Subject: [Fwd: Re: non-military use license]
From: Matthew Flaschen <>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:45:37 -0500
Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:45:37 -0500

Subject: RE: non-military use license
From: "Anderson, Kelly" <>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:16:24 -0700

 Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:16:24 -0700
I don't know about the laws now, but I do know that the US Government
forced Curtis and the Wright Brothers to abandon their patent rights in
the face of necessary air power in WWI. That was one reason that things
went forward during that critical period.


-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Flaschen [] 
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 1:57 AM
To: License Discuss
Subject: Re: non-military use license

David Woolley wrote:
> In any case, national interest considerations can always override
> (There's also the problem that unscrupulous people in military
> can rely on military secrecy to hide intellectual property violations,
> even if they are strictly illegal.)

True, but in the U.S. I don't think national security can override
patents.  Thus, *if* the U.S. gov. followed all copyright and patent
law, such a license would probably work, though it obviously wouldn't be
open source.

Matthew Flaschen

E-Mail messages may contain viruses, worms, or other malicious code. By reading the
message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts full responsibility for taking
protective action against such code. Sender is not liable for any loss or damage arising
from this message.

The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is
intended solely for the addressee(s). Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorized.

["application/pgp-signature" not shown]