[License-discuss] US Army Research Laboratory Open Source License proposal

Maarten Zeinstra mz at kl.nl
Sat Jul 23 07:51:04 UTC 2016

Is that the correct interpretation of the Berne convention? The convention assigns copyright to foreigners of a signatory state with at least as strong protection as own nationals. Since US government does not attract copyright I am unsure if they can attract copyright in other jurisdictions.

I am of the belief that the US government does not get assigned copyright in other jurisdiction as it is not a right holder in the country of origin. 

Or am I misunderstanding the Berne Convention?


Maarten Zeinstra
Kennisland | www.kl.nl | t +31205756720 | m +31643053919 | @mzeinstra

> On 22 jul. 2016, at 23:29, John Cowan <cowan at mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
> Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) scripsit:
>> Finally, there is opinion within the US Government that while there is no US
>> copyright protection, copyright attaches outside of the US.  Thus, if a
>> project is downloaded and used outside of the USA, then any work produced by a
>> US Government employee will have foreign copyright protection, and the terms
>> of the License should apply to that copyright as well.
> Presumably it's the US government that holds the foreign copyright, since
> its employees are making works made for hire.
> You should probably add back "copyright holder" so that the license can be
> applied to works made as a whole or in part by contractors.
> The Appendix still says "Apache License".
> -- 
> John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        cowan at ccil.org
> If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing
> on my shoulders.  --Hal Abelson
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

More information about the License-discuss mailing list