> On Mar 8, 2017, at 9:32 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > <cem.f.karan....@mail.mil> wrote: > > You might want to re-read what they posted; the license applies only to those > portions of the code that have copyright attached, otherwise it's public > domain. The trick is that while US Government (USG) works are ineligible for > copyright within the US, they may be eligible for copyright outside the US, > and in those areas the USG works are licensed under the OSI-approved license. > I'm not sure what it would mean for code that was moved across jurisdictions, > but I do understand and appreciate the intent of their approach.
They’ve slapped a copyright-based license file on the collective work with an INTENT file clarifying that it only applies to code that has copyright attached. I read what they wrote very carefully. We’re saying exactly the same thing. It’s an interesting approach that is not new, just untested and a point of dispute in the past as to what might happen. Sean _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
