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.
I am of the belief that the US government does not get assigned copyright in other jurisdiction as it is not a right holder in the country of origin. Or am I misunderstanding the Berne Convention? Regards, Maarten Zeinstra -- Kennisland | www.kl.nl | t +31205756720 | m +31643053919 | @mzeinstra > On 22 jul. 2016, at 23:29, John Cowan <co...@mercury.ccil.org> wrote: > > Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) scripsit: > >> Finally, there is opinion within the US Government that while there is no US >> copyright protection, copyright attaches outside of the US. Thus, if a >> project is downloaded and used outside of the USA, then any work produced by >> a >> US Government employee will have foreign copyright protection, and the terms >> of the License should apply to that copyright as well. > > Presumably it's the US government that holds the foreign copyright, since > its employees are making works made for hire. > > You should probably add back "copyright holder" so that the license can be > applied to works made as a whole or in part by contractors. > > The Appendix still says "Apache License". > > -- > John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org > If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing > on my shoulders. --Hal Abelson > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
