[License-review] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0 and Government licensing [was: moving to an issue tracker [was Re: Some notes for license submitters]]

[Bruce Perens]

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <
cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil> wrote:
>
>
> Money.  Patent trolls and other malevolent entities don't sue because it's
> fun, they sue as part of a business model.


Yes, I have this fellow who sued me for 3 Million last year, for
defamation, and whom I have anti-SLAPPed. With the help of EFF and
O'Melveny and Meyers, including Open Source expert Heather Meeker.


> But under the model you're suggesting, the permissions change depending on
> the jurisdiction you're in; within US jurisdiction there are one set of
> rights, while outside there are other rights.  I want everyone to have a
> level playing field regardless of where they're located.
>

Welcome to the Open Source world :-) It's the same for all of us. From
state to state in the US, and in every nation.


> But the USG ALREADY has the ability to make these kinds of contracts!


And you are welcome to do so, but please don't call them Open Source.


> We can limit who we share data and other materials with under NDAs and
> contracts with contractors, who are then required to bind any
> subcontractors to the same terms.  This is a recursive subcontractor clause.
>

And I can do the same with my proprietary software. Which I am always
careful not to call Open Source.


> If CC0 were declared invalid within the US on copyright grounds, then it
> would mean that material that is dedicated to the public domain is (wait
> for it) in the public domain.  In those areas where the material does have
> copyright attached (outside US jurisdiction) CC0 makes it be the same there
> as it is within US jurisdiction.
>
> BSD doesn't have that behavior if declared null and void by the courts.
>

OK. It's nice to have fall-back behavior that you can trust. I still don't
see why you need the contractual restrictions to get it. CC0 doesn't have
them.

Which leads us back to the severability problem, which is why GOSS people
> keep hammering on the copyright problem.
>

This is a problem we face in every Open Source license. If the license is
severed because the work is in the public domain, you get your nice
fallback to the public domain. The license is not severable for the work
being in the public domain outside of the US.

Are you worried that NOSA 1.3 and 2.0 will be active at the same time?
>

Not me, but nor am I expecting that you could deprecate that license, and
have all external users do so, in a short time.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20180620/6c39c6a7/attachment.html>