www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)" <chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject Re: ICLA US Government
Date Fri, 07 Mar 2014 22:24:38 GMT
Hi Evan,

Thanks for your email. Just wanted to address
a few points:

-----Original Message-----

From: Evan Ward <evan.ward@nrl.navy.mil>
Reply-To: <legal-discuss@apache.org>
Date: Friday, March 7, 2014 7:19 PM
To: <legal-discuss@apache.org>
Cc: "private@commons.apache.org" <private@commons.apache.org>
Subject: Re: ICLA US Government

>
>On 03/06/2014 05:29 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) wrote:
>> Hi Evan,
>>
>> Thanks. It's not really a black and white "If Apache is unwilling.."
>> All some folks have stated is that in the past this issue has come up
>> several times and each and every time ranging from individual
>>contributor
>> (e.g., me, or folks from JPL or another NASA center, or e.g., folks from
>> NSA), 
>> to even large  government agency (e.g., NSA, or NASA, or JPL) these
>> participants
>> have signed the original ICLA or CCLA without modification.
>
>True. I would like to know the details of how the government agency
>approved it. Maybe then it would provide some additional evidence for
>the lawyers here. From what I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong)
>JPL/Caltech could sign because they are contractors, not federal
>employees. As I'm sure you know, NASA had to develop a special license,
>the NOSA, that works without copyright in order to make software written
>by their federal employees open source.

NASA's NOSA license is by no means something that all NASA employees have
to use, nor is it something that big NASA (all NASA centers) developed.
NASA's
NOSA license was primarily developed by a few NASA centers in consultation
with NASA HQ
and NASA OGC who thought it
necessary to create a specialized vanity license for some subset of its
works. NOSA is not the NASA standard license, and we have a whole list of
software (see http://code.nasa.gov/) that is open source released by NASA
employees under non-NOSA software licenses. One of the recommendations from
NASA's first open source summit is that vanity licenses like NOSA should
not
be used since it causes more confusion to continue creating these vanity
licenses
rather than picking a standard one.

About the JPL/Caltech being a special case -- in fact, JPL/Caltech
employees
are not civil servants, and we are employees of Caltech since JPL is an
FFRDC managed by Caltech. At the same time, that doesn't make it any easier
for us. In many cases we have not just 2 checks (our local center + NASA
HQ)
which most civil servant centers affiliated with NASA do;
we have three checks! (our local center/JPL + NASA HQ + Caltech IP/legal).
So it's not really a special case, and dealing with JPL is in most ways
dealing with the government (our IP and works are governed at the NASA HQ
check/process by the FAR and DFAR and other guidelines). See this diagram
for a description of NASA's software release process that I helped to pen:

http://wiki.esipfed.org/images/8/84/NASA-OSS-process.png


>
>I'm still curious what convinced the NSA General Consul in LEGAL-100.
>Anybody know?
>
>>
>> Given that, you can imagine the precedent that already exists and
>> is in place. I'm not sure if I can fully alleviate your concern
>> that you're doing something dishonest by signing the ICLA. Many
>> other government employees (individuals) as well as a few government
>> agencies have already decided that as a whole, they are not, and
>> proceeded. Based on that, I personally do not think you would be
>> doing anything dishonest by signing the ICLA, no more so than those
>> individuals that have done so already and those agencies that have
>> filed CCLAs with the ASF for their named contributors to participate.
>
>I didn't mean to imply anything about other government committers. I'm
>just trying to do what's right in this case.

No worries, I wasn't taking it that way. I just wanted you to know that
I believe there is significant precedent here from govt people who have the
same beliefs as you in the sense of "wanting to do what's right" and I was
trying to use that as an example to help your contribution case.

Cheers,
Chris



>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Evan Ward <evan.ward@nrl.navy.mil>
>> Reply-To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
>> Date: Thursday, March 6, 2014 2:10 PM
>> To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
>> Cc: "private@commons.apache.org" <private@commons.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: ICLA US Government
>>
>>> The helpful lawyers here have informed me that I don't have the
>>> authority to make the agreements spelled out in the original ICLA. I
>>> think signing it would be dishonest, both towards Apache and my
>>> employer. If Apache is unwilling to negotiate or accept a modified
>>>ICLA,
>>> then we are out of options.
>>>
>>> To be clear, I would be happy to sign the original ICLA if it excluded
>>> the work produced from my official government duties.
>>>
>>> As long as Apache still accepts work in the public domain I will
>>> continue to make contributions to [math]. A future thank you to those
>>> who commit my patches.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Evan
>>>
>>> On Thu 06 Mar 2014 04:34:47 PM EST, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) wrote:
>>>> +1 that is very much my understanding as well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com>
>>>> Reply-To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
>>>> Date: Thursday, March 6, 2014 1:32 PM
>>>> To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
>>>> Cc: "private@commons.apache.org" <private@commons.apache.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: ICLA US Government
>>>>
>>>>> I'd redraft that section 2. In any case I understand the longstanding
>>>>> ASF
>>>>> policy is 'use our standard CLAs, no special cases'.
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> I got into programming for the tricky logic problems. Look like I
>>>>>> should
>>>>>> have been a lawyer. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For another open source project that uses the Apache License and
>>>>>> ICLAs,
>>>>>> I joined using a modified ICLA (attached). If we s/CS/Apache/ and
>>>>>> s/Orekit/Commons/ would it be acceptable? I think it clears up the
>>>>>> worldwide issue and explicitly states "public domain with no
>>>>>>license".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>> Evan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu 06 Mar 2014 03:46:31 PM EST, Richard Fontana wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But the point is that US government works for which copyright
is
>>>>>>> excluded domestically may not have the same exclusion as to copies
>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>> those same works published in other countries.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>--
>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> True, but public domain is a concept in all modern copyright
>>>>>>>systems.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Moral right treatments differ, but I don't think that the Apache
>>>>>>> ICLA addresses that anyway.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 5:55 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:jim@jagunet.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We also need to recall that US Copyright Law is not the
>>>>>>> sole one in existence ;)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 2014, at 2:36 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:ted.dunning@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You may not be the copyright owner, but you can grant a
>>>>>>> license to public domain works.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As can I or anyone else.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact that the the licensee doesn't need the license is
>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message