On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 12:11 PM Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) < cem.f.karan....@mail.mil> wrote:
> > -----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)? > It certainly seems like the current frankenpolicy across various parts of the government is not ideal, but I'm not an expert in how that might be resolved. (As I think I've said before, I think in 2017 CC0 is not an OSI-approvable license because of the patent clause. Shame.) Luis -- *Luis Villa: Open Law and Strategy <http://lu.is>* *+1-415-938-4552*
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
