<div dir="ltr">On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 12:11 PM Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <<a href="mailto:cem.f.karan.civ@mail.mil">cem.f.karan.civ@mail.mil</a>> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">> -----Original Message-----<br class="gmail_msg">
> From: License-discuss [mailto:<a href="mailto:license-discuss-bounces@opensource.org" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">license-discuss-bounces@opensource.org</a>] On Behalf Of Luis Villa<br class="gmail_msg">
> Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 2:51 PM<br class="gmail_msg">
> To: <a href="mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">license-discuss@opensource.org</a><br class="gmail_msg">
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] <a href="http://code.mil" rel="noreferrer" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">code.mil</a> update<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:03 AM Christopher Sean Morrison <<a href="mailto:brlcad@mac.com" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">brlcad@mac.com</a> < Caution-mailto:<a href="mailto:brlcad@mac.com" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">brlcad@mac.com</a> > > wrote:<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> > On Mar 8, 2017, at 9:32 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <<a href="mailto:cem.f.karan.civ@mail.mil" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">cem.f.karan.civ@mail.mil</a> < Caution-<br class="gmail_msg">
> mailto:<a href="mailto:cem.f.karan.civ@mail.mil" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">cem.f.karan.civ@mail.mil</a> > > wrote:<br class="gmail_msg">
> ><br class="gmail_msg">
> > You might want to re-read what they posted; the license applies only to those<br class="gmail_msg">
> > portions of the code that have copyright attached, otherwise it's public<br class="gmail_msg">
> > domain. The trick is that while US Government (USG) works are ineligible for<br class="gmail_msg">
> > copyright within the US, they may be eligible for copyright outside the US,<br class="gmail_msg">
> > and in those areas the USG works are licensed under the OSI-approved license.<br class="gmail_msg">
> > I'm not sure what it would mean for code that was moved across jurisdictions,<br class="gmail_msg">
> > but I do understand and appreciate the intent of their approach.<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> They’ve slapped a copyright-based license file on the collective work with an INTENT file clarifying that it only applies to code that<br class="gmail_msg">
> has copyright attached. I read what they wrote very carefully. We’re saying exactly the same thing.<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> It’s an interesting approach that is not new, just untested and a point of dispute in the past as to what might happen.<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> For what little it is worth, having just read <a href="http://intent.md" rel="noreferrer" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">intent.md</a> < Caution-<a href="http://intent.md" rel="noreferrer" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">http://intent.md</a> > , I think it's an eminently reasonable policy. It gives<br class="gmail_msg">
> some baseline certainty for non-.gov contributors, non-US entities, and US entities that are satisfied with a baseline set of FOSS rights. For<br class="gmail_msg">
> 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<br class="gmail_msg">
> way.<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> Luis<br class="gmail_msg">
<br class="gmail_msg">
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.<br class="gmail_msg">
<br class="gmail_msg">
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)?<br class="gmail_msg"></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.<br><br></div><div>(As I think I've said before, I think in 2017 CC0 is not an OSI-approvable license because of the patent clause. Shame.)<br><br></div><div>Luis <br></div></div></div><div dir="ltr">-- <br></div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><i><a href="http://lu.is" target="_blank">Luis Villa: Open Law and Strategy</a><br></i></div><i>+1-415-938-4552</i></div></div></div></div>