Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

source.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and > the US Government > > > -Original Message- > > From: Richard Fontana [Caution-mailto:font...@sharpeleven.org] > > Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 11:39 AM > > To: Karan, C

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of John Cowan > Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 1:22 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyf

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) < cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote: Wait... what??? You mean the copyright goes on until the next two world > wars occur? How do they define a world war? What if we luck out and no > world wars occur? > No, it's that the

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Thorsten Glaser > Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 8:26 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: N

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) dixit: >Does the EU define copyright and other IP rights for all member Only guidelines that have to be implemented in national law. The various countries still differ, even in the duration of the protection (France, for example, has an extra clause to

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Thorsten Glaser > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 3:50 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: N

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

Hi list, during this discussion I re-read CC0 and came to the conclusion that it does not license the work itself but the right to act in the stead of the author (e.g. issue licences on it). That’s interesting and allows for a _lot_ of possibilities. Of course… >Making CC0 + a patent release

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

icense-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Marc Jones > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 2:05 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and > the US Government > > Cem, > > Has your organizat

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

.karan@mail.mil> wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > > Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 2:32 PM > > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > > Subject: Re: [

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 2:32 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyf

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

uss@opensource.org>> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Tuesday, August 29,

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 11:03 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-dis

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

- >> From: Stephen Michael Kellat [mailto:smkel...@yahoo.com] >> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 12:35 PM >> To: license-discuss@opensource.org; Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM >ARL (US) >> <cem.f.karan@mail.mil>; Richard Fontana >> <font...@sharpeleven.org

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

source.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, >

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

I think that given that the USG is already saying that CC0 is a valid Open Source license for the purposes of open source release on Code.gov the CC0 train has already left the station without OSI approval. The FSF recommends it for public domain releases and states it is GPL compatible. CC

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

8, 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: >&

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

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 Pub

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

cuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and > the US Government > > As bad as it sounds, would a brief statutory clarification be useful in this > instance? We can write around Congress all we want but getting > them to fix this to

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

John Cowan dixit: >Also under the Berne convention, country B may (but is not required to) >treat a work that is out of copyright in its originating country as out of >copyright >in country B as well. OK, but, as you said yourself… >The U.S. does not exercise this option, and the >EU countries

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Thorsten Glaser scripsit: 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

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)

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

> On Aug 28, 2017, at 12:34 PM, Stephen Michael Kellat > wrote: > > As bad as it sounds, would a brief statutory clarification be useful in this > instance? We can write around Congress all we want but getting them to fix > this to be public domain globally is best done

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

As bad as it sounds, would a brief statutory clarification be useful in this instance? We can write around Congress all we want but getting them to fix this to be public domain globally is best done by amending the law. A small rider proposed through channels per the Recommendations Clause in

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

> -Original Message- > From: Richard Fontana [mailto:font...@sharpeleven.org] > Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 11:39 AM > To: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

> -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, Copyf