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

[Luis Villa]

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
> 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)?
>

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
resolved.

(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
-- 

*Luis Villa: Open Law and Strategy <http://lu.is>*
*+1-415-938-4552*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20170308/c76f8fa1/attachment.html>