Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

2017-08-28 Thread Thorsten Glaser 
John Cowan dixit:

>Also under the Berne convention, country B may (but is not required to)
>treat a work that is out of copyright in its originating country as out of
>copyright
>in country B as well.

OK, but, as you said yourself…

>The U.S. does not exercise this option, and the
>EU countries are effectively forbidden to do so by EU case law.

… this is irrelevant here. Nevertheless, thanks for the correction.

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
Stéphane, I actually don’t block Googlemail, they’re just too utterly
stupid to successfully deliver to me (or anyone else using Greylisting
and not whitelisting their ranges). Same for a few other providers such
as Hotmail. Some spammers (Yahoo) I do block.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

2017-08-28 Thread John Cowan 
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Thorsten Glaser  scripsit:

Under the Berne Convention, a work from country A is, in country B,
> subject to the same protection as a work from country B. That means
> for a work originating in the USA, in Germany, only(!) German copy‐
> right law applies. In France, only French law, etc.
>

Up to a point, Minister.

Also under the Berne convention, country B may (but is not required to)
treat a work that is out of copyright in its originating country as out of
copyright
in country B as well.  The U.S. does not exercise this option, and the
EU countries are effectively forbidden to do so by EU case law.

-- 
John Cowan  http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
But the next day there came no dawn, and the Grey Company passed on
into the darkness of the Storm of Mordor and were lost to mortal sight;
but the Dead followed them.  --"The Passing of the Grey Company"
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

2017-08-28 Thread Thorsten Glaser 
Stephen Michael Kellat dixit:

>them to fix this to be public domain globally is best done by amending

There’s no such thing as voluntarily releasing a work into
the Public Domain in several countries of the world, so this
is futile at best, worse hamful.


Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) dixit:

>> So, in the end, “we” need a copyright licence “period”.
>
>Not exactly.  This is where CC0 comes into play, at least here at the

Yes, that’d be a way to express the same thing *if* CC0 were
sublicenseable. It currently sorta works, but…

>even if the work could have copyright attached in Germany, people
>there know that the work is under CC0. This covers the really hard
>question of a US Government work being exported to Germany, modified,
>and then re-exported back to the US. The goal (at least at ARL) is to

… this could be tricky.

If it were sublicenseable, the thing exported back to the USA
could be fully under a proper copyright licence as the work of
the person who created the modified work (assuming it passes
threshold of originality, of course).

But I’m assuming it’d also work with just CC0, except CC themselves
asked for it to not be certified as Open Source due to problems
with it (I don’t know which ones exactly).

>make sure that everyone world-wide knows what the terms are, and that
>they are the same regardless of where you live, and where you are

This is never true.

Under the Berne Convention, a work from country A is, in country B,
subject to the same protection as a work from country B. That means
for a work originating in the USA, in Germany, only(!) German copy‐
right law applies. In France, only French law, etc.

I kinda like Richard Fontana’s approach to state a proper Open Source
licence for where copyright law applies.

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
11:56⎜«liwakura:#!/bin/mksh» also, i wanted to add mksh to my own distro │
i was disappointed that there is no makefile │ but somehow the Build.sh is
the least painful built system i've ever seen │ honours CC, {CPP,C,LD}FLAGS
properly │ looks cleary like done by someone who knows what they are doing
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

2017-08-28 Thread Christopher Sean Morrison 

> On Aug 28, 2017, at 12:34 PM, Stephen Michael Kellat  
> wrote:
> 
> As bad as it sounds, would a brief statutory clarification be useful in this 
> instance? We can write around Congress all we want but getting them to fix 
> this to be public domain globally is best done by amending the law. A small 
> rider proposed through channels per the Recommendations Clause in Article II, 
> Section 3 of the federal constitution would work nicely.

It would likely take a handful of folks just to figure out exactly what clause 
is unclear or what position is being changed.

Given the USG currently asserts copyright internationally, such an amendment 
would probably receive considerable resistance, but let’s assume it passes.  If 
Title 17 were changed to say no copyright protection internationally, that 
could clear up the issue in Article 18 of the Berne Convention — there would be 
expiry internationally in the country of origin, thus public domain 
internationally.  On the other end of the spectrum, Title 17 could be changed 
to remove the exemption of USG works, the implications there would be utterly 
HUGE, but would allow the USG to use any license.  Somewhere in the middle, 
Title 17 could explain the effect of putting “Copyright US Government” on a 
pure work of the USG, whether that constitutes fraud or invalidate protections 
or that it always only applies internationally.

There was discussion last year about having (official) public discourse on the 
Federal Register regarding the new Federal Open Source Policy and these exact 
issues.  That would probably be a better starting point.  The Open Source 
community could strategize for months, only to be shot down by a single 
influential DoD contractor citing market interference or harm by the USG.

Cheers!
Sean


___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

2017-08-28 Thread Stephen Michael Kellat 
As bad as it sounds, would a brief statutory clarification be useful in this 
instance?  We can write around Congress all we want but getting them to fix 
this to be public domain globally is best done by amending the law.  A small 
rider proposed through channels per the Recommendations Clause in Article II, 
Section 3 of the federal constitution would work nicely.

Stephen Michael Kellat


On August 28, 2017 11:59:44 AM EDT, "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" 
 wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Richard Fontana [mailto:font...@sharpeleven.org]
>> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 11:39 AM
>> To: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
>
>> Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org
>> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US
>Government
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 02:18:10PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY
>RDECOM ARL 
>> (US) wrote:
>> > 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
>> > (Caution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability) which I've
>> > touched on before, and the second has to do with copyfraud 
>> > (Caution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud).
>> > Copyfraud is defined within 17 U.S.C. 506, section (c)
>> >
>(Caution-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.
>>
>> As has been pointed out before, I think, in software (including but
>not 
>> limited to open source) copyright notices are commonly juxtaposed
>> with material that is clearly or likely not subject to copyright.
>>
>> Anyway, the theoretical risk here could be eliminated in lots of
>ways, it 
>> seems to me (even without getting into what would be required to
>> show 'fraudulent intent'). For example, the US government could
>include a 
>> copyright and license notice like the following:
>>
>>   The following material may not be subject to copyright in the
>United
>>   States under 17 U.S.C. 105. To the extent it is subject to
>>   copyright, it is released under the following open source license:
>[...]
>>
>> There's also the approach that is seen in 
>>
>Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/INTENT.md.
>>
>> > 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
>> > Caution-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?
>>
>> As I've pointed out before, CC0 itself does not eliminate the problem
>your 
>> colleagues say they are concerned about, because CC0 assumes
>> copyright ownership. If they sincerely think it's dangerous to use
>the MIT 
>> license then they should be consistent and say it's dangerous to
>> use CC0 too.
>>
>> I think the use you are suggesting for use of CC0 is not actually how
>> CC0 is meant to be used. CC0 is designed for the case where copyright
>
>> ownership is likely o

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

2017-08-28 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Fontana [mailto:font...@sharpeleven.org]
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 11:39 AM
> To: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
> Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government
>
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 02:18:10PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL 
> (US) wrote:
> > 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
> > (Caution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability) which I've
> > touched on before, and the second has to do with copyfraud 
> > (Caution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud).
> > Copyfraud is defined within 17 U.S.C. 506, section (c)
> > (Caution-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.
>
> As has been pointed out before, I think, in software (including but not 
> limited to open source) copyright notices are commonly juxtaposed
> with material that is clearly or likely not subject to copyright.
>
> Anyway, the theoretical risk here could be eliminated in lots of ways, it 
> seems to me (even without getting into what would be required to
> show 'fraudulent intent'). For example, the US government could include a 
> copyright and license notice like the following:
>
>   The following material may not be subject to copyright in the United
>   States under 17 U.S.C. 105. To the extent it is subject to
>   copyright, it is released under the following open source license: [...]
>
> There's also the approach that is seen in 
> Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/INTENT.md.
>
> > 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
> > Caution-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?
>
> As I've pointed out before, CC0 itself does not eliminate the problem your 
> colleagues say they are concerned about, because CC0 assumes
> copyright ownership. If they sincerely think it's dangerous to use the MIT 
> license then they should be consistent and say it's dangerous to
> use CC0 too.
>
> I think the use you are suggesting for use of CC0 is not actually how
> CC0 is meant to be used. CC0 is designed for the case where copyright 
> ownership is likely or plausibly present but the owner wishes to get
> as close as possible to waiving all of their rights. I think you are saying 
> you want CC0 to be used to ceremonially declare (possibly in some
> cases incorrectly or misleadingly) that something that is not subject to 
> copyright ownership in the first place is indeed ... not subject to
> copyright ownership in the first place -- which is not what
> CC0 says.
>
> Richard

I see what you're saying, and I understand how it may appear ceremonial, but 
there is an added wrinkle of copyright in non-US jurisdictions.  By using CC0 
in th

Re: [License-discuss] NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

2017-08-28 Thread Christopher Sean Morrison 

>> 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 
> 
> How is their position if the works are in the Public Domain only
> in the USA? Their own copyright FAQ says that even US government
> work may be copyright-protected e.g. in Germany.

That’s why the language is specifically “works that do not have copyright 
attached”.  Just because there’s no copyright protection does not mean the USG 
can’t sell/share/trade to some other country (think US selling a tank to 
Germany) under some agreement/contract/convention/treaty.  What the copyright 
act makes clear is that there simply is no default copyright protection, but it 
doesn’t preclude holding copyright or restricting rights through other means.  
The interesting question (to me) is what happens when an agency uses contract 
law to restrict a right the copyright act specifically covers.  For example, 
attribution.  To date, the answer has been “nothing".

The FAQ does imply that some license is needed because of the international 
context.  To limit license proliferation, it would be desirable to leverage 
what’s already in place.  This is what the code.gov  guys are 
trying with a simple INTENT declaration.  Previously, the main players were 
(and are still) relying on contract law (e.g., NASA) or acquiring copyright 
through assignment.

> So, in the end, “we” need a copyright licence “period”.

Government Services Administration folks have started testing the theory, but 
not all departments agree.  Without case precedence, it has kept unanswered 
questions of fraud and license validity (and implications therein like 
severability) from the folks in the “you need a contract” camp.

Cheers!
Sean

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

2017-08-28 Thread Richard Fontana 
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 02:18:10PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL 
(US) wrote:
> 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.

As has been pointed out before, I think, in software (including but
not limited to open source) copyright notices are commonly juxtaposed
with material that is clearly or likely not subject to copyright. 

Anyway, the theoretical risk here could be eliminated in lots of ways,
it seems to me (even without getting into what would be required to
show 'fraudulent intent'). For example, the US government could
include a copyright and license notice like the following:

  The following material may not be subject to copyright in the United
  States under 17 U.S.C. 105. To the extent it is subject to
  copyright, it is released under the following open source license: [...]

There's also the approach that is seen in 
https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/INTENT.md.

> 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?

As I've pointed out before, CC0 itself does not eliminate the problem
your colleagues say they are concerned about, because CC0 assumes
copyright ownership. If they sincerely think it's dangerous to use the
MIT license then they should be consistent and say it's dangerous to
use CC0 too.

I think the use you are suggesting for use of CC0 is not actually how
CC0 is meant to be used. CC0 is designed for the case where copyright
ownership is likely or plausibly present but the owner wishes to get
as close as possible to waiving all of their rights. I think you are
saying you want CC0 to be used to ceremonially declare (possibly in
some cases incorrectly or misleadingly) that something that is not
subject to copyright ownership in the first place is indeed ... not
subject to copyright ownership in the first place -- which is not what
CC0 says.

Richard

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

2017-08-28 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Thorsten Glaser
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 10:32 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the 
> US Government
> 
> Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) dixit:
> 
> >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
> 
> How is their position if the works are in the Public Domain only in the USA? 
> Their own copyright FAQ says that even US government work
> may be copyright-protected e.g. in Germany.
> 
> So, in the end, “we” need a copyright licence “period”.

Not exactly.  This is where CC0 comes into play, at least here at the US Army 
Research Laboratory (ARL), and I hope in other parts of the US Government too.  
If the work doesn't have copyright attached within the US, it is licensed under 
CC0, which is a **world-wide** license.  Thus, even if the work could have 
copyright attached in Germany, people there know that the work is under CC0.  
This covers the really hard question of a US Government work being exported to 
Germany, modified, and then re-exported back to the US.  The goal (at least at 
ARL) is to make sure that everyone world-wide knows what the terms are, and 
that they are the same regardless of where you live, and where you are 
exporting your modifications to.

Does that make sense?

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

Re: [License-discuss] NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

2017-08-28 Thread Thorsten Glaser 
Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) dixit:

>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 

How is their position if the works are in the Public Domain only
in the USA? Their own copyright FAQ says that even US government
work may be copyright-protected e.g. in Germany.

So, in the end, “we” need a copyright licence “period”.

Thanks,
//mirabilos
-- 
I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it
when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy them.
If you don't believe in God, just consider God as Nature if you won't deny
existence.  -- Coywolf Qi Hunt
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

[License-discuss] NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

2017-08-28 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
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