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

Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil
Mon Jul 25 12:13:52 UTC 2016

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of John Cowan
> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 5:29 PM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] US Army Research Laboratory 
> Open Source License proposal
> Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) scripsit:
> > Finally, there is opinion within the US Government that while there is
> > no US copyright protection, copyright attaches outside of the US.
> > Thus, if a project is downloaded and used outside of the USA, then any
> > work produced by a US Government employee will have foreign copyright
> > protection, and the terms of the License should apply to that copyright as 
> > well.
> Presumably it's the US government that holds the foreign copyright, since 
> its employees are making works made for hire.


> You should probably add back "copyright holder" so that the license can be 
> applied to works made as a whole or in part by contractors.

We're actually dealing with contractors separately, by having them assign 
copyright back to the Government, and then using the Apache 2.0 license 
directly.  What we're working on is the more difficult case where the code has 
been developed entirely by Government employees.  In that case, there is no 
copyright to assign initially, and we still need a license to cover the code 
in some way.  In addition, other Government workers may choose to contribute 
to a project.  If they do it as a part of their official duties, then the work 
they contribute has no copyright; the license needs to apply to those 
contributions as well.

All that said, contributions from the public and persons or entities that have 
copyright need to be covered the same way as the Apache 2.0 license would 
cover the contributions.

> The Appendix still says "Apache License".

Whoops!  The headaches of keeping a plain text, LaTeX, and HTML version of the 
license around... Now fixed in my copy.

> John Cowan          Caution-http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        cowan at ccil.org
> If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on 
> my shoulders.  --Hal Abelson

I like the quote.

Cem Karan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5559 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20160725/c684f198/attachment.p7s>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list