Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

2017-09-01 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Thorsten Glaser
> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 3:50 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and 
> the US Government
> 
> 
> Hi list,
> 
> during this discussion I re-read CC0 and came to the conclusion that it does 
> not license the work itself but the right to act in the stead of
> the author (e.g. issue licences on it). That’s interesting and allows for a 
> _lot_ of possibilities.
>

What possibilities?

> 
> Of course…
> 
> >Making CC0 + a patent release officially OSI-approved would solve a lot
> >of
> 
> … the explicit patent exclusion remains a problem, as there is not only no 
> licence on the work saying one gets permission to use it but also
> an explicit exclusion of patents from the grant.
> 
> But this helps with e.g. the question of sublicensing (both in the EU and USA 
> sense which apparently, another thing I learnt yesternight,
> differ from each other) and the question of what exactly a derivative of a 
> CC0 work needs to be put under.

Does the EU define copyright and other IP rights for all member states?  That 
is, are the IP rights exactly the same between France and Germany simply 
because they are both a part of the EU?  When Brexit happens, what then?

> JFYI, IANAL, etc.
> //mirabilos



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

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

2017-09-01 Thread Thorsten Glaser 
Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) dixit:

>Does the EU define copyright and other IP rights for all member

Only guidelines that have to be implemented in national law.
The various countries still differ, even in the duration of
the protection (France, for example, has an extra clause to
extend protection of some works for the duration of the two
world wars), but not much.

AIUI the UK copyright law is much closer to US law than to
that of other EU member countries which have a French/German-
style droit d’auteur law.

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
11:56⎜«liwakura:#!/bin/mksh» also, i wanted to add mksh to my own distro │
i was disappointed that there is no makefile │ but somehow the Build.sh is
the least painful built system i've ever seen │ honours CC, {CPP,C,LD}FLAGS
properly │ looks cleary like done by someone who knows what they are doing
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] (no subject)

2017-09-01 Thread Tom Bereknyei 
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.

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.
-- 
Maj Tom Bereknyei
Defense Digital Service
t...@dds.mil
(571) 225-1630‬
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

2017-09-01 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Thorsten Glaser
> Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 8:26 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and 
> the US Government
> 
> Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) dixit:
> 
> >Does the EU define copyright and other IP rights for all member
> 
> Only guidelines that have to be implemented in national law.
> The various countries still differ, even in the duration of the protection 
> (France, for example, has an extra clause to extend protection of
> some works for the duration of the two world wars), but not much.

Wait... what??? You mean the copyright goes on until the next two world wars 
occur? How do they define a world war?  What if we luck out and no world wars 
occur?

> AIUI the UK copyright law is much closer to US law than to that of other EU 
> member countries which have a French/German- style droit d’auteur law.
> 
> bye,
> //mirabilo

Just to double check, droit d’auteur is the equivalent of moral rights, correct?

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

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: (no subject)

2017-09-01 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
> -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

Re: [License-discuss] (no subject)

2017-09-01 Thread Tzeng, Nigel H. 
Tom,

I disagree that you can’t get useful adoption without contributions from 
non-federal entities.

The NASA WorldWind Java API project (https://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov) didn’t 
take in any external contributions for a very long time (if ever) but did see 
reasonably high adoption until Java desktop apps were largely replaced by 
webapps.  You can do cathedral development and release via a GOSS license 
(NOSA) and still provide significant value to the user community.

With an OSS license release I can “clone and own” moving forward and accept 
upstream changes as desired even if the upstream developer never takes any of 
our pull requests.  We leverage Core Flight Executive (cFE) from NASA Goddard 
in that manner.  Goddard uses cFE for their cFS flight system where we use cFE 
as the foundation of our own flight software system.

UCL (upstream compatibility license) was recently approved by the OSI. The 
original body of work is licensed UCL while all new derivative works must be 
licensed Apache.  It doesn’t force the downstream to provide the upstream 
developer with fixes and changes but if it’s put into an external repo the 
original upstream developer has rights to use the new work because of Apache.  
The intent was if an entity (like say a federal agency) released a large 
completed project as open source that it could never get locked out of 
downstream modifications made by the OSS community.  The core code is always 
UCL and the new derivative changes are always Apache.

If we used GPL, all the downstream modifications would be GPL.  If we pulled 
that back into the original project then it becomes potentially problematic for 
commercial performers to integrate in their proprietary code.

If we used Apache then the downstream modifications are not certain to be FOSS.

So downstream derivative modifications are virally permissive…I hope anyway as 
that was the intent.

Regards,

Nigel

From: License-discuss  on behalf of Tom 
Bereknyei 
Reply-To: License Discuss 
Date: Friday, September 1, 2017 at 9:47 AM
To: License Discuss 
Subject: 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.

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.
--
Maj Tom Bereknyei
Defense Digital Service
t...@dds.mil
(571) 225-1630
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

2017-09-01 Thread John Cowan 
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <
cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote:

Wait... what??? You mean the copyright goes on until the next two world
> wars occur? How do they define a world war?  What if we luck out and no
> world wars occur?
>

No, it's that the expiration of copyright was retroactively tolled by
specific French legislation (one for WWI, one for WWII) for the time that
publication in France was under military censorship, preventing French
authors from fully exploiting their commercial rights.  Presumably if
France was occupied again, a similar law would be passed when the
occupation was lifted.  The status of these increases under the current
life + 70 years regime is not very clear, since that added 20 years and the
maximum extension was only 15 years.

In addition, authors who are "mort pour la France" (either as soldiers or
as civilians killed in war) are granted an additional 30 years of copyright
(thus life + 100) in compensation for whatever works they did not get to
create.  There are only about 35 creators in this position officially, but
new ones could in principle be recognized at any time.


> Just to double check, droit d’auteur is the equivalent of moral rights,
> correct?
>

Yes, but it generally extends to all types of works.

-- 
John Cowan  http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
Verbogeny is one of the pleasurettes of a creatific thinkerizer.
--Peter da Silva
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] (no subject)

2017-09-01 Thread Ben Hilburn 
Hi all -

I figured I would throw in my thoughts for this discussion. IANAL and all
of the usual disclaimers. My expertise, as it pertains to this thread, is
really in the building & sustainment of F/OSS communities and projects,
albeit outside of the government space.

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <
cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote:

> > 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).
>

In my experience, contracts are tremendous burden, both for individuals and
organizations, and pose a significant barrier to both adoption and
upstreaming. As an FSF maintainer of a large GNU project, I can tell you
that even the FSF CLA causes significant issue for many groups, and
outright inhibits growth of the developer community. I can't speak to how
burdensome it is to get contracts signed within a government agency, but I
have to imagine it is still burdensome. And requiring a contract for not
just upstreaming, but adoption, in my opinion would cripple all but the
largest projects.

Related - If you haven't yet, I highly recommend reading these two articles:
https://opensource.com/law/11/7/trouble-harmony-part-1
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2014/jun/09/do-not-need-cla/

Have you seen something different at ARL? How have you worked things to be
successful with your F/OSS projects and external groups? I'm really
interested to learn more about your approach and the results you've seen.

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Tzeng, Nigel H. 
wrote:

> UCL (upstream compatibility license) was recently approved by the OSI. The
> original body of work is licensed UCL while all new derivative works must
> be licensed Apache.  It doesn’t force the downstream to provide the
> upstream developer with fixes and changes but if it’s put into an external
> repo the original upstream developer has rights to use the new work because
> of Apache.  The intent was if an entity (like say a federal agency)
> released a large completed project as open source that it could never get
> locked out of downstream modifications made by the OSS community.  The core
> code is always UCL and the new derivative changes are always Apache.
>

I like the UCL a lot, and I agree, the mechanism and license do seem
especially pertinent to this discussion.

Cheers,
Ben
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss