NASA CDF
Hello, I ran into a data-file which is a "CDF V2 Document, No summary info", according to /usr/bin/file. To my surprise there seems to be nothing in Debian which supports this format. The canonical CDF library appears to live at http://cdf.gsfc.nasa.gov/ and has a license ( http://cdf.gsfc.nasa.gov/html/CDF_copyright.html ) which in its entirety reads: -*- CDF Copyright Copyright 2010 Space Physics Data Facility NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center This software may be copied or redistributed as long as it is not sold for profit, but it can be incorporated into any other substantive product with or without modifications for profit or non-profit. If the software is modified, it must include the following notices: * The software is not the original (for protection of the original author's reputations from any problems introduced by others) * Change history (e.g. date, functionality, etc.) This copyright notice must be reproduced on each copy made. This software is provided as is without any express or implied warranties whatsoever. -*- There has been some queries on the freeness of CDF before on debian-legal (see http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/06/msg00052.html and http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/08/msg00099.html ) but as far as I know, CDF has never been uploaded to Debian. The conclusion I draw from the threads above is that the license above is DFSG-free. Are there any other opinions? Best, Teemu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktimmxdpkajrpxloj1nb9hny5hud=troiwxwxm...@mail.gmail.com
Re: NASA CDF
Teemu Ikonen writes: > The conclusion I draw from the threads above is that the license above > is DFSG-free. I agree with you, but also with those who observed that the notion of a federal agency holding copyright is a bit odd; published US government work falls into the public domain, and I would expect a work for hire (by a contractor) to have a corresponding copyright holder. IANAL, but I do work directly for a different US government agency (the National Center for Biotechnology Information) as a software developer. -- Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org) http://www.mit.edu/~amu/ | http://stuff.mit.edu/cgi/finger/?...@monk.mit.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/udlbp4t5ssq@dr-wily.mit.edu
Re: NASA CDF
On 12/10/2010 11:31 AM, Aaron M. Ucko wrote:
I agree with you, but also with those who observed that the notion of a
federal agency holding copyright is a bit odd; published US government
work falls into the public domain, and I would expect a work for hire
(by a contractor) to have a corresponding copyright holder.
Works created by the federal government itself cannot be copyrighted; 17
U.S.C. § 105. However, a contractor (not an employee) by definition (17
U.S.C. § 101) can only create "a work made for hire" where that work is:
a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a
collective work;
a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work;
a translation;
a supplementary work ("a work prepared for publication as a secondary
adjunct to a work by another author for the purpose of introducing,
concluding, illustrating, explaining, revising, commenting upon, or
assisting in the use of the other work, such as forewords, afterwords,
pictorial illustrations, maps, charts, tables, editorial notes, musical
arrangements, answer material for tests, bibliographies, appendixes, and
indexes");
a compilation;
an instructional text ("literary, pictorial, or graphic work prepared
for publication and with the purpose of use in systematic instructional
activities");
a test;
answer material for a test; or
an atlas.
Ergo, something created by an independent contractor *for* the
government could still be copyrighted.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d02a2ec.9000...@packetlaw.com
Re: NASA CDF
On 10/12/10 19:31, Aaron M. Ucko wrote: > Teemu Ikonen writes: > >> The conclusion I draw from the threads above is that the license above >> is DFSG-free. > I agree with you, but also with those who observed that the notion of a > federal agency holding copyright is a bit odd; published US government > work falls into the public domain, and I would expect a work for hire > (by a contractor) to have a corresponding copyright holder. ALL works are automatically copyright, as per Berne. I don't know which takes precedent, but I understood treaties override US law. AIUI the correct interpretation of the law is that the US government cannot enforce copyright, so US citizens effectively have an unrestricted licence. The situation with regard to US government works abroad, well I dunno ... > IANAL, but I do work directly for a different US government agency (the > National Center for Biotechnology Information) as a software developer. > IANAL either. Cheers, Wol -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d036fef.3040...@youngman.org.uk
Re: NASA CDF
* Aaron M. Ucko [101210 20:36]: > > The conclusion I draw from the threads above is that the license above > > is DFSG-free. > > I agree with you, but also with those who observed that the notion of a > federal agency holding copyright is a bit odd; published US government > work falls into the public domain Only in the US. They still own the copyright for the rest of the world. (And then I think they can buy stuff not produced by themselves and that is not even public domain in the US). Bernhard R. Link -- "Never contain programs so few bugs, as when no debugging tools are available!" Niklaus Wirth -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101211124501.ga6...@pcpool00.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de
Re: NASA CDF
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > * Aaron M. Ucko [101210 20:36]: >> > The conclusion I draw from the threads above is that the license above >> > is DFSG-free. >> >> I agree with you, but also with those who observed that the notion of a >> federal agency holding copyright is a bit odd; published US government >> work falls into the public domain > > Only in the US. They still own the copyright for the rest of the world. > (And then I think they can buy stuff not produced by themselves and that > is not even public domain in the US). Speculations on the copyright status of US government works outside of US aside, would "can be incorporated into any other substantive product with or without modifications for profit or non-profit" (as stated in the license) qualify as DFSG-free? Best, Teemu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktikgwenrgggqoz3mok2kc__wjxmp2mnuihh55...@mail.gmail.com
Re: NASA CDF
* Teemu Ikonen [101212 20:15]: > On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > > * Aaron M. Ucko [101210 20:36]: > >> > The conclusion I draw from the threads above is that the license above > >> > is DFSG-free. > >> > >> I agree with you, but also with those who observed that the notion of a > >> federal agency holding copyright is a bit odd; published US government > >> work falls into the public domain > > > > Only in the US. They still own the copyright for the rest of the world. > > (And then I think they can buy stuff not produced by themselves and that > > is not even public domain in the US). > > Speculations on the copyright status of US government works outside of > US aside, would "can be incorporated into any other substantive > product with or without modifications for profit or non-profit" (as > stated in the license) qualify as DFSG-free? I think it depends. Forbiding to sell it on its own is quite a stupid clause (if it may be sold together with something, forbiding sale alone is at most understandable when thinking in a pre-internet world). The question is: Is it harmfull. I'm too lazy to look for example, but AFAIR there are precedents for allowing things like this if they are not harmfull, i.e. if they are easily circumventable and cause no direct problems. I think "his software may be copied or redistributed as long as it is not sold for profit" means that copying and restributing it commercially is no problem when not charging money for this softare. So some buisiness having a public debian mirror and someone downloading only that package from it looks like no problem. I guess the biggest concern is Debian CD/DVDs. If selling a Debian CD/DVD with this software is no problem - even if there is no other software using or containing this library on this media but only many other Debian packages - then I guess it is not actually harmful. If "incorporating" state is not reached by mere aggregation with other software, then this would be a problem. This is a question you'll need at least an native English speaker or perhaps a lawyer to answer. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101216164802.ga20...@pcpool00.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de
