Re: Intent to package proj -- coyright question

[john@dhh.gt.org]

Carl Mummert writes:
john@dhh.gt.org wrote:
> > 17 USC 105 is not valid in any EU country, so we end with a package
> > _without_ copyright clause, without explicit grant to "public domain"
> > (which is required AFAIK).
> 
> > Is that software "all rights reserved" outside USA?

I didn't write that.

> Someone should look this up.

I have.  See 17 USC 105.

> From my memory, and from just checking the "Copyright FAQ" (sec 3.6) us
> gov. works _are_ public domain.

As far as I can tell, the only way anything can enter the public domain is
by having its copyright expire.  17 USC 105 states that works of the US
government are not to receive the protection of the copyright law.  This
means that if you use such a work in the US without the government's
permission, they may not sue you for infringement.  This does not place the
work in the public domain: it just makes the US copyright unenforceable.
Since copyright is compulsory in all Berne convention countries, the US
government has copyright on its works in all such countries.  Thus if you
use a work of the US government in Britain without permission they could
sue you in the British courts for violating their British copyright.

Idiotic, isn't it?
-- 
John Hasler                This posting is in the public domain.
john@dhh.gt.org		   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.


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .