On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 2:42 PM Smith, McCoy <mccoy.sm...@intel.com> wrote:
> *>>From:* License-discuss [mailto: > license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] *On Behalf Of *VanL > *>>Sent:* Tuesday, May 28, 2019 12:32 PM > *>>To:* license-discuss@lists.opensource.org > *>>Subject:* [License-discuss] Government licenses > > > > > > >>As he described it, goverment-written code is all public domain. > Unfortunately, the predominant effect of that public domain status for the > code was that government contractors would take the code, make trivial > modifications, and sell it back to >>the government under a proprietary > license - which they were within their rights to do. > > > > But if it’s public domain, the government has no right to dictate how > those modifications are subsequently licensed. That’s sort of the whole > point of public domain. > Yes - they had no right under *copyright.* But that doesn't mean that they didn't have a legitimate reason to reach for other tools - in this case, contract law - to try to accomplish their goals. But like I said, I don't have a dog in this fight. I just happened to know the backstory for NOSA from the original source. In this case, the motivation was something that was not too far off from what motivated other copyleft licenses. I just thought that this background could help inform the discussion. Thanks, Van
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
