4 ms·
That does not make it legal to publish a work without the copyright holder's consent.
by rowyourboat 13y ago
That does not make it legal to publish a work without the copyright holder's consent.
- nhaehnle 13y agoPerhaps, but it does make it moral to publish the work. And law ought to follow morality rather than the other way around.
- rowyourboat 13y agoIf your point is that these standards are in fact de-facto laws and should be treated accordingly (free access and all), then make that point directly. It is unclear to me how copyright violation helps here, apart from publicity.
- tracker1 13y agoIf the law requires implementation of {STANDARD} then {STANDARD} is part of the law, and should not be subject to copyright... the end.. no copyright violation for standards that are part of the law.
- halostatue 13y agoNote that not all countries hold the idea that the U.S. does where something published by the government is not copyrighted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_copyright http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_copyright
- tracker1 13y agoI realize this... the core principles of liberty are, however, universal. Even if a specific local government doesn't believe in it. Even in the U.S. it appears to be less and less supported by law each year.
- Xylakant 13y agoWhich is totally not the case here. The law mandates certain actions. If you're certified to comply with the standard, then you're in compliance with the law, however you can be in compliance with the law without implementing the standard - you just carry the burden of proof.
- hvidgaard 13y agoI think the problem here is that the standards become law - it's a grey area, because the law ought to be free for everyone to read.