On 7/27/17 12:38 AM, Fen Labalme wrote: > [I don't think my previous message on code.mil <http://code.mil> got > through moderation (sent by incorrect address); re-sending this one, > though now that we're on the topic of code.mil <http://code.mil> > contribution policies and license minutiae we're already most of the > way to the end. but...] > > For discussion purposes (as I consider the right license to be very > important) here's a response from my colleague (who used to work with > the Software Freedom Law Center) posted here without further comment: > > "Seems like a reasonable choice, every situation is different but > there really isn't much difference between a BSD license and a MIT > license in most cases. > > It may not matter to his decision, but he may be misunderstanding the > code.mil <http://code.mil> stuff slightly though. He is correct that > it is treating non-US copyrights slightly differently, but only to the > extent that the U.S. government can actually claim copyrights in at > least some foreign jurisdictions. Copyright is a right granted country > by country so for example when a private person writes a book they are > essentially simultaneously, but independently, granted a U.S. > copyright in the book and a separate Canadian copyright in the same book. > > But as a matter of US law, when the US government authors, via its > *employees*, a book the U.S. government is not in the typical case > granted a copyright in the book in the U.S.. Whether the U.S. > government is granted a Canadian copyright is a matter of Canadian law > and a separate legal question. > > A related point of confusion might be that if the U.S. government > contracts with a independent contractor to write a book then the > typical case is that the independent contractor as the author would > have a copyright in the book; both in the U.S. (and presumably in > Canada. But again that depends on Canadian law.) Now it might be that > the U.S. government requires the contractor to assign the copyright to > the U.S. government but in that case the U.S. government would > actually own the U.S. copyright in the book. Any required assignments > would be part of the contract between the independent contractor and > the u.s. government. > > It is not true that when the U.S. government hires a independent > contractor to produce a book that there is no copyright in the book. > Just the opposite is typically true. > > The details will depend on the contracts involved. But a U.S. > government contractor can typically assert a copyright over a work the > U.S. government paid to have produced. But again contracts may change > the default rules. > > It looks like they are going with the 3 clause BSD license. But they > discuss the 4 clause. They should keep in mind another reason NOT to > use the 4-clause is that it is generally regarded as incompatible with > the GPL. > > If he is concerned about getting credit where credit is due, the GPL > or other copyleft license, such as the LGPL, might be a better choice > then the 4 or 3 clause license. If I recall correctly some of the > code.mil <http://code.mil> stuff mentions wanting to have the option > to use the GPL, but they still had questions about it. But they do not > say it can't be used. But again the federal government sits in a > different situation then its independent contractors so code.mil > <http://code.mil> may have different concerns as a government agency. > But Section 7 of the GPLv3 allows some additional restrictions that > might serve similar functions to the no endorsement clause of the 3 > clause BSD license. Or at least allow the inclusion of a required non > endorsement clause from a contract. > > Red Hat legal or a private attorney, such as SFLC, might be able to > tell him how this all applies to his situation."
So he's saying the DoD legal guidance is wrong? I don't understand.
_______________________________________________ scap-security-guide mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
