> Saying something from the Gov’t is “public domain” typically just means it
> went through a public release process and there's no intention to assert
> rights.
I should clarify that I was referring to how public domain is used
colloquially. Not asserting right or wrong, just that "public d
> The work-around they are trying to use, of having contracts for the
> distribution of creative works circumvent limitations and exceptions to
> copyright, should be clearly understood as more harmful to the FLOSS
> community than any amount of software released by any particular government
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 5:33 PM Christopher Sean Morrison via
License-discuss wrote:
Yes! Even to say it’s in the public domain is misleading. It’s not a USC
> term.
>
It's true that "public domain" is not *defined* in 17 U.S.C., but it is
*used* there seven times. So turning to a dictionary,
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:33 PM VanL wrote:
>
> 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
> On May 28, 2019, at 4:27 PM, Smith, McCoy wrote:
>
> <>>>From: License-discuss
> [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of John Cowan
> >>Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 1:24 PM
> >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Government l
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 4:47 PM Smith, McCoy wrote:
>
>
> >>Gov’t regularly distributes software that otherwise has *no* Title 17
> protections to foreign and domestic recipients, under contractual terms.
> I’m told these have held up in court, though I admit to not having a
> citation handy.
>
>
>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org]
>>On Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss
>>Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 2:33 PM
>>To: Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss
>>
>>Cc: Christopher Sean Morrison
>>Subject: Re: [License-discuss]
> >>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 proprie
>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org]
>>On Behalf Of John Cowan
>>Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 1:24 PM
>>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
>>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses
>>Government code is only public domain if it is written b
>>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 cle
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:41 PM Smith, McCoy wrote:
> 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.
>
Government code is only public domain if it is written by actual gov
Thanks for expanding on this point, Van!
> 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
>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org]
>>On Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss
>>Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 12:57 PM
>>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
>>Cc: Christopher Sean Morrison
>>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Evolving th
> If government lawyers believe they have a requirement for X and without X
> they won?t recommend open sourcing then providing them a license that
> provides X results in more open source code. This is a good thing as
> long as X minimally meets the OSD.
This is wh
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 2:42 PM Smith, McCoy 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 licens
On Tue, May 28, 2019, 15:42 Smith, McCoy 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
>
>>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.
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 1:51 PM Smith, McCoy wrote:
> >>Thank you for restating the underlying disagreement on the same false
> pretense. Governments are subject to a plethora of different regulations
> and laws than commercial actors. To claim or presume there are no
> requirements unique to G
>>-Original Message-
>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org]
>>On Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss
>>Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 11:08 AM
>>To: Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss
>>
>>Cc: Christopher Sean Morrison
>>
>> If government lawyers believe they have a requirement for X and without X
>> they won?t recommend open sourcing then providing them a license that
>> provides X results in more open source code. This is a good thing as long
>> as X minimally meets the OSD.
>
> This is where your logic fail
20 matches
Mail list logo
