On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan....@mail.mil> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On >> Behalf Of Thorsten Glaser >> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 4:33 PM >> To: Stephen Michael Kellat <smkel...@yahoo.com> >> Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org >> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and >> the US Government >> >> Stephen Michael Kellat dixit: >> >> >them to fix this to be public domain globally is best done by amending >> >> There’s no such thing as voluntarily releasing a work into the Public Domain >> in several countries of the world, so this is futile at best, >> worse hamful. >> >> >> Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) dixit: >> >> >> So, in the end, “we” need a copyright licence “period”. >> > >> >Not exactly. This is where CC0 comes into play, at least here at the >> >> Yes, that’d be a way to express the same thing *if* CC0 were sublicenseable. >> It currently sorta works, but… >> >> >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 >> >> … this could be tricky. >> >> If it were sublicenseable, the thing exported back to the USA could be fully >> under a proper copyright licence as the work of the person >> who created the modified work (assuming it passes threshold of originality, >> of course). >> >> But I’m assuming it’d also work with just CC0, except CC themselves asked >> for it to not be certified as Open Source due to problems with >> it (I don’t know which ones exactly). >> >> >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 >> >> This is never true. >> >> Under the Berne Convention, a work from country A is, in country B, subject >> to the same protection as a work from country B. That means >> for a work originating in the USA, in Germany, only(!) German copy‐ right >> law applies. In France, only French law, etc. >> >> I kinda like Richard Fontana’s approach to state a proper Open Source >> licence for where copyright law applies. > > I see your point, but CC0 is an attempt to even out the use cases as far > possible. Basically, a person in Germany should not have to wonder if > they'll be sued for using a US Government work that is in the public domain > in the US. CC0 answers that question as far as it is possible given the > various jurisdictions around the world.
What about jurisdictions where moral rights cannot be legally waived? _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
