[License-review] Review for the NIST Software License

[McCoy Smith]

It's always been the position of the US government that although by 
statute (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/105) 
government-created works may not be copyrighted in the USA, they may be 
protected by copyright outside the USA: 
https://www.usa.gov/government-copyright. USG may also hold copyright in 
assigned works.

It also seems to me like 5(2) of Berne provides protection even if 
country of origin denies it: 
https://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/5.html

It's an interesting question as to whether the disclaimers are effective 
in the USA if there are no copyright rights to be granted in the USA. 
Not sure I know the answer to that, although I suspect in the USA you 
would not need to follow the attribution requirements.

Nevertheless, Lucas, I think you need to complete all the formalities 
for submission for approval of this license:

https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process

Since you've submitted it as a legacy approval, you at least need to do 
the following:


Describe what gap not filled by currently existing licenses that the new 
license will fill.
Compare it to and contrast it with the most similar OSI-approved license(s).
Describe any legal review the license has been through, including 
whether it was drafted by a lawyer.

On 9/30/2025 1:57 AM, Carlo Piana via License-review wrote:
> Lucas,
>
> if I understand correctly, this should not technically be a license, 
> since the software is not subject to copyright in the USA as far as it 
> has been created by NIST employees. I think that if software is not 
> given protection in the state of first publication is not protected 
> even elsewhere, under the Berne Convention, therefore this is 
> basically a dedication to public domain, whose primary scope is the 
> liability disclaimer(s).
>
> However, the "provided that you keep intact this entire notice" is 
> technically (US lawyers please help) a condition, that means this is a 
> license with conditional grant, after all. The other condition-like 
> provision uses the verb "should", which is more of an invite,  at face 
> value.
>
> I do not see anything that would prevent this text to be approved, 
> maybe in the "non reusable" category. But could NIST give us their 
> position on the above discussion, for the sake of clarity, please?
>
> Cheers
>
> Carlo (in his personal provisional view and capacity)
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     *Da: *"Hale, Lucas M. (Fed) via License-review"
>     <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
>     *A: *"license-review at lists.opensource.org"
>     <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
>     *Cc: *"Hale, Lucas M. (Fed)" <lucas.hale at nist.gov>
>     *Inviato: *Lunedì, 29 settembre 2025 22:13:02
>     *Oggetto: *[License-review] Review for the NIST Software License
>
>     Hi OSI reviewers!
>
>     I would like to submit the National Institute of Standards and
>     Technology (NIST) Software license for review to be included in
>     your list.  This is the primary license that NIST staff are
>     expected to use when releasing software.
>
>     The license complies with the Open Source Definition, including
>     the OSD 3, 5, 6 and 9 criteria.
>
>     There are numerous projects using the NIST software.  For
>     instance, there are 1.3K repositories at
>     https://github.com/usnistgov that should all be using the
>     license.  As such, it falls under the legacy category.
>
>     The NIST license is also listed on the main NIST website
>     https://www.nist.gov/open/copyright-fair-use-and-licensing-statements-srd-data-software-and-technical-series-publications,
>     and has an SPDX listing
>     https://spdx.org/licenses/NIST-Software.html. Under both sites, it
>     is titled “NIST Software License”
>
>     Thank you for your time and consideration!
>
>     Sincerely,
>
>     Lucas Hale
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and
>     not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication
>     from the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an
>     opensource.org email address.
>
>     License-review mailing list
>     License-review at lists.opensource.org
>     http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20250930/3cbafce3/attachment.htm>