www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <bay...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Suggested license mod or FAQ
Date Thu, 22 Dec 2016 09:21:49 GMT
What would the FAQ say? Both question and answer :)

IIRC this is something that's come up on list a good few times; so a FAQ
seems justifiable (though you should review the previous questions).

I think one way to look at is that, if you (an individual not an entity
like a government or corporation) are contributing something that is not
your original creation, you have to call that out per section 7 of the
ICLA. Thus if you work for the US government and your contribution is
public domain'd, you should call that out on each contribution per section
7. So no issue with the ICLA if that way to look at it is valid, but a mild
pain for each commit message.


On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
> The following is just something I was thinking about recently watching all
> the activity around the U.S. Government and open source. (see code.gov
> and related GitHub activities)
> There still seem to be a lot of questions about how open source licenses
> pertain to Federal Employees coding on behalf of government, and domestic
> copyright.
> For comparison, the Fedora Project Contributor Agreement seems to have a
> very useful note in paragraph 4 (https://fedoraproject.org/
> wiki/Legal:Fedora_Project_Contributor_Agreement) about US Gov copyright.
> I'm not a lawyer, but as far as I can tell, this isn't a *necessary*
> clause.... it seems to me that any non-applicable clause of a license would
> simply be non-applicable, whether it is stated explicitly or not, and any
> copyright license restrictions cannot be binding for something which is
> public domain. However, it does seem to be *useful* to have such a clause,
> to answer questions from confused government types who want to pick a
> license for their open source projects, and which may have a mix of
> government and other contributions.
> So, *if* there were ever an 'Apache License, 2.1', I think it'd be worth
> considering adding a similar clause, either specifically addressing 17
> U.S.C. 105 public domain, or something less US-centric which still clearly
> addresses that case.
> In the meantime, it might be useful to note something about this on the
> license FAQs (http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html).
> What do you think?
> --
> Christopher

View raw message