[License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research Laboratory Open Source License proposal

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

OK, so there is a possibility that there is no copyright in foreign (to the 
US) countries because such countries may choose to interpret the Berne 
convention in that manner.  That suggests to me that the USG needs a 
contract-based license even more than it already did, otherwise there may be 
additional headaches for the USG in non-US territories.  Are there any 
disagreements with this?

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Maarten Zeinstra
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 2:02 PM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research 
> Laboratory Open Source License proposal
>
> All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the 
> identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links
> contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a 
> Web browser.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>
> --
> Kennisland | Caution-www.kl.nl < Caution-http://www.kl.nl >  | t 
> +31205756720 | m +31643053919 | @mzeinstra
>
>
> 	On 03 Aug 2016, at 19:42, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
> <cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil < Caution-
> mailto:cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil > > wrote:
>
>
> 		-----Original Message-----
> 		From: License-discuss 
> [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org < 
> Caution-mailto:license-discuss-
> bounces at opensource.org > ] On
> 		Behalf Of John Cowan
> 		Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 11:39 AM
> 		To: license-discuss at opensource.org < 
> Caution-mailto:license-discuss at opensource.org >
> 		Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research
> 		Laboratory Open Source License proposal
>
> 		Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) scripsit:
>
>
>
> 			A copyright-based license may work outside of the US because the USG
> 			would (probably) have copyright protections there?
>
>
>
> 		Depending solely on local law, so there is no uniform answer.
>
>
>
> 	Yes, which is why I said 'may'.  It has to be litigated in each 
> jurisdiction
> 	to know for certain how it will go.
>
>
>
> 			As far as I know, this hasn't been litigated anywhere, so it may not
> 			apply.
>
>
>
> 		That wouldn't matter if there was an explicit or implicit statutory grant 
> in
> 		the foreign country.  If only the Berne Convention holds, then
> 		the "We give you 0 years because you give yourself 0 years" argument kicks
> 		in.
>
>
>
> 	I see what you're saying, and it's an interesting point of view.  Are there
> 	any countries that are signatories to the Berne Convention that hold this
> 	point of view?
>
>
>
> Most likely all of them when it comes down to a court case, but as you said 
> there is no known case law here.
>
>
>
> 			Interesting link!  I wish it weren't behind a paywall, I'd like to
> 			read more of it.
>
>
>
> 		Me too.  Ask a lawyer friend to send you a copy (and me, while you're at
> 		it).
> 		My father's preprint copy moldered away a long time ago.
>
>
>
> 	What, and violate copyright, the very thing we're discussing right now? ;)
>
> 	Thanks,
> 	Cem Karan
> 	_______________________________________________
> 	License-discuss mailing list
> 	License-discuss at opensource.org < 
> Caution-mailto:License-discuss at opensource.org >
> 
> Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5559 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20160803/eab306af/attachment.p7s>