Subject: Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
From: "Mark W. Alexander" <slash@dotnetslash.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:45:54 -0500

On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 09:18:30AM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> Mark W. Alexander scripsit:
> 
> > NASA legal counsel doesn't seem to be aware of the Title 17 restrictions
> > on government works. Policy cannot trump Title 17 requirements.
> > Adherence to ii, precludes i and iii.
> 
> The actual license (is anyone looking at it but me??) says that no copyright
> is claimed within the U.S. for works written by civil servants, as is the
> law.  That implies that copyright *is* claimed for such works *outside*
> the U.S., which AFAIK is an entirely novel point, which is why I posted
> a query about it last night.

So I'm not alone in my confusion...

By my reading, Title 17 says that government works are not protected by
copyright. Period. NASA also notes that they are only under the
jurisdiction of U.S. federal law. No U.S. law does, or can, subject
government works to foreign copyright authority.

Therefore: No copyright, no right to license. Not here. Not there. Not
in a box, and not with a fox. (Unless, you're represented by The SCO
Group attorneys.) It's simply public domain.

mwa
-- 
Mark W. Alexander
slash@dotnetslash.net
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3