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. > As far as I know, this hasn't been litigated anywhere, so

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research Laboratory Open Source License proposal

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of John Cowan > Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 9:57 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research > Laboratory Open

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research Laboratory Open Source License proposal

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of John Cowan > Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 11:39 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research > Laboratory Open

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research Laboratory Open Source License proposal

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

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research Laboratory Open Source License proposal

-- Kennisland | www.kl.nl | t +31205756720 | m +31643053919 | @mzeinstra > On 03 Aug 2016, at 19:42, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > wrote: > >> -Original Message- >> From: License-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research Laboratory Open Source License proposal

The ARL (and the USG in general) can still have both patent rights and trademark rights. Violate either, and the USG could bring suit on its own behalf. Moreover, while USG-generated works don't have copyright, that doesn't mean there is no copyright; contractors and others may choose to

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research Laboratory Open Source License proposal

Hi all, Karl Fogel on the mil-oss (http://www.mil-oss.org/) mailing list made a suggestion that might be the solution. Would the Apache foundation be willing to work on Apache 2.1, or maybe 3.0, incorporating changes as needed to cover works that don't have copyright attached to them? If that

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research Laboratory Open Source License proposal

Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) scripsit: > She told me that the Berne convention does not change laws in individual > countries, it just removes certain formalities. As such, if the foreign > government permits the USG to hold copyright in the foreign country, > then the USG is

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research Laboratory Open Source License proposal

Marten, I don't have any case law regarding this, but the ARL Legal team does hold that the US can assert copyright outside of the US. As for the part about being void, I spend quite a bit of time talking things over with the lawyers in the ARL Legal office. Here is what they said: 1) A