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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
On Wed, Jun 09, 1999 at 11:04:29AM -0700, David Lawyer wrote:
> Ismael Olea wrote:
> > Hum. This is a very complex stuff. What about recomend the use of GPL
> >for new docs?
Hi all, i'm the debian maintainer of the guide of LDP. Actually
not all the guide of LDP are considered debian free soft
13 matches
Mail list logo
