The ARL OSL does not change anything in the DFARS clauses; as I understand it (I am not a lawyer) the USG would have to have all the rights necessary to release the code before it could do so.
Thanks, Cem Karan > -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 12:46 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License proposal > > All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the > identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links > contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a > Web browser. > > > > > ---- > > Cam, > > Could you describe what the impact would be to contractors under DFARS > clauses 252.227-7013/7014 and ARL OSL? In particular where > software was developed at private expense or mixed funding and the government > has less than unlimited rights. > > Regards, > > Nigel > > > On 8/8/16, 8:32 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY > RDECOM ARL (US)" <license-discuss- > boun...@opensource.org on behalf of cem.f.karan....@mail.mil> wrote: > > >The problem is that while the original USG works don't have copyright, > >works produced by contributors may. E.g., any code supplied by > >contractors, anything provided by persons outside the USG, etc. We > >need to have a license that both protects those individuals, and > >ensures that they don't use their copyright to harm others. If it were > >possible to automatically swap in the Apache 2.0 license whenever and > >wherever there was copyright, we'd do that. My understanding from our > >lawyers is that we could only do that if the USG owned the code > >outright; since contributors are licensing the code to the USG (and to > >anyone downstream), switching the license would require asking each > >contributor to agree to the change; we couldn't do it automatically. > > > >Remember, the goal is not just to protect the USG, it is also to > >protect all contributors and downstream users of any code from legal > >headaches. > > > >As for enforcing the license, there are three ways. If there is > >copyright on a piece of work, then the normal copyright enforcement > >mechanisms apply. If there is no copyright, the USG can still enforce > >trademark rules, forcing a non-compliant contributor or downstream user > >to either comply, or make it clear that they have a different piece of > >software. Finally, contributors are forming a contract with the USG > >when they contribute to USG projects. This should allow the USG to sue > >if anyone that breaks the contract; note that this is an as-yet > >untested legal theory, and would need to be litigated to be proven true or > >false. > > > >Thanks, > >Cem Karan > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: License-discuss > >>[Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] > >>On Behalf Of Kevin Fleming > >> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 3:48 PM > >> To: license-discuss@opensource.org > >> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research > >>Laboratory Open Source License proposal > >> > >> All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify > >>the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links > >>contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address > >>to a Web browser. > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> > >> > >> > >> Thanks for summarizing; I think you and I agree :-) > >> > >> > >> I cannot envision any sort of contract which is designed to allow > >>access to the code, with modification, distribution, derivation, and > >>other permissions, but which also allows the USG to enforce any sort > >>of restrictions on those activities (given the lack of copyright). I'm > >>not a lawyer, but having been involved on both sides of dozens of > >>open source licenses, I know what I (and my employer) would be able to > >>understand and accept, and as a result I don't see how such a contract > >>would do anything but interfere with adoption of the software covered > >>by it. > >> > >> > >> If, as has been mentioned, there are patents and/or trademarks > >>involved, then a contract which clearly addresses those aspects, and > >>only those aspects, would make much more sense. > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Maarten Zeinstra <m...@kl.nl < > >>Caution-Caution-mailto:m...@kl.nl > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> Hi Kevin and Cem, > >> > >> I think the confusion here is indeed about ownership vs, access, As > >>I understand Cem¹s project he wants to provide access to third > >>parties to its code and wants to Œlicense¹ it. However open source > >>license (afaik) deal with the ownership part of the code and does not > >>deal in restricting access to the code. > >> > >> I think Cem is indeed on the right track with #3 in his reply. You > >>cannot rely on copyright, you could only focus on any patent aspects > >>of open source license. Coming from the Creative Commons world, I do > >>not know about patents in Open Source licenses. > >> > >> I also think that is near impossible to enforce access limiting > >>contracts in a one-to-all way. I wrote an opinion about a related > >>situation about the New York Metropolitan Museum that provided free > >>downloads of its public domain images but restricted those downloads > >>to non-commercial use: > >>Caution-Caution-https://www.kl.nl/en/opinion/why-the-met-does-not-open > >>-any-real-d > >>oors/ < Caution- > >> > >>Caution-https://www.kl.nl/en/opinion/why-the-met-does-not-open-any-rea > >>l-doors/ > >>> (tl;dr: you cannot enforce general rules about free > >> downloads, and it is a bad practise to try to do so). > >> > >> the USG cannot enforce open source license as they have no > >>underlying copyright, any contract drafted that is similar to an open > >>source license without the licensing of copyright and limiting the > >>access or reuse of the work should not be considered a open source > >>license and fall into the category of bad practise. > >> > >> Re: Berne Convention. Sure Page Miller is right. But try and proof > >>me wrong :) but no country in the world has a paragraph in their > >>national copyright act that provides the USG with copyright where they > >>do not hold that nationally. They would rely on the absence of > >>formalities but that means you do need in a rights holder in the > >>country of origine, which does not exist. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Maarten > >> > >> -- > >> Kennisland | Caution-Caution-www.kl.nl < > >> Caution-Caution-http://www.kl.nl > | t > >>+31205756720 | m +31643053919 | @mzeinstra > >> > >> > >> On 03 Aug 2016, at 15:17, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > >> (US) > >><cem.f.karan....@mail.mil < Caution- > >>Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan....@mail.mil > > wrote: > >> > >> I just got off the phone with Page Miller in the US Copyright > >>office (Caution-Caution-http://www.copyright.gov/ < Caution- > >>Caution-http://www.copyright.gov/ > ). She is the person at the USG > >>that specializes in these types of questions. She told me that the > >>Berne convention does not change laws in individual countries, it > >>just removes certain formalities. As such, if the foreign government > >>permits the USG to hold copyright in the foreign country, then the > >>USG is permitted to do so. You can contact the copyright office at > >>copyi...@loc.gov < Caution-Caution-mailto:copyi...@loc.gov > . If you > >>put in a line like 'Attention: Page Miller', it will get routed to her > >>to answer. > >> > >> So, the very latest position of the USG is that it can apply for > >>copyright protections for USG-produced works that have no copyright > >>within the US. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Cem Karan > >> > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: License-discuss > >>[Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org < > >>Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss- > >> boun...@opensource.org > ] On Behalf Of Maarten Zeinstra > >> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 4:36 AM > >> To: license-discuss@opensource.org < > >>Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org > > >> Cc: lro...@rosenlaw.com < > >> Caution-Caution-mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com > > >> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US > >> Army > >>Research Laboratory Open Source License proposal > >> > >> All active links contained in this email were disabled. > >> Please > >>verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of > >>all links > >> contained within the message prior to copying and > >> pasting the > >>address to a Web browser. > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> > >> > >> > >> I did some further investigating into this. The sources > >> that I and > >>John refer to are from 1976, which is pre-Berne (US in force: March > >>1, > >> 1989). So this would further cast doubts on the claims > >> of > >>copyright abroad of the US government. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Maarten > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Kennisland | Caution-Caution-Caution-www.kl.nl < > >>Caution-Caution-http://caution-Caution-Caution-www.kl.nl > < > >>Caution-Caution- Caution-http://www.kl.nl > | t +31205756720 | m > >>+31643053919 | @mzeinstra > >> > >> > >> On 01 Aug 2016, at 10:20, Maarten Zeinstra <m...@kl.nl < > >>Caution-Caution-mailto:m...@kl.nl > < Caution-Caution- > >>Caution-mailto:m...@kl.nl < Caution-Caution-mailto:m...@kl.nl > > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Cem, > >> > >> I believe this was already answered John Cowan, I was > >> proven wrong. > >>US does assert copyright for government works in other > >> jurisdictions. Wikipedia provides these sources: > >> > >> ³The prohibition on copyright protection for United > >> States > >>Government works is not intended to have any effect on protection of > >> these works abroad. Works of the governments of most > >> other > >>countries are copyrighted. There are no valid policy reasons for > >>denying > >> such protection to United States Government works in > >> foreign > >>countries, or for precluding the Government from making licenses for > >>the > >> use of its works abroad.² - House Report No. 94-1476 > >> > >> and > >> > >> ³3.1.7 Does the Government have copyright protection > >> in U.S. > >>Government works in other countries? > >> Yes, the copyright exclusion for works of the U.S. > >> Government is > >>not intended to have any impact on protection of these works > >> abroad (S. REP. NO. 473, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 56 > >> (1976)). > >>Therefore, the U.S. Government may obtain protection in other > >>countries > >> depending on the treatment of government works by the > >> national > >>copyright law of the particular country. > >> Copyright is sometimes > >> asserted by U.S. Government agencies outside the United > >> States.² > >>Caution-Caution- > >> Caution-http://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html#317 < > >> > >> > >>Caution-Caution-Caution-http://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyrigh > >>t.html#3 > >>17 > > >> > >> However I am not sure how this would work with the Berne > >>Convention, especially article 7(8) which states: Œ[..] the term > >>shall be > >> governed by the legislation of the country where > >> protection is > >>claimed; however, unless the legislation of that country otherwise > >>provides, > >> the term shall not exceed the term fixed in the country > >> of origin > >>of the work.¹ If the U.S. term of protection is 0 years, than other > >>countries > >> would also apply 0 years. > >> > >> @John, @Cem: do you have some case law about this? I > >> would like to > >>verify this with my academic network in the U.S. If not, any > >> license you want to apply on this material is > >> immediately void > >>(which is only a theoretical problem imo). > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Maarten > >> > >> -- > >> Kennisland | Caution-Caution-Caution-www.kl.nl < > >>Caution-Caution-http://caution-Caution-Caution-www.kl.nl > < > >>Caution-Caution- Caution-http://www.kl.nl/ > | t +31205756720 | m > >>+31643053919 | @mzeinstra > >> > >> > >> On 29 Jul 2016, at 19:37, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY > >> RDECOM ARL (US) > >><cem.f.karan....@mail.mil < Caution- > >>Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan....@mail.mil > < Caution- > >> Caution-Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan....@mail.mil < > >>Caution-Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan....@mail.mil > > > wrote: > >> > >> I'm sorry for getting back late to this, the lawyer I'm > >> working > >>with was called away for a bit and couldn't reply. > >> > >> I asked specifically about this case; in our lawyer's > >> opinion, the > >>US Government does have copyright in foreign (to the US) > >> countries. He says that there is case law where the US > >> has > >>asserted this, but he is checking to see if he can find case law > >>regarding this to > >> definitively answer the question. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Cem Karan > >> > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: License-discuss > >>[Caution-Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org > >>< > >>Caution-Caution-mailto:license- > >> discuss-boun...@opensource.org > < > >>Caution-Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss- < > >>Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss- > > >> boun...@opensource.org < > >>Caution-Caution-mailto:boun...@opensource.org > > ] On Behalf Of Maarten > >>Zeinstra > >> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 7:49 AM > >> To: license-discuss@opensource.org < > >>Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org > < > >>Caution-Caution- Caution-mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org < > >>Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org > > > >> Cc: lro...@rosenlaw.com < > >>Caution-Caution-mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com > < > >>Caution-Caution- > >> Caution-mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com < > >> Caution-Caution-mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com > > > >> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] US Army > >> Research > >>Laboratory Open Source License proposal > >> > >> All active links contained in this email were disabled. > >> Please > >>verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the > >> authenticity of all links > >> contained within the message prior to copying and > >> pasting the > >>address to a Web browser. > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> > >> > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> Yes I am suggesting that if the country of origin of > >> the work does > >>not assign copyright to the work then no > >> copyright is assigned world- > >> wide. My reasoning is that there is no entity to assign > >> that > >>copyright to. > >> > >> An example in a different field might support my > >> argument. > >> > >> In the Netherlands we automatically assign (not > >> transfer, which is > >>important here) any IP rights of the employee > >> to the employer if works > >> are created within the duties of the employee. That > >> means that the > >>employer is the rights holder. This rights > >> holder is consequently also > >> recognised as the rights holder in other jurisdictions. > >> Who might, > >>given a similar situation in their own > >> jurisdiction, normally assign the > >> right to the employee. > >> > >> Now if there is no rights holder to begin with (the > >> U.S. waives it > >>rights on government produced works as I > >> understand, the Netherlands > >> government does the same), then no foreign rights can > >> be assigned > >>as well. Hence the work must be in the public > >> domain world wide. > >> > >> I have more experience with Creative Commons-licenses > >> than with > >>Open Source license, but in CC licenses the > >> license exists for the > >> duration of the right. I assume all Open Source > >> licenses are > >>basically the same in this regard. In that sense it does > >> not matter which license > >> is applied as the license is immediately void, since > >> there is no > >>underlying right to license. > >> > >> Finally, in the past I have advised the dutch > >> government to adopt > >>CC0 to make the public domain status of their > >> works clear. They have > >> adopted this since ~2011 on their main site: > >>Caution-Caution-Caution-Caution-https://www.government.nl/copyright < > >> caution- > >> > >> Caution-Caution-Caution-https://www.government.nl/copyright > < Caution- > >> > >> Caution-Caution-Caution-https://www.government.nl/copyright < > >>Caution-Caution-Caution-https://www.government.nl/copyright > >> > > (english > >> version). I advise the US army does something similar > >> as well. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Maarten Zeinstra > >> > >> -- > >> Kennisland | Caution-Caution-Caution-Caution-www.kl.nl < > >>Caution-Caution-http://caution-caution-Caution-Caution-www.kl.nl > < > >>Caution-Caution-Caution-http://caution-Caution-Caution-Caution-www.kl. > >>nl/ > < > >>Caution-Caution- > >> Caution-Caution-http://www.kl.nl < > >>Caution-Caution-http://www.kl.nl > < > >>caution-Caution-Caution-Caution-http://www.kl.nl > > | t > >> +31205756720 | m +31643053919 | @mzeinstra > >> > >> > >> On 24 Jul 2016, at 08:26, Philippe Ombredanne > >><pombreda...@nexb.com < Caution- Caution-mailto:pombreda...@nexb.com > >>> < Caution- > >> Caution-Caution-mailto:pombreda...@nexb.com < > >>Caution-Caution-mailto:pombreda...@nexb.com > > < Caution-Caution- > >>Caution-Caution-mailto:pombreda...@nexb.com < > >>Caution-Caution-mailto:pombreda...@nexb.com > < Caution-Caution- > >>Caution-mailto:pombreda...@nexb.com < > >>Caution-Caution-mailto:pombreda...@nexb.com > > > >>> > > >> wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 11:23 PM, Lawrence Rosen > >><lro...@rosenlaw.com < Caution-Caution-mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com > >> > < Caution-Caution-Caution-mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com < > >>Caution-Caution-mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com > > >> > >> > >> < > >> Caution-Caution-Caution-Caution-mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com < > >>Caution-Caution-mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com > < > >>Caution-Caution-Caution-mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com < > >>Caution-Caution-mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com > > > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> It is true that this public domain result doesn't apply > >> outside > >>the U.S. But > >> if you apply a valid open source license to it such > >> as Apache > >>2.0 that > >> should be good enough for everyone who doesn't live in > >> the U.S. and > >> irrelevant for us here. > >> > >> > >> > >> Larry, are you suggesting that Cem considers using > >> some statement > >>more > >> or less like this, rather than a new license? > >> This U.S. Federal Government work is not copyrighted > >> and dedicated > >> to the public domain in the USA. Alternatively, the > >> Apache-2.0 > >> license applies > >> outside of the USA ? > >> > >> On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Maarten Zeinstra > >> <m...@kl.nl < > >>Caution-Caution-mailto:m...@kl.nl > < Caution-Caution- > >>Caution-mailto:m...@kl.nl < Caution-Caution-mailto:m...@kl.nl > > < > >>Caution-Caution- > >> Caution-Caution-mailto:m...@kl.nl < > >> Caution-Caution-mailto:m...@kl.nl > >>> < Caution-Caution-Caution-mailto:m...@kl.nl < Caution- > >>Caution-mailto:m...@kl.nl > > > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> Is that the correct interpretation of the Berne > >> convention? The > >>convention > >> assigns copyright to foreigners of a signatory state > >> with at least > >>as strong > >> protection as own nationals. Since US government does > >> not attract > >>copyright > >> I am unsure if they can attract copyright in other > >> jurisdictions. > >> > >> > >> > >> Maarten, are you suggesting then that the lack of > >> copyright for a > >>U.S. Federal > >> Government work would just then apply elsewhere too and > >> that using an > >> alternative Apache license would not even be needed? > >> > >> -- > >> Cordially > >> Philippe Ombredanne > >> > >> +1 650 799 0949 | pombreda...@nexb.com < > >>Caution-Caution-mailto:pombreda...@nexb.com > < Caution-Caution- > >>Caution-mailto:pombreda...@nexb.com < > >>Caution-Caution-mailto:pombreda...@nexb.com > > < Caution-Caution- > >> Caution-Caution-mailto:pombreda...@nexb.com < > >>Caution-Caution-mailto:pombreda...@nexb.com > < Caution-Caution- > >>Caution-mailto:pombreda...@nexb.com < > >>Caution-Caution-mailto:pombreda...@nexb.com > > > >>> > >> DejaCode : What's in your code?! at > >>Caution-Caution-Caution-Caution-http://www.dejacode.com < caution-Caution- > >> Caution-Caution-http://www.dejacode.com < > >>Caution-Caution-http://www.dejacode.com > > >>> < Caution-Caution-Caution- > >> Caution-http://www.dejacode.com < > >>caution-Caution-Caution-Caution-http://www.dejacode.com > > > >> nexB Inc. at > >> Caution-Caution-Caution-Caution-http://www.nexb.com < > >>caution-Caution-Caution-Caution-http://www.nexb.com > < Caution- > >> Caution-Caution-Caution-http://www.nexb.com < > >>caution-Caution-Caution-Caution-http://www.nexb.com > > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> License-discuss mailing list > >> License-discuss@opensource.org < > >>Caution-Caution-mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org > < > >>Caution-Caution- Caution-mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org < > >>Caution-Caution-mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org > > < > >>Caution-Caution- > >> Caution-Caution-mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org < > >>Caution-Caution-mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org > < Caution- > >>Caution-Caution-mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org < > >>Caution-Caution-mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org > > > > >> > >> > >>Caution-Caution-Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/m > >>ailman/l istinfo/license-discuss < caution-Caution- > >> > >> > >>Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ > >>license- > >>discuss < Caution- > >> > >>Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license- > >>discuss > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> License-discuss mailing list > >> License-discuss@opensource.org < > >>Caution-Caution-mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org > < > >>Caution-Caution- Caution-mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org < > >>Caution-Caution-mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org > > > >> > >> > >>Caution-Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/l > >>istinfo/ > >>license-discuss < Caution-Caution- > >> Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi- > >> bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> License-discuss mailing list > >> License-discuss@opensource.org < > >>Caution-Caution-mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org > > >> > >> > >>Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ > >>license-d iscuss < Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi- > >> bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> License-discuss mailing list > >> License-discuss@opensource.org < > >>Caution-Caution-mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org > > >> > >> > >>Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ > >>license-di scuss < Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi- > >> bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > >> > >> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
