Closed rebeccawilliams closed 10 years ago
Just to pull it into the thread, the link @rebeccawilliams is suggesting we link and never to U.S. law
to is http://www.copyrightcompendium.com/#206.01. It's a link to the official Copyright office guidance, and seems worth including.
But @JoshData, earlier in the doc you link the position of the U.S. Copyright Office
to http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/copyrightcompendium.asp. Is that the same thing? If so, I think @rebeccawilliams' link may be better (since it links right to the text), and worth replacing that link with as well.
Yeah looks good. Let's replace the old link too. I think that means that instead of adding [2], we can just replace [5] and use "[5]" at the top for a cleaner diff.
OK, merged and followed up with https://github.com/unitedstates/licensing/commit/e9238848c1e62e7c6246e2c0a8c68c8610026d1e which re-adjusts everything.
As a public policy that is not explicitly stated in the Copyright Act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_government. I thought it was good idea to link to the Copyright Office's Guidelines stating the Edicts of Government exclusion. This is not the official gov link though, which is not promising: http://www.copyright.gov/compendium/