[License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] code.mil update
luis at lu.is
Wed Mar 8 20:24:44 UTC 2017
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 12:11 PM Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <
cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil> wrote:
> > -----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
> > > 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)?
It certainly seems like the current frankenpolicy across various parts of
the government is not ideal, but I'm not an expert in how that might be
(As I think I've said before, I think in 2017 CC0 is not an OSI-approvable
license because of the patent clause. Shame.)
*Luis Villa: Open Law and Strategy <http://lu.is>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss