Hi everyone, As regards CC0 and its use by the USG, you may find this comment we posted previously of possible interest and relevance.
https://github.com/WhiteHouse/source-code-policy/issues/149 Diane Diane M. Peters General Counsel, Creative Commons Portland, Oregon http://creativecommons.org/staff#dianepeters 13:00-21:00 UTC On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com> wrote: > Jim Wright wrote: > > > Something is certainly better than nothing, I agree, but ... > > > > Jim, I'm on your side on this. :-) I'm hoping that a U.S. government open > source policy, someday published in the Federal Register and bearing the > force of law, will also include an express patent pledge that we can all > rely on. Copyright isn't enough. Maybe even UPL? > > > > Such a pledge could become a model for other large patent-holding > institutions, such as universities, to give open source users reassurance > that they are not patent infringers. > > > > That's a bigger topic than for here. It is largely up to that public > Federal Register process that eventually may ensue. It has nothing to do > with OSI's approval of CC0. This WE can do now on our own on behalf of > government open source. > > > > /Larry > > > > > > *From:* Jim Wright [mailto:jim.wri...@oracle.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 1, 2017 2:59 PM > *To:* lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org > *Subject:* Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army > Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1 > > > > Something is certainly better than nothing, I agree, but I think many of > us would rather have an express and broad license from all participants in > a project, including the government, than to have to rely on less than well > understood public domain dedications and waivers of patent rights that do > not apply to all participants. Something closer to symmetry and broad > coverage should be achievable here IMHO - the perfect may sometimes be the > enemy of the good, but in this case, we can, I think, do better than CC0. > YMMV of course. > > > > Best, > > Jim > > > > On Mar 1, 2017, at 2:01 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com> wrote: > > Jim Wright wrote: > > > it seems odd to me to require a dedication to the public domain in any > event - stuff is either in the public domain by law or isn’t, and to > whatever extent it isn’t, we should have a copyright license, full stop. > Similarly as to patents, I don’t want to have to look at some ostensible > policy on waiving patent rights, we should all have a clearly scoped patent > license for the project, government and private contributors alike, and > there is an easy vehicle to achieve this, use an OSI approved license. > > > > Jim, regardless of which OSI-approved license(s) the U.S. government > chooses for its distributed software, neither the "public domain" question > nor the "patent license" question will EVER be fully answered for any > particular software simply by reading those licenses. You have to look at > the software itself. Of course, we could all sue each other and let the > courts decide.... > > > > I'll be grateful for a published government policy – perhaps posted in the > Federal Register someday – that reassures us of a commitment by government > agencies to open source using *any* OSI-approved license. > > > > Including CC0. > > > > /Larry > > > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
