Since I'm a Federal employee, and since putting together an Open Source policy for the Army Research Laboratory is part of my job, I'm barred from directly lobbying Congress on this matter [1-3]. ARL's legal counsel have also told me that I'm not allowed to encourage or discourage anyone to lobby Congress on behalf of ARL. As an outside group, OSI can do what it feels like.
Thanks, Cem Karan [1] https://ethics.od.nih.gov/topics/lobbying.htm [2] https://www.ethics.usda.gov/rules/guides/lobbying.htm [3] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1913 > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Michael Kellat [mailto:smkel...@yahoo.com] > Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 12:35 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org; Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > <cem.f.karan....@mail.mil>; Richard Fontana > <font...@sharpeleven.org> > Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and > the US Government > > As bad as it sounds, would a brief statutory clarification be useful in this > instance? We can write around Congress all we want but getting > them to fix this to be public domain globally is best done by amending the > law. A small rider proposed through channels per the > Recommendations Clause in Article II, Section 3 of the federal constitution > would work nicely. > > Stephen Michael Kellat > > > > On August 28, 2017 11:59:44 AM EDT, "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US)" <cem.f.karan....@mail.mil> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Fontana [Caution-mailto:font...@sharpeleven.org] > Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 11:39 AM > To: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > <cem.f.karan....@mail.mil> > Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US > Government > > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 02:18:10PM +0000, Karan, Cem F CIV > USARMY RDECOM > ARL > (US) wrote: > > Hi all, as you know I've been pushing the position > that the US > Government may have problems using copyright-based > licenses on works > that do not have copyright attached. One of the > lawyers I've been > working on this with has been kind enough to dig up > the exact statutes > and give some clearer legal reasoning on what the > issues are. It > basically boils down to two issues; first, there is > question of > severability > > (Caution-Caution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability < > Caution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability > > ) which I've > touched on before, and the second has to do with > copyfraud > > (Caution-Caution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud < > Caution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud > > ). > Copyfraud is defined within 17 U.S.C. 506, section (c) > > (Caution-Caution-https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title17/html/USCODE-2010-title17-chap5- > sec506.htm < > Caution-https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title17/html/USCODE-2010-title17-chap5-sec506.htm > > ). > I've copied out the relevant language below; the > commentary within the > brackets is from ARL's lawyer: > > """ > (c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice.- > Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any > article a notice > of copyright or words of the same purport that such > person knows to be > false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly > distributes or imports > for public distribution any article bearing such > notice or words that > such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more > than $2,500. > [Note - Any software pushed out under Open Source > would not have a > notice of copyright affixed to the software. However, > would software > pushed out under an Open Source license that assumes > the existence of > copyright be considered tantamount to a notice of > copyright and > therefore an actionable fraud under this section? > Don't know.] """ > > I know that there were questions at one time about the > need for > special licenses/agreements like NOSA 2.0, but this is > one of those > potential problems. Copyright-based licenses are > great for works that > have copyright attached, but they may be problematic > for works that > don't have copyright attached. > > > As has been pointed out before, I think, in software > (including but not > limited to open source) copyright notices are commonly > juxtaposed > with material that is clearly or likely not subject to > copyright. > > Anyway, the theoretical risk here could be eliminated in lots > of ways, it > seems to me (even without getting into what would be required > to > show 'fraudulent intent'). For example, the US government > could include a > copyright and license notice like the following: > > The following material may not be subject to copyright in > the United > States under 17 U.S.C. 105. To the extent it is subject to > copyright, it is released under the following open source > license: > [...] > > There's also the approach that is seen in > > Caution-Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/INTENT.md > < Caution- > https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/INTENT.md > . > > > So, given that we had come up with the idea of using > two licenses in > projects > (CC0 for portions of a work that don't have copyright, > and an > OSI-approved license for portions of a work that do > have copyright > attached), why should OSI care? The problem is that > CC0 is still not > OSI-approved (at least, it isn't on the list at > > Caution-Caution-https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical < Caution- > https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical > ). That means > that the Government could be putting out works that > are in some kind > of zombie-like state, half-Open Source, and half not. > If OSI approved > CC0 as being an Open Source license, or if NOSA 2.0 > was approved, then > the > problems could be fixed. So, where are we in either > case? > > > As I've pointed out before, CC0 itself does not eliminate the > problem > your > colleagues say they are concerned about, because CC0 assumes > copyright ownership. If they sincerely think it's dangerous to > use the > MIT > license then they should be consistent and say it's dangerous > to > use CC0 too. > > I think the use you are suggesting for use of CC0 is not > actually how > CC0 is meant to be used. CC0 is designed for the case where > copyright > ownership is likely or plausibly present but the owner wishes > to get > as close as possible to waiving all of their rights. I think > you are > saying > you want CC0 to be used to ceremonially declare (possibly in > some > cases incorrectly or misleadingly) that something that is not > subject to > copyright ownership in the first place is indeed ... not > subject to > copyright ownership in the first place -- which is not what > CC0 says. > > Richard > > > I see what you're saying, and I understand how it may appear ceremonial, > but > there is an added wrinkle of copyright in non-US jurisdictions. By > using > CC0 > in this way, it solves the question and 'levels the playing field' for > everyone, if that makes sense. > > However, I *DO* see the point you're making about how CC0 may not be > useable > in this way. I'll see what our lawyers say about this. > > Thanks, > Cem Karan >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
