[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]]

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-review [mailto:license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Perens
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 5:16 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 1:52 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:
> 
> 	> I'm not saying you should not grant rights under a copyright regime. Attempting to contractually control the public domain
> within the
> 	> US, though, is too problematical.
> 
> 	So, give them the rights to the material under a license of some kind?  One that doesn't depend on (non-existent) copyright?
> Like NOSA 2.0 is doing?
> 
> 
> No. Give them a license that depends on copyright, and can be enforced where copyright exists, and is silent about its effect where
> copyright doesn't exist. This does not restrict your capability to disclaim warranties, grant patent rights, and state terms for
> contributors (although a CLA is still advised). If you want to be nice to US citizens, tell them they may have additional rights.

If we were able to do this (using a copyright-based license), then it would be better to just use one of the OSI-approved licenses (I personally prefer Apache 2.0, but that's just me).

That said, ARL does use a CLA.  See https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions/blob/master/ARL%20Form%20-%20266.pdf.  As a note, I have to apologize about it, it will only open under Adobe Acrobat.  We need PDF generation software that will handle digital signatures correctly, and the only software we've found that produces PDFs that can do that is an Adobe product, and it produces documents that require Adobe Acrobat to open.  If anyone knows of something better, I'm all ears!

> 
> 	For what it's worth, I understand your concerns, but there are still two problems:
> 	- USG works can't use a license that depends on copyright for enforcement
> 
> 
> 
> USG can use a copyright based license that only makes grants and disclaims warranties. It is when USG attempts to enforce restrictions
> that the license fails. This does not necessarily invalidate the disclaimer of warranties, but I would advise using a CLA rather than
> depending on the terms in the license.

But every license I've seen depends on copyright for its enforcement; that is, you only have permission to use the software if you comply with the license terms, which includes the terms that allow you to use the copyrighted material.  The USG doesn't have copyright to enforce its terms, which is why it depends on contract law to restrict who has access to the code.  Without some method of stating the conditions under which a person can use the code, it is possible for a party to injure themselves in some manner, and sue the USG.

> 
> 	- JOSS and other venues refuse to accept material that isn't under some OSI-approved license.
> 
> 
> This is not insurmountable. IMO the JOSS position is extreme, even Debian allows public domain software. There are other journals to
> contribute to that would not present this barrier. For example IEEE gets a lot wider publication than JOSS.

True, I was giving them as an example as I've had headaches with them, as have other USG agencies.  It would be nice to be able to be on the same playing field as everyone else though...


Thanks,
Cem Karan

---
Other than quoted laws, regulations or officially published policies, the views expressed herein are not intended to be used as an authoritative state of the law nor do they reflect official positions of the U.S. Army, Department of Defense or U.S. Government.