On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan....@mail.mil> wrote: > OK, but wouldn't those changes mean that the license no longer applies to the > uncopyrightable portions? That would mean that downstream users would no > longer have any protection from being sued, etc., right?
The obligations (a)-(d) would not apply to the uncopyrightable portions. That's not the whole license/contract, only those particular obligations that try to put "restrictions" on the rights to reproduce, prepare derivative works, and distribute them. For example, (a) says "[you can reproduce this work], provided that ... you give other recipients a copy of this license". In other words, "you can't reproduce this work if you don't add a copy of this license". This obligation doesn't apply to a public domain work, I can reproduce it without. But I'm not sure what you're worried about, sue for what? These (a)-(d) obligations have nothing to do with suing users, do they? ARL OSL has all the other clauses, which apply fine regardless of whether the underlying Work is copyrighted or not, like disclaimers of liability and clause 5. -- ~ "We like to think of our forums as a Free-Speech Zone. And freedom works best at the point of a bayonet." (Amazon, Inc.) _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss