On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:03 AM Christopher Sean Morrison <brl...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 8, 2017, at 9:32 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) < > cem.f.karan....@mail.mil> wrote: > > > > You might want to re-read what they posted; the license applies only to > those > > portions of the code that have copyright attached, otherwise it's public > > domain. The trick is that while US Government (USG) works are > ineligible for > > copyright within the US, they may be eligible for copyright outside the > US, > > and in those areas the USG works are licensed under the OSI-approved > license. > > I'm not sure what it would mean for code that was moved across > jurisdictions, > > but I do understand and appreciate the intent of their approach. > > They’ve slapped a copyright-based license file on the collective work with > an INTENT file clarifying that it only applies to code that has copyright > attached. I read what they wrote very carefully. We’re saying exactly the > same thing. > > It’s an interesting approach that is not new, just untested and a point of > dispute in the past as to what might happen. > For what little it is worth, having just read intent.md, I think it's an eminently reasonable policy. It gives some baseline certainty for non-.gov contributors, non-US entities, and US entities that are satisfied with a baseline set of FOSS rights. For those who for some reason need the additional flexibility of US-only PD, they can do the research to figure out what is available in that way. Luis -- *Luis Villa: Open Law and Strategy <http://lu.is>* *+1-415-938-4552*
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss