Re: Mass bug filing: Cryptographic protection against modification
On Thursday 06 May 2004 09:42, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Nathanael Nerode:
> > Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> * Henning Makholm:
> >>>> Is it acceptable to ignore obnoxious but unenforceable license terms
> >>>> when evaluating licenses for DFSG compliance?
> >>>
> >>> Yes, if the license does not legally apply to any copyrightable
> >>> material that Debian distributes (or considers distributing).
> >>
> >> The problem here is that we have no workable definition of
> >> "copyrightable".
> >
> > Well, that sucks. Unfortunately, there's really no way around it, since
> > copyright is determined by law. Contact your legislator.
>
> Debian could view something as copyrightable as soon as the author
> claims copyright on it. I don't think Debian should work around the
> authors licensing decisions by invoking general law.
Surely the Berne Convention has something to say on what is copyrightable.
One of the things it says for instance is that copyright does NOT have to
be registered, it vests in the author by default. It was only when the US
adopted the convention that the need to register for copyright in the US
was dropped.
As I understand it the Berne Convention is pretty well the definative work
on international copyright law, and we do not want to be in the position of
following one national law.
>
> --
> Current mail filters: many dial-up/DSL/cable modem hosts, and the
> following domains: atlas.cz, bigpond.com, di-ve.com, hotmail.com,
> jumpy.it, libero.it, netscape.net, postino.it, simplesnet.pt,
> tiscali.co.uk, tiscali.cz, tiscali.it, voila.fr, yahoo.com.
Reply to: