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

[Philippe Ombredanne]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 11:23 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>
> It is true that this public domain result doesn't apply outside the U.S. But
> if you apply a valid open source license to it – such as Apache 2.0 – that
> should be good enough for everyone who doesn't live in the U.S. and
> irrelevant for us here.

Larry, are you suggesting that Cem considers using  some statement more
or less like this, rather than a new license?
    This U.S. Federal Government work is not copyrighted and dedicated
    to the public domain in the USA. Alternatively, the Apache-2.0
license applies
    outside of the USA ?

On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Maarten Zeinstra <mz at kl.nl> wrote:
>
> 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.

Maarten, are you suggesting then that the lack of copyright for a U.S. Federal
Government work would just then apply elsewhere too and that using an
alternative Apache license would not even be needed?

-- 
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne

+1 650 799 0949 | pombredanne at nexB.com
DejaCode : What's in your code?! at http://www.dejacode.com
nexB Inc. at http://www.nexb.com