[License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] code.mil update

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Luis Villa
> Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 2:51 PM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] code.mil update
> 
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:03 AM Christopher Sean Morrison <brlcad at mac.com < Caution-mailto:brlcad at mac.com > > wrote:
> 
> 	> On Mar 8, 2017, at 9:32 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil < Caution-
> mailto:cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil > > wrote:
> 	>
> 	> You might want to re-read what they posted; the license applies only to those
> 	> portions of the code that have copyright attached, otherwise it's public
> 	> domain.  The trick is that while US Government (USG) works are ineligible for
> 	> copyright within the US, they may be eligible for copyright outside the US,
> 	> and in those areas the USG works are licensed under the OSI-approved license.
> 	> I'm not sure what it would mean for code that was moved across jurisdictions,
> 	> but I do understand and appreciate the intent of their approach.
> 
> 	They’ve slapped a copyright-based license file on the collective work with an INTENT file clarifying that it only applies to code that
> has copyright attached.  I read what they wrote very carefully.  We’re saying exactly the same thing.
> 
> 	It’s an interesting approach that is not new, just untested and a point of dispute in the past as to what might happen.
> 
> 
> 
> For what little it is worth, having just read intent.md < Caution-http://intent.md > , I think it's an eminently reasonable policy. It gives
> some baseline certainty for non-.gov contributors, non-US entities, and US entities that are satisfied with a baseline set of FOSS rights. For
> those who for some reason need the additional flexibility of US-only PD, they can do the research to figure out what is available in that
> way.
> 
> 
> Luis

I agree; my only concern with it was that the law might be slightly different with regards to the USG-furnished code as it is public domain within the US, but may have copyright outside of it.  Just so everyone is on a level playing field I'd prefer it if the USG works that don't have copyright were released under CC0, but that is my personal preference.  

That said, it might be a question to put on the Federal Register, and get some comments.  I mean, would it be beneficial if the USG had a consistent policy on this (public domain or CC0 for works that don't have copyright)?

Thanks,
Cem Karan

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6419 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20170308/c21b1d8f/attachment.p7s>