[License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

[Simon Phipps]

Hi Richard,

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven.org>
wrote:

> I really like the approach as it currently exists. But why is use of
> CC0 necessary? If some work of the US government is in the public
> domain by virtue of the Copyright Act, there is no need to use
> CC0. Indeed, I would think use of CC0 by the Government is just as
> problematic, or non-problematic, as the use of any open source
> license, such as the Apache License 2.0. Strictly speaking, the use of
> CC0 assumes that you have copyright ownership.
>

I may be misunderstanding, but I had understood that the effect of the
Copyright Act only affected the USA and that outside the USA the status of
government works is not reliably determined. As such I would expect a
license like CC0 to be necessary to give people outside the USA certainty
as to their rights regarding government works.


>
> Only noting this because the fact that OSI has not approved CC0 makes
> this more complicated than the case where CC0 is not used at all.
>

I realise CC has resource constraints but I would love to see this
revisited.

Regards

Simon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20170301/d2e66550/attachment.html>