>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of Ben Hilburn >>Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 1:19 PM >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses
>>There are prominent examples of various orgs trying clever ways to get around >>this, as Van mentioned. One recent example is the NSA's release of Ghidra, >>where they include a license (Apache 2.0), then a `NOTICE` file that says it >>cannot apply >>to the entire codebase but that *it is meant to*. Check out >>this `Licensing Intent` section from the Ghidra Github repository which is >>the most clear description I've seen, from a government agency, laying out >>the problem and their attempted >>work-around: >>https://github.com/NationalSecurityAgency/ghidra/blob/master/NOTICE#L15 IIRC, this was the sort of thing that people who were questioning various provisions in NOSA (and other GOSS licenses) were suggesting would be the better solution – use an existing open source license (like Apache); to the extent that there might be uncopyrightable parts in the licensed code base (because, public domain, but also because, inter alia idea/expression, fair use, etc.), the license wouldn’t apply, at least in the places where there was no copyright (like, the US for USG employee work).
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
