Re: JPL Planetary Ephemeris DE405
Ben Finney <email@example.com> writes:
> Ole Streicher <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> It would help in the discussion if you could point to these
>> constraints (which are applicable to research data), and not just
>> claim that they may apply in this case.
> That's shifting the burden. Like it or not (for the record: I don't like
> this), most Berne signatory jurisdictions assume by default that a fixed
> expression is subject to copyright. There are exceptions, but those
> exceptions must be positively shown: the burden is on those who would
> claim copyright does not apply.
The exception used here is that facts are not copyrightable. Positions
and movement parameters of celestial bodies, presented in their natural
form (to keep the use of JPL-DE data as example) are bare facts. And
most of research data is just this: facts.
To bring some citations:
Slide 3: "Can Date be Copyrighted? Short Answer: NO."
Slide 14: "Not protected: Simply presenting a series of mearurements in
A (US) court decision that compilations of facts requires a minimum of
originality to be copyrighted (in that case it was a telephone book; a
time-sorted list of planet positions is the same).
Is this enough material to claim an exception?