www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Wheeler, David A" <dwhee...@ida.org>
Subject RE: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research Laboratory Open Source License proposal
Date Thu, 18 Aug 2016 18:52:01 GMT
William A Rowe Jr [mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net]:
> Unsure how this news might apply but it sounds like changes in overall policy might gain
some traction to address this... If OMB came up with the rational of either approving AL 2.0
as is, or made a compelling case for AL 2.1 clarifications.
https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/08/the-white-house-just-released-the-federal-source-code-policy-to-help-government-agencies-go-open-source/

The detailed policy is here:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2016/m_16_21.pdf

That new US federal government policy doesn't directly apply to many of Cem's cases.  The
policy doesn't apply to National Security Systems (NSS), and I expect that a lot of what the
Army research labs do would be classified as NSS.  The policy certainly presses for the release
of open source software in general; it requires that a minimum of 20% of custom-developed
code be released as OSS in each year for 3 years.  It does note (in its definitions) that
"custom developed code" includes software developed by government officials as part of their
official duties.  The policy itself does not delve into this kind of legal analysis.

--- David A. Wheeler

Mime
View raw message