much if you don't put original content into your
derived copy, but there's nothing that prevents mu
Jonathan P Tomer writes:
> posit: if a work is a product of the us government, it is in the public
> domain.
Not true, but ok.
> thus, anybody can reuse and relicence it in any way one wishes.
No one can relicense anyone else's work, PD or not.
> for instance, you could grab any us government p
From: Jonathan P Tomer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> for instance, you could grab any us government produced software and gpl it
> (or whatever lese you like) for a debian package.
Yes. I guess you've discussed what I did with the U.S. map data.
> if i'm wrong here, and it has to stay in pd or some such,
ok, here's a thought:
posit: if a work is a product of the us government, it is in the public
domain.
thus, anybody can reuse and relicence it in any way one wishes.
for instance, you could grab any us government produced software and gpl it
(or whatever lese you like) for a debian package.
if
Alan Bain writes:
> I'd appreciate a source of information on what makes work of US goverment
> employees `public domain'
The US copyright statutes are available at the Library of Congress Web
site.
--
John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]D
I've been trying to make a definitive decision on what to say
about the copyright of the NEC antenna modelling code developed
by Lauwrence Livermore Labs. The code has no detailed copyright
statement; but claims
C***NOTICE**
C THIS COMPUTER CODE MATERIAL WAS
30 matches
Mail list logo
