[License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research Laboratory Open Source License proposal

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of John Cowan
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 11:39 AM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research 
> Laboratory Open Source License proposal
>
> Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) scripsit:
>
> > A copyright-based license may work outside of the US because the USG
> > would (probably) have copyright protections there?
>
> Depending solely on local law, so there is no uniform answer.

Yes, which is why I said 'may'.  It has to be litigated in each jurisdiction 
to know for certain how it will go.

> > As far as I know, this hasn't been litigated anywhere, so it may not 
> > apply.
>
> That wouldn't matter if there was an explicit or implicit statutory grant in 
> the foreign country.  If only the Berne Convention holds, then
> the "We give you 0 years because you give yourself 0 years" argument kicks 
> in.

I see what you're saying, and it's an interesting point of view.  Are there 
any countries that are signatories to the Berne Convention that hold this 
point of view?

> > Interesting link!  I wish it weren't behind a paywall, I'd like to
> > read more of it.
>
> Me too.  Ask a lawyer friend to send you a copy (and me, while you're at 
> it).
> My father's preprint copy moldered away a long time ago.

What, and violate copyright, the very thing we're discussing right now? ;)

Thanks,
Cem Karan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5559 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20160803/d0fa9936/attachment.p7s>