OK, so there is a possibility that there is no copyright in foreign (to the US) countries because such countries may choose to interpret the Berne convention in that manner. That suggests to me that the USG needs a contract-based license even more than it already did, otherwise there may be additional headaches for the USG in non-US territories. Are there any disagreements with this?
Thanks, Cem Karan > -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Maarten Zeinstra > Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 2:02 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License proposal > > All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the > identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links > contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a > Web browser. > > > ________________________________ > > > > > -- > Kennisland | Caution-www.kl.nl < Caution-http://www.kl.nl > | t > +31205756720 | m +31643053919 | @mzeinstra > > > On 03 Aug 2016, at 19:42, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > <cem.f.karan....@mail.mil < Caution- > mailto:cem.f.karan....@mail.mil > > wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org < > Caution-mailto:license-discuss- > boun...@opensource.org > ] On > Behalf Of John Cowan > Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 11:39 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org < > Caution-mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army > Research > Laboratory Open Source License proposal > > Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) scripsit: > > > > A copyright-based license may work outside of the US > because the USG > would (probably) have copyright protections there? > > > > Depending solely on local law, so there is no uniform answer. > > > > Yes, which is why I said 'may'. It has to be litigated in each > jurisdiction > to know for certain how it will go. > > > > As far as I know, this hasn't been litigated anywhere, > so it may not > apply. > > > > That wouldn't matter if there was an explicit or implicit > statutory grant > in > the foreign country. If only the Berne Convention holds, then > the "We give you 0 years because you give yourself 0 years" > argument kicks > in. > > > > I see what you're saying, and it's an interesting point of view. Are > there > any countries that are signatories to the Berne Convention that hold > this > point of view? > > > > Most likely all of them when it comes down to a court case, but as you said > there is no known case law here. > > > > Interesting link! I wish it weren't behind a paywall, > I'd like to > read more of it. > > > > Me too. Ask a lawyer friend to send you a copy (and me, while > you're at > it). > My father's preprint copy moldered away a long time ago. > > > > What, and violate copyright, the very thing we're discussing right now? > ;) > > Thanks, > Cem Karan > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org < > Caution-mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org > > > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > >
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
