[License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Chris Travers
> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 9:14 AM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government
> 
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL
> (US) <cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil> wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: License-discuss
> >> [Caution-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.
> 
> What about jurisdictions where moral rights cannot be legally waived?

Not really a concern; the issue is whether or not others can feel safe using some code that is under CC0.  Even if you have moral rights to the code, if you put it under CC0, then I know I have the right to use it.

Thanks,
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/cdf142aa/attachment.p7s>