Re: NEC Licence (Work of US Gov. Employees)
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 for denying such protection to United States Government
> >works in foreign countries, or for precluding the Government from making
> >licenses for the use of its works abroad.
Richard Braakman <dark@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> 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.
>
> However, the text of the law does not seem to support the claim above:
...
I think you missed my comments at the bottom of that email.
However, basically: yes, the law in 17 usc 105 doesn't support such
a claim. What the House Report was saying is that 17 usc 105 doesn't
contradict stuff like 15 usc chap 23, sec 1151 (which makes the NTIS
a somewhat self-sustaining clearinghouse for scientific, technical and
engineering information), or 39 usc (which defines the postal service).
The house reports are reports on the lawmaking process -- guidelines
for future laws. They're interesting, but frankly if we start basing
our decisions on laws that might be made we'll go nuts.
>
> >Sec. 105. Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works
> >
> > Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the
> >United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded
> >from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment,
> >bequest, or otherwise.
>
> The phrasing suggests that the United States Government has no copyrights
> to these works; not that it has them but is not allowed to enforce them.
> So, is the paragraph from the House report a wish or a conclusion?
As I hope I've pointed out: neither.
> I suppose that the interpretation is not really up to US law, but to
> the law of the country that copyright is being claimed in. That means
> in practice that our only protection is the Berne convention, which
> as far as I know makes no special exception for works of governments.
>
> (I dispute the "There are no valid policy reasons..." claim, by the
> way. If the public is prevented from using these works abroad, then,
> in today's global economy, it lacks some important rights to these
> works that were created with public money. I don't suppose that my
> objection will do any good, though :)
Heh... What you need to understand is that most statements by lawmakers,
and most proposed laws, never actually become law. Furthermore most
enacted law is heavily modified from the original proposals before it
actually becomes law.
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.
--
Raul
Reply to: