Hi all, as you know I've been pushing the position that the US Government may have problems using copyright-based licenses on works that do not have copyright attached. One of the lawyers I've been working on this with has been kind enough to dig up the exact statutes and give some clearer legal reasoning on what the issues are. It basically boils down to two issues; first, there is question of severability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability) which I've touched on before, and the second has to do with copyfraud (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud). Copyfraud is defined within 17 U.S.C. 506, section (c) (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title17/html/USCODE-2010-title17-chap5-sec506.htm). I've copied out the relevant language below; the commentary within the brackets is from ARL's lawyer:
""" (c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice.- Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500. [Note - Any software pushed out under Open Source would not have a notice of copyright affixed to the software. However, would software pushed out under an Open Source license that assumes the existence of copyright be considered tantamount to a notice of copyright and therefore an actionable fraud under this section? Don't know.] """ I know that there were questions at one time about the need for special licenses/agreements like NOSA 2.0, but this is one of those potential problems. Copyright-based licenses are great for works that have copyright attached, but they may be problematic for works that don't have copyright attached. So, given that we had come up with the idea of using two licenses in projects (CC0 for portions of a work that don't have copyright, and an OSI-approved license for portions of a work that do have copyright attached), why should OSI care? The problem is that CC0 is still not OSI-approved (at least, it isn't on the list at https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical). That means that the Government could be putting out works that are in some kind of zombie-like state, half-Open Source, and half not. If OSI approved CC0 as being an Open Source license, or if NOSA 2.0 was approved, then the problems could be fixed. So, where are we in either case? 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