www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" <cem.f.karan....@mail.mil>
Subject RE: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Suggested license mod or FAQ
Date Fri, 06 Jan 2017 14:33:32 GMT
Hi, my name is Cem Karan, and I'm one of those Government employees that Chris 
was talking about.  Is it also possible to clarify the definition of Licensor 
in clause 1?  As a Government employee, my works are in the public domain, so 
there is no copyright holder.  I'd hate to have one of my contributions cause 
headaches because of that.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Tubbs [mailto:ctubbsii@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 7:29 PM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Suggested license mod or FAQ
>
> Interesting... apparently, I'm not subscribed to the list, so I never saw 
> the reply.
>
> In any case, I'm not talking about contributing public domain contributions 
> to an ASF project... I'm talking about the applicability of the
> AL2 license to any project which uses it.
>
> After some more interactions with lawyer types and others, I've come to 
> learn that what I'm talking about is explicitly adding a type of
> Severability Clause[1], which ensures that the LICENSE is not void in its 
> entirety due to the inapplicability of a portion of the LICENSE to a
> specific subset of the project.
>
> Before I had learned about this, I had assumed that individual inapplicable 
> clauses could be ignored, and the rest would remain intact, but
> now... I've learned that isn't necessarily the case.
>
> For more details, and an example of why this might be useful to all users 
> (developers and project consumers) of the Apache License, see
> Caution-https://github.com/presidential-innovation-fellows/code-gov-web/issues/41#issuecomment-270469794
>
> In short,  U.S. Government (USG) developers, managers, and sometimes 
> lawyers, are so very confused and lost while trying to release
> government-produced software to the public, as there is no consistent 
> guidance, or good license for them to use which applies. I don't
> think ASF should be in the business of creating a suitable licenses for USG, 
> but the conversation on those forums has got me thinking that
> this simple change to AL2 would alleviate many concerns, and would also be 
> mutually beneficial to any project, including ASF projects,
> which use AL2.
>
> [1]: Caution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability
>
> On 2016-12-22 04:21 (-0500), Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> > Hen
> >
> >
> > 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
> > > (Caution-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 
> > > (Caution-http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html).
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Christopher
> > >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message