Re: JPL Planetary Ephemeris DE405
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: JPL Planetary Ephemeris DE405
- From: Ben Finney <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2018 20:38:12 +1100
- Message-id: <[🔎] email@example.com>
- References: <20180222233731.GA18752@dashie.lan> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <1519725881.928043.1284821680.2D0E65C7@webmail.messagingengine.com> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <[🔎] email@example.com>
jonathon <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> The source code for the ephemeris is physical observations of the stars,
> planets, and other bodies in it.
The physical observations are not a work of expression; likewise, my
physical observation of a mountain is not a work of expression. They may
be the “source of the data” in some sense, but that sense is not
relevant for figuring out the license on a work of expression.
In the mountain example, the mountain is not a work of expression;
a digitally-recorded photograph of that moment at a place and time *is*
a work of expression. It may even be the source form of the work.
The “physical observations of [natural phenomena]” does not describe a
form of the work, so it cannot be the source form of the work.
Rather, the source form of the work is whichever form of the work – in
this case, some specific form of the ephemeris data – which would be
preferred for the purpose of making modifications to the work.
\ “Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do |
`\ so too.” —Voltaire, _Essay On Tolerance_ |