[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: JPL Planetary Ephemeris DE405

Roberto <roberto@zenvoid.org> writes:
> In this particular case, it may be safe, I don't know the JPL database,
> and it seems that it cames from the US. My email was to disagree with
> your statement that a collection of facts can't be copyrighted.

My argument here is that (most) *scientific* data collections are not
copyrightable, since they rely on an objective selection (or no
selection at all).

Your other argument (with article 7) has nothing do do with copyright:
even when this article applies to a database, it is still not
(necessarily) copyright protected. Article 7 just claims that the maker
of a database *may* protect his work; but as long as he does not do
this, there are no restrictions. This is the opposite to copyright,
where the default is restrictive and the copyright owner may grant you
rights. And it also is possible only for 15 years.

> The Directive is a document that members of EU need to comply by
> modifying their local laws (usually by amending copyright laws),
> which, to make things more complicated, the exact terms vary between
> each EU member.

That is true, ofcourse.

> I'm still thinking that not taking seriously the database laws, and
> including them in Debian without properly analyzing each case and
> author intents is quite unfortunate, though.

Sure. My statement was just a rule of thumb for *scientific*
databases. I am biased f.e. by astronomical catalogues: No creativity in
selection, no creativity in arrangement, and no content protection by
the maker.

Best regards


Reply to: