[License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government
Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil
Mon Aug 28 14:54:02 UTC 2017
> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Thorsten Glaser
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 10:32 AM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government
> Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) dixit:
> >Hi all, as you know I've been pushing the position that the US
> >Government may have problems using copyright-based licenses on works
> >that do not have copyright attached. One of the lawyers I've been
> >working on this with has
> How is their position if the works are in the Public Domain only in the USA? Their own copyright FAQ says that even US government work
> may be copyright-protected e.g. in Germany.
> So, in the end, “we” need a copyright licence “period”.
Not exactly. This is where CC0 comes into play, at least here at the US Army Research Laboratory (ARL), and I hope in other parts of the US Government too. If the work doesn't have copyright attached within the US, it is licensed under CC0, which is a **world-wide** license. Thus, even if the work could have copyright attached in Germany, people there know that the work is under CC0. This covers the really hard question of a US Government work being exported to Germany, modified, and then re-exported back to the US. The goal (at least at ARL) is to make sure that everyone world-wide knows what the terms are, and that they are the same regardless of where you live, and where you are exporting your modifications to.
Does that make sense?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 6419 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the License-discuss