[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]]

Wed Jun 20 21:21:17 UTC 2018

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-review [mailto:license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Perens
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 5:05 PM
> To: License submissions for OSI review <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> Subject: Re: [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]]
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:44 PM, 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:
> 
> 
> 	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.

It mimics the copyright-based behavior as far as is possible without invoking copyright.  Copyright is attached to the work, which means that the license is the only reason you can use the work without violating copyright.  The contractual restrictions are supposed to do the same thing, giving the USG standing when someone misbehaves (at least, as I understand it.  I'd have to talk with the NASA guys to get the complete scoop on what is going on, so take what I'm saying as hazy memories from a while ago).

> 
> 	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.

But CC0 doesn't handle patent issues, which we need to handle separately.  ARL is working on a workaround that does a mashup of OSI-approved licenses with CC0 (see https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions/tree/rewrite_for_2.0/preapproved_licenses for some examples of what we're working on), but they're not ideal, if for no other reason than CC0 is not OSI-approved, and our modification of CC0 is definitely not approved by anybody (yet).

> 
> 	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.

Just to be clear, I don't work for NASA, and I don't have any say in what they'll do.  I have reached out to them, but it will take a few days to get a response.

Thanks,
Cem Karan