[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
Tue Aug 29 12:59:47 UTC 2017

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Thorsten Glaser
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 4:33 PM
> To: Stephen Michael Kellat <smkellat at yahoo.com>
> Cc: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government
> Stephen Michael Kellat dixit:
> >them to fix this to be public domain globally is best done by amending
> There’s no such thing as voluntarily releasing a work into the Public Domain in several countries of the world, so this is futile at best,
> worse hamful.
> Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) dixit:
> >> So, in the end, “we” need a copyright licence “period”.
> >
> >Not exactly.  This is where CC0 comes into play, at least here at the
> Yes, that’d be a way to express the same thing *if* CC0 were sublicenseable. It currently sorta works, but…
> >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
> … this could be tricky.
> If it were sublicenseable, the thing exported back to the USA could be fully under a proper copyright licence as the work of the person
> who created the modified work (assuming it passes threshold of originality, of course).
> But I’m assuming it’d also work with just CC0, except CC themselves asked for it to not be certified as Open Source due to problems with
> it (I don’t know which ones exactly).
> >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
> This is never true.
> Under the Berne Convention, a work from country A is, in country B, subject to the same protection as a work from country B. That means
> for a work originating in the USA, in Germany, only(!) German copy‐ right law applies. In France, only French law, etc.
> I kinda like Richard Fontana’s approach to state a proper Open Source licence for where copyright law applies.

I see your point, but CC0 is an attempt to even out the use cases as far possible.  Basically, a person in Germany should not have to wonder if they'll be sued for using a US Government work that is in the public domain in the US.  CC0 answers that question as far as it is possible given the various jurisdictions around the world.

Cem Karan

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6419 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20170829/5f6485d1/attachment.p7s>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list