of course. and there's no need to release it if it's a problem
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 2:35 PM, Carl Malamud <xxxxxxx@media.org> wrote:
how about I run this by eff before we release?
let me look at the data as well, then I will call corynne and fred.
On Sep 16, 2008, at 11:34 AM, Aaron Swartz wrote:
ok, it just says it's a license. corynne@eff said that usps is a
government agency, their stuff can't be copyrighted, so their
licenses
are irrelevant. this wasn't and isn't formal legal advice, of
course.
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Carl Malamud <xxxxxxx@media.org>
wrote:
usps license agreement. it wasn't a shrinkwrap, more like a
stocking
stuffer ... the actual data doesn't say anything, but this paper
was in
the
stack of other stuff sent along on at least one of the products.
but, we
should treat it like a shrink wrap unless a lawyer (e.g., eff)
gives us
the
go-ahead to do otherwise.
the basic questions: do we just have the facts and not the
creative work?
did we agree not to do this?
Begin forwarded message:
From: <xxxxxxx@oreilly.com>
Date: September 16, 2008 12:37:14 PM PDT
To: xxxxxxx@media.org
Subject: Scanned image from Lion
Reply-To: <xxxxxxx@oreilly.com>
DEVICE NAME: Lion
DEVICE MODEL: im3511
LOCATION: C-2
FILE FORMAT: PDF MMR(G4)
RESOLUTION: 300dpi x 300dpi
Attached file is scanned image in PDF format.
This file can be read by Adobe Acrobat Reader.
The reader can be downloaded from the following URL:
http://www.adobe.com/