[License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

[Smith, McCoy]

USG patents aren't public domain, and USG can and does license them for royalties.
I believe there are a handful of examples of USG filing infringement suits as well.

> On Aug 18, 2016, at 8:26 PM, Brian Behlendorf <brian at behlendorf.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Do those follow the same rules as copyright?  E.g., when done by a USG employee, it's public domain in the US?
> 
> Seems like those should get covered by whatever folks come up with.
> 
> Brian
> 
>> On Fri, 19 Aug 2016, Smith, McCoy wrote:
>> Yes
>> USG files patents all the time
>> 
>>> On Aug 18, 2016, at 5:51 PM, Brian Behlendorf <brian at behlendorf.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Totally agree.  But can the USG file patents?  I suppose research organizations can (MITRE, maybe even NASA?) so it's not that academic; but presumably any place where this public domain arises, it applies to patents too.  Would be nice to get that sorted.
>>> 
>>> Brian
>>> 
>>>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Chris DiBona wrote:
>>>> In military contracting , patent grants are key to the point where I wouldn't consider a non patent granting license from, say, lockheed as being open source at all.
>>>> On Aug 18, 2016 3:05 PM, "Tzeng, Nigel H." <Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu> wrote:
>>>>     On 8/18/16, 3:57 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Lawrence Rosen"
>>>>     <license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org on behalf of lrosen at rosenlaw.com>
>>>>     wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>    >Nigel Tzeng wrote:
>>>>    >> The issue here is for code that is potentially quite substantial.  I
>>>>    >>would think that would be a different scenario.
>>>>    >
>>>>    >If I include the works of Shakespeare in my software, it would of course
>>>>    >be substantial and yet still be public domain almost everywhere (?).
>>>> 
>>>>     If patents aren't a concern then okay.  Copyright lasts longer than
>>>>     patents so for anything that is in the public domain because of age then
>>>>     no patents would still apply.
>>>> 
>>>>     There isn¹t a lot of code that has aged out.  Only code written between
>>>>     before 1963 and didn¹t get a renewal.
>>>> 
>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>     License-discuss mailing list
>>>>     License-discuss at opensource.org
>>>>     https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> License-discuss mailing list
>>> License-discuss at opensource.org
>>> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-discuss mailing list
>> License-discuss at opensource.org
>> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss