[License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: (no subject)

Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil
Fri Sep 1 15:13:59 UTC 2017

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Tom Bereknyei
> Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 9:48 AM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] (no subject)
> Cem,
> Yes, only in the case of fully public domain do our approaches differ. Our view was that a project that never had a contribution from a
> non-federal entity would likely not reach a critical mass of adoption anyway. This isn't perfect, but the best we could come up with. I'm
> glad though that at least part of the problem has a clear path forward.

I think I see what you're trying to accomplish, but it could lead to issues transporting code across jurisdictions.  If it is possible for DDS to 'level the playing field' so that everyone is subject to the same terms for a particular piece of code, it may make it easier for downstream users to adopt.

> Anyone,
> I'm now encountering a slightly different situation in government, is there a way to ensure modifications and fixes are made available to
> the originator in a limited distribution scenario? Something like a limited distribution GPL, but unlike before, there would be no non-
> government contribution's copyright to piggyback off of.

If this is government-only, then it is possible to use various contract mechanisms to enforce what you want.  ARL has done this kind of thing for a long time now, and can share what we do with you directly (contact me off list).

> Maj Tom Bereknyei
> Defense Digital Service
> tom at dds.mil < Caution-mailto:tom at dds.mil >
> (571) 225-1630 < tel:%28571%29%20225-1630 > ‬

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/20170901/fd1c5a32/attachment.p7s>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list