<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<style type="text/css" id="owaParaStyle"></style>
</head>
<body fpstyle="1" ocsi="0">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000; font-size: 16px">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div class="gmail_quote">> From: License-review [license-review-bounces@lists.opensource.org] on behalf of Bruce Perens [bruce@perens.com]</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 6:08 PM</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">> To: License submissions for OSI review</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">> 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]]</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 2:33 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan.civ@mail.mil < Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan.civ@mail.mil > > wrote:</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">>> If we were able to do this (using a copyright-based license), then it would</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">>> be better to just use one of the OSI-approved licenses (I personally prefer</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">>> Apache 2.0, but that's just me).</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">> Yes. And IMO everyone would be happier, and you'd have a license with broad</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">> compatibility rather than government specialized.</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">You have no idea how much I agree with you... I'm as unhappy having to keep </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">hammering on this as you are that I am hammering on it, but without solving it,</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">I'm afraid that GOSS could become a trojan horse and harm OSS in general. I</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">really, really want to be a good Open Source citizen, and that means protecting</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">not just the USG, but also anyone that downloads and incorporates GOSS into</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">their own projects.</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">>> We need PDF generation software that will handle digital signatures</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">>> correctly</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">> Sorry, do you mean digital attestation of correctness of the text and its</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">> origin, or consent? One can still sign with a pen and lick a stamp.</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">The former; we use our Common Access Cards (CAC) to digitally sign forms,</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">which proves that the form wasn't modified after we signed it. We can still</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">use pen & paper, but we're trying to (very slowly) move into the 21st century.</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">>> But every license I've seen depends on copyright for its enforcement; that</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">>> is, you only have permission to use the software if you comply with the</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">>> license terms, which includes the terms that allow you to use the copyrighted</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">>> material.</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">> Right. But some rather large percentage of that Open Source can not be</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">> copyrighted. You already have permission for that portion. It doesn't have to</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">> be stated in the license. It's inherent in the law.</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">> FSF points out that people already have rights and they are loath to take</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">> them away. Nobody else bothers talking about the rights you already have.</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">I understand what you're saying, but the issue is that if a license makes a</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">claim **based on the assumption that there is copyright in the material**, it</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">is a false claim.</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">The problem is that if that is one clause of a larger license, does the fact</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">that one clause is unenforceable affect the rest of the license? Different</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">lawyers have differing opinions, and as far as I know, it hasn't been settled</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">by the courts yet. This is the crux of why the government is looking to</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">create a new license that is not based on copyright. So that it isn't on the</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">hook for warranty and liability because it made a copyright claim that it</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">doesn't have, and so that downstream users are protected when they use</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">and incorporate GOSS into their own projects.</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">>> Without some method of stating the conditions under which a person can use</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">>> the code, it is possible for a party to injure themselves in some manner, and</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">>> sue the USG.</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">> That's why you use a disclaimer of warranty. The disclaimer is not</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">> copyright-based.</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">OK, and then we need to also handle the patent and other IP claims, as well as</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">the Anti-Deficiency Act requirements, etc. That will end up with numerous</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">notices, none of which are considered to be Open Source, and all of which</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">combined make everyone who is looking at it feel a little nauseous. By having</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">a license that handles everything at once, that is approved by the OSI, we're </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">done.</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">There is another way that I floated at one point, but it got swamped by other</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">discussions: meta-licenses, AKA contract amendments. The USG and OSI would </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">work together to come up with some standard clauses that could be added to</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">ANY OSI-approved license to modify it to make it work on material that doesn't</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">have copyright attached. The simplest clause that I can think of is the </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">following:</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">"""</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">Amendment to LICENSE.txt: If any clause in the LICENSE.txt file is declared</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that clause shall be</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">severed from the LICENSE.txt, and all other clauses shall remain in full </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">force.</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">"""</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">I'm not a lawyer, and I just whipped that up right now, I'm *positive* real</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">lawyers could come up with better language, but it gets the idea across. It </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">may be worthwhile to address copyright claims in some manner as well, but I'm</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">not sure how.</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">Questions that need to be answered by this approach:</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">1) Would OSI approve such an approach?</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">2) Can it be done? E.g., the Apache 2.0 license has an END OF TERMS AND </div>
<div class="gmail_quote"> CONDITIONS line at the end; if I add in new text, then it isn't Apache 2.0</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"> anymore. If I put it in a different file, can it be ignored because it is after the</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"> end of terms and conditions?</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">3) If 1 & 2 are OK, would the USG accept it? (this part is on me, but I'm not</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"> going to try too hard without at least some buy-in from OSI that it would</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"> be acceptable.)</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">If all of the above are true, then I'd propose whatever the language is be</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">approved by OSI as an approved amendment that goes in a file called </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">LICENSE_AMENDMENT.txt. The language would have to make it clear as to which</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">license is being amended, how it's being amended, etc. (all the stuff that </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">smart lawyers should be doing, and not programmers that think that they know</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">more than they really do.)</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">Let me know if this is an acceptable approach.</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">Thanks,</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">Cem Karan</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>