> -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Luis Villa > Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 2:51 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] code.mil update > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:03 AM Christopher Sean Morrison <brl...@mac.com < > Caution-mailto:brl...@mac.com > > wrote: > > > On Mar 8, 2017, at 9:32 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > <cem.f.karan....@mail.mil < Caution- > mailto:cem.f.karan....@mail.mil > > wrote: > > > > You might want to re-read what they posted; the license applies only > to those > > portions of the code that have copyright attached, otherwise it's > public > > domain. The trick is that while US Government (USG) works are > ineligible for > > copyright within the US, they may be eligible for copyright outside > the US, > > and in those areas the USG works are licensed under the OSI-approved > license. > > I'm not sure what it would mean for code that was moved across > jurisdictions, > > but I do understand and appreciate the intent of their approach. > > They’ve slapped a copyright-based license file on the collective work > with an INTENT file clarifying that it only applies to code that > has copyright attached. I read what they wrote very carefully. We’re saying > exactly the same thing. > > It’s an interesting approach that is not new, just untested and a point > of dispute in the past as to what might happen. > > > > For what little it is worth, having just read intent.md < > Caution-http://intent.md > , I think it's an eminently reasonable policy. It > gives > some baseline certainty for non-.gov contributors, non-US entities, and US > entities that are satisfied with a baseline set of FOSS rights. For > those who for some reason need the additional flexibility of US-only PD, they > can do the research to figure out what is available in that > way. > > > Luis
I agree; my only concern with it was that the law might be slightly different with regards to the USG-furnished code as it is public domain within the US, but may have copyright outside of it. Just so everyone is on a level playing field I'd prefer it if the USG works that don't have copyright were released under CC0, but that is my personal preference. That said, it might be a question to put on the Federal Register, and get some comments. I mean, would it be beneficial if the USG had a consistent policy on this (public domain or CC0 for works that don't have copyright)? Thanks, Cem Karan
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
