[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 2:33 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <
cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil> wrote:
>
> 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).
>

Yes. And IMO everyone would be happier, and you'd have a license with broad
compatibility rather than government specialized.

We need PDF generation software that will handle digital signatures
> correctly


Sorry, do you mean digital attestation of correctness of the text and its
origin, or consent? One can still sign with a pen and lick a stamp.

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.


Right. But some rather large percentage of that Open Source can not be
copyrighted. You already have permission for that portion. It doesn't have
to be stated in the license. It's inherent in the law.

FSF points out that people already have rights and they are loath to take
them away. Nobody else bothers talking about the rights you already have.



> 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.
>

That's why you use a disclaimer of warranty. The disclaimer is not
copyright-based.

    Thanks

    Bruce
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20180620/aecd7585/attachment.html>