> -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tom Bereknyei > Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 9:48 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] (no subject) > > Cem, > > Yes, only in the case of fully public domain do our approaches differ. Our > view was that a project that never had a contribution from a > non-federal entity would likely not reach a critical mass of adoption anyway. > This isn't perfect, but the best we could come up with. I'm > glad though that at least part of the problem has a clear path forward.
I think I see what you're trying to accomplish, but it could lead to issues transporting code across jurisdictions. If it is possible for DDS to 'level the playing field' so that everyone is subject to the same terms for a particular piece of code, it may make it easier for downstream users to adopt. > Anyone, > > I'm now encountering a slightly different situation in government, is there a > way to ensure modifications and fixes are made available to > the originator in a limited distribution scenario? Something like a limited > distribution GPL, but unlike before, there would be no non- > government contribution's copyright to piggyback off of. If this is government-only, then it is possible to use various contract mechanisms to enforce what you want. ARL has done this kind of thing for a long time now, and can share what we do with you directly (contact me off list). > Maj Tom Bereknyei > Defense Digital Service > t...@dds.mil < Caution-mailto:t...@dds.mil > > (571) 225-1630 < tel:%28571%29%20225-1630 > 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
