I can pass it through ARL's lawyers, as well as pass it to the code.gov people.
Thanks, Cem Karan > -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Stephen Kellat > Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 10:41 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the > OSD > > 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. > > > > > ---- > > > On Mar 7, 2017, at 10:08 PM, Tzeng, Nigel H. <nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu> wrote: > > > > You know the more I think about this, the disclaimer of patent rights in > > CC0 is probably best for GOSS because it avoids the attempt for > a one size fit all patent grant language among different agencies with > different policies and the complexity under which patent rights are > awarded to whom under the Bayh-Dole Act and Executive Order 10096. > > > > Employees of federal agencies, especially research oriented ones, have > > some financial interest and rights under 10096. > > > > Likewise non-profits and small businesses under Bayh-Dole. > > > > IMHO patent grant language in FOSS licenses provide a false sense of > > security. > > > > I would rather the government open source as much as possible regardless > > of patent rights as long as any known patents are disclosed. > As seen in Ximpleware v Versata the patents typically only cover a small > portion of the overall system (VTD-XML). While it is relevant from > the perspective of being able to use the system as built it is less relevant > from a code reuse perspective. > > > > For large government systems significant software components could often > > be reused without the specific portions covered under > patent. > > > > So just having a copyright license to the entire project would provide > > significant value to the community. There is code I wrote 30 years > ago I'd love to get access to again even if I couldn't use the rest of the > system. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > License-discuss mailing list > > License-discuss@opensource.org > > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > After a less than fabulous day at work for IRS dealing with my tiny corner > of tax law as well as my accounts work, I am tempted after > reading this. Perhaps this could be used as well as the rest of this thread > as pre-decisional input to open a tight Inquiry in the Federal > Register. That's the first step we can take to move into building a formal > record for a body of law. Alternatively getting something > chartered under the Federal Advisory Committees Act might help move this > forward. > > I think the debate has dragged on a bit for more than a few months. Moving > to where desirable federal policy/policies are adopted is > probably doable. Could we narrow this down to 3 or fewer courses of action > that might be explored by ARL counsel in an inquiry notice? > Even if list participants are the only people that respond to a notice in > the Federal Register we're still building a useful record for later use > such as Federal Acquisition Rules changes, for example. > > Depending upon what shows up in the President's budget set to drop Monday, I > either will have a lot of time on my hands coming up or > an ICTAP certificate plus lots of time on my hands. I want to see Federal > OSS policy evolve. We have laid the groundwork here but need > to get it in the official record soon. > > Stephen Michael Kellat > GS-0962-07/1 > These views are solely my own and not those of the US Government. Rank, > position, grade, and bureau are cited for identification > purposes only. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
