On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 10:23 PM Bruce Perens <br...@perens.com> wrote:
No, I don't believe this is the problem. The problem is that the terms do > pernicious things like attempt to limit the public domain to national > boundaries with contractual terms. It's a terrible precedent for OSI to > approve. > Well, that pretty much reflects the law: U.S. government employee work product *is* in the public domain in the U.S., and *isn't* in the public domain in other countries unless the foreign law makes it so. Speculation: the "law of the shorter term" which many countries have (but the U.S. does not) might treat U.S. government employee works as having a copyright term of 0 years, meaning that in such countries the copyright term would also be 0 years. But whether "not copyrighted in the first place" is the same as "copyrighted for 0 years" for such purposes is a question. -- John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org Is a chair finely made tragic or comic? Is the portrait of Mona Lisa good if I desire to see it? Is the bust of Sir Philip Crampton lyrical, epical or dramatic? If a man hacking in fury at a block of wood make there an image of a cow, is that image a work of art? If not, why not? --Stephen Dedalus
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
