[odc-discuss] Fedora analysis

[Richard Fontana]

Hi,

(Note: I'm not subscribed to this list, so please copy me on any reply.)

Regarding the Fedora/Red Hat analysis of the Factual Information
License, we were concerned about the definition of "Use":

  “Use” – As a verb, means doing any act that is restricted by
  copyright, whether in the original medium or any other; and includes
  modifying the Work as may be technically necessary to use it in a
  different mode or format. This includes the right to sublicense the
  work.

A broad definition of "use" is fine. What's somewhat confusing here is
that you give an apparently broad definition and then go to the effort
of giving a rather specific and narrow form of modification "use" that
might be understood to imply that broader rights of modification,
available under background copyright law, are *not* within the scope of
"use", despite the apparent scope of the first part of the definition.
That is, it's almost like saying "in case you think that the preceding
definition doesn't include any modification rights, in fact it includes
the following particular limited modification right". This naturally
leaves the reader wondering whether other forms of modification are
somehow excluded from the definition.

Note that the same concern was expressed by abunai at
http://www.co-ment.net/text/894/ : 

  Why is modifying restricted to "as may be technically necessary"? It
  should also modifications for any purpose.

I'd like to offer a suggested improvement:

    “Use” – As a verb, means doing any act that is restricted by
    copyright, whether in the original medium or any other. This
    includes, without limitation, the right to sublicense the work.

(I think it is justified to clarify that sublicensing rights are
included in this definition.) 

Rufus Pollock wrote:

> Thus I don't understand the concerns expressed in the quoted response
> that 'Use' may somehow be limited (the fact that it says "and includes
> modifying the work ..." does not limit in any way the previous
> sentence). 

It's good to know that that is not the intention, but if so, the
specific narrow example of modification shouldn't be necessary.  If
you're going to refer to modification, leave no doubt that the full
scope of modification rights under copyright law are available, since
that is the intention.


- Richard

-- 
Richard E. Fontana
Legal Affairs
Red Hat, Inc.