> -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Thorsten Glaser > Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 10:32 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the > US Government > > Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) dixit: > > >Hi all, as you know I've been pushing the position that the US > >Government may have problems using copyright-based licenses on works > >that do not have copyright attached. One of the lawyers I've been > >working on this with has > > How is their position if the works are in the Public Domain only in the USA? > Their own copyright FAQ says that even US government work > may be copyright-protected e.g. in Germany. > > So, in the end, “we” need a copyright licence “period”.
Not exactly. This is where CC0 comes into play, at least here at the US Army Research Laboratory (ARL), and I hope in other parts of the US Government too. If the work doesn't have copyright attached within the US, it is licensed under CC0, which is a **world-wide** license. Thus, 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 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 exporting your modifications to. Does that make sense? Thanks, Cem Karan
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
