[License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

[Lawrence Rosen]

Nigel Tzeng correctly noted about U.S. public domain code:

> There isn¹t a lot of code that has aged out.  Only code written between before 1963 and didn¹t get a renewal.

 

There are other important reasons besides "aging out" why the claims of copyright on parts of functional works like software are often denied. (See 17 U.S.C. 102(b), for example.) Aging out isn't the only obstacle to copyright claims that make the copyright aspects of FOSS licenses unenforceable while they remain contracts to disclaim warranties. So when several here suggested that ALL FOSS WORKS probably contain public domain content, this is ANOTHER example not involving aging. 

 

The USG and ARL are not unique. Public domain is what it is for software works for everyone here (and probably abroad too). A unique FOSS license isn't necessary to "protect copyrights" in public domain works. Almost any FOSS contract will work to protect the licensor. 

 

/Larry

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Tzeng, Nigel H. [mailto:Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 2:59 PM
To: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>; license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

 

On 8/18/16, 3:57 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Lawrence Rosen"

< <mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org%20on%20behalf%20of%20lrosen at rosenlaw.com> license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org on behalf of lrosen at rosenlaw.com>

wrote:

 

 

>Nigel Tzeng wrote:

>> The issue here is for code that is potentially quite substantial.  I 

>>would think that would be a different scenario.

> 

>If I include the works of Shakespeare in my software, it would of 

>course be substantial and yet still be public domain almost everywhere (?).

 

If patents aren't a concern then okay.  Copyright lasts longer than patents so for anything that is in the public domain because of age then no patents would still apply.

 

There isn¹t a lot of code that has aged out.  Only code written between before 1963 and didn¹t get a renewal.

 

_______________________________________________

License-discuss mailing list

 <mailto:License-discuss at opensource.org> License-discuss at opensource.org

 <https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20160819/f34ae1fb/attachment.html>