The main points here are that (1) I'm sure the rightsholder has no intent to sue, and that (2) it would be nice to make that clear with an explicit declaration of public license.
For those who care about the details (and any open source developer who can't afford to keep an IP lawyer on retainer probably should ;-) Trent W. Buck writes: > On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 12:40:34PM -0700, Jason Dagit wrote: > > Your presentation is covered under the standard fair use terms for > > copyrights. There are no such terms. "Fair use" is a rule of reason. Examples that are typically considered fair use are exactly that. Mostly they're pretty reliable, but they are not prima facie a defense -- the judge actually has to think about whether or not "fair use" applies in any given instance, which depends on a large number of factors. > AFAIK fair use is not portable. From wikipedia (emphasis added): No, it's not, but as long as the presentation is in the U.S. it's relevant. I'm assuming that's why Jason phrased it as he did, separating "presentation" from "copying and distribution". Also, the non-portable point about the fair use defense is that it is a "rule of reason", where the judge must decide whether the use is in the public interest, and not harmful to the rightsholder's interests. Many other jurisdictions (eg, Japan) have explicitly specified exemptions in law for activities that in the U.S. are not mentioned by the U.S. Code (or are mentioned as examples of practices that are *usually* fair use), but are covered under the blanket appellation of "fair use". _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list darcs-users@darcs.net http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
