Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

> On Jun 4, 2019, at 4:12 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:45 PM Christopher Sean Morrison via > License-discuss wrote: "The prohibition on copyright protection for United States Government works is not intended to have any effect on protection of these works >>>

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

Brian Behlendorf asked about California's funding for open source voting software: > However, it also stipulates a 3:1 matching ($3 for every $1 spent, up to $8M > of the total fund) when that software is exclusively GPLv3 licensed. I'd love > to understand the arguments that led to the conclus

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 3:20 PM John Cowan wrote: > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 4:13 AM Henrik Ingo wrote: >> > As noted in the preceding link, prevailing view and treatment is that >> > there is full copyright protection in some jurisdictions. >> >> Clearly it is not *prevailing* in this community. >

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 4:13 AM Henrik Ingo wrote: > > As noted in the preceding link, prevailing view and treatment is that > there is full copyright protection in some jurisdictions. > > Clearly it is not *prevailing* in this community. > No one has polled us, so no one knows if it is actually

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

> I'd love to understand the arguments that led to the conclusion that GPLv3 > licensed works represent a greater public good here and thus justify more > subsidy than others. > Hazarding a guess: the Installation Information provision of GPLv3 (aka anti-TiVoization) might have held sway here

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

On Tue, Jun 4, 2019, 04:13 Henrik Ingo wrote: > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:45 PM Christopher Sean Morrison via > License-discuss wrote: > > >> "The prohibition on copyright protection for United States Government > works is not intended to have any effect on protection of these works > abroad. Wo

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:45 PM Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss wrote: > >> "The prohibition on copyright protection for United States Government > >> works is not intended to have any effect on protection of these works > >> abroad. Works of the governments of most other countries

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:29 AM Brian Behlendorf wrote: > However, it also stipulates a 3:1 matching ($3 for every $1 spent, up to > $8M of the total fund) when that software is exclusively GPLv3 licensed. > > I'd love to understand the arguments that led to the conclusion that GPLv3 > licensed wor

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

> On Jun 4, 2019, at 1:28 AM, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > > On Mon, 3 Jun 2019, Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss wrote: >> There are myriad complexities and Gov’t players encounter not just a lack of >> support, but antagonistic and ill-informed opinions pervasive. As it stands >>

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

On Mon, 3 Jun 2019, Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss wrote: There are myriad complexities and Gov’t players encounter not just a lack of support, but antagonistic and ill-informed opinions pervasive. As it stands GOSS is continuing to grow, despite a general lack of support and und

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

>> "The prohibition on copyright protection for United States Government works >> is not intended to have any effect on protection of these works abroad. >> Works of the governments of most other countries are copyrighted. There are >> no valid policy reasons for denying such protection to Uni

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

ay 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 predomina

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

While I can appreciate the perspective some have that limitations to US copyright law are supposedly the prevailing concern with respect to IP, that’s simply demonstrably not the case with Gov’t works. The UAV example was evidently a distraction despite the “(with software..” disclaimer as the

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 3:55 PM Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: > Heh, and I decided to leave the lists right before the discussion became > interesting. > Well, we will need to agree to disagree. * The value we are discussing is attaching the Open Source brand to this software. Without the OSI approv

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

We're talking about different concepts, copyrightability versus term. No one would dispute that the government produces copyrightable subject matter. It's just a different theory for arguing that a US government work has lost protection outside the US and wondering if anyone has tried it. Pam Pam

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 7:38 PM Pamela Chestek wrote: > The Berne Convention also says in Article 7(8) that "unless the > legislation of that country otherwise provides, the term [of protection] > shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work." > https://www.wipo.int/treati

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

Typefaces are not subject to copyright protection in the US, while they are in several jurisdictions, including Ireland. Is a typeface created in the United States protected by copyright law in Ireland when it's copied in Dublin? I'm not sure what purpose 5(2) would accomplish if not apply domesti

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

The Berne Convention also says in Article 7(8) that "unless the legislation of that country otherwise provides, the term [of protection] shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work." https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/text.jsp?file_id=283698#P127_22000 The country of origin i

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

Pam, I'm not sure that it would work this way. Per Article 5(2) of the Berne Convention: (2) The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject to any formality; such enjoyment and such exercise *shall be independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

Wouldn't the government's copyright interest outside of the US be limited by the Rule of the Shorter Term under the Berne Convention? And so where the term in the US is "zero," wouldn't it be zero in those countries that observe the Rule of the Shorter Term? Pam Pamela S. Chestek Chestek Legal PO

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

FSF and (I believe) OSI both worked with the US DOD / DDS to come up with one solution to these issues, which is published at , further described at : > Licensing Intent > The intent is that this software and documentation ("Project") s

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

Heh, and I decided to leave the lists right before the discussion became interesting. My final comment on the general subject is simple…I’ve seen too many projects not make it through the wickets to becoming open source, one of my own being one of them, that the issue is not a theoretical logic

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:33 PM Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss wrote: > > Except it’s not really a work-around, it’s the widespread standard > practice that has persisted for longer than OSS has existed. Contracts / > Agreements are the manner in which all Gov't creative works ar

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

> 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

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

> 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

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

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,

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

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

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

> 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 >

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

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. > >

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

>>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 Morri

Re: [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 proprie

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

>>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

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

>>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 promi

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

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

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

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

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

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 > *>>

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

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:

Re: [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, goverme

[License-discuss] Government licenses

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