Re: NEC Licence (Work of US Gov. Employees)
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 Government could sue in the courts of
another nation to enforce its copyright. On the other hand, other parts of
the same document seem to imply that the Congress wants the US Government
to waive all rights. Ambiguous.
> 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.
No, it just says that that Title 17 provides no protection for such works:
the US Government may not cite Title 17 when sueing for infringement. This
leaves them with no recourse in the US, but if they were to sue in another
jurisdiction I see nothing that would prevent them from citing local law.
> So, is the paragraph from the House report a wish or a conclusion?
It is part of the legislative history, which is one of the things a US
court will refer to when attempting to disambiguate a law.
> 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.
Right. If Title 17 actually said that the US Government has no copyright
on its works we could cite that in a foreign court as evidence of
abandonment, but it carefully avoids saying that.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Reply to: