On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 11:23 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>
> It is true that this public domain result doesn't apply outside the U.S. But
> if you apply a valid open source license to it – such as Apache 2.0 – that
> should be good enough for everyone who doesn't live in the U.S. and
> irrelevant for us here.
Larry, are you suggesting that Cem considers using some statement more
or less like this, rather than a new license?
This U.S. Federal Government work is not copyrighted and dedicated
to the public domain in the USA. Alternatively, the Apache-2.0
license applies
outside of the USA ?
On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Maarten Zeinstra <m...@kl.nl> wrote:
>
> Is that the correct interpretation of the Berne convention? The convention
> assigns copyright to foreigners of a signatory state with at least as strong
> protection as own nationals. Since US government does not attract copyright
> I am unsure if they can attract copyright in other jurisdictions.
Maarten, are you suggesting then that the lack of copyright for a U.S. Federal
Government work would just then apply elsewhere too and that using an
alternative Apache license would not even be needed?
--
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne
+1 650 799 0949 | pombreda...@nexb.com
DejaCode : What's in your code?! at http://www.dejacode.com
nexB Inc. at http://www.nexb.com
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
