You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" <ce...@mail.mil> on 2017/01/03 13:34:09 UTC
RE: [Non-DoD Source] Suggested license mod or FAQ
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher [mailto:ctubbsii@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 5:15 PM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Suggested license mod or FAQ
>
> 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 < Caution-http://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 <
> 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 <
> Caution-http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html > ).
>
> What do you think?
As one of those confused US Government employees, I would *definitely* like to
see some clarity here! One of my major concerns is severability
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability). Assume that the US Government
(USG) licenses some work under the ASL 2.0. ASL 2.0 depends on copyright,
which most USG works don't have within the USA. Could a US court find that
the license *as a whole* is void on the USG works because of this? That could
open up a real can of worms, not just the USG, but for anyone that has
downloaded the code for their own use.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
RE: [Non-DoD Source] Suggested license mod or FAQ
Posted by "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" <ce...@mail.mil>.
A little late, but... https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-283
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: shaposhnik@gmail.com [mailto:shaposhnik@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Roman
> Shaposhnik
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 7:18 PM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org; Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
> <ce...@mail.mil>
> Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Suggested license mod or FAQ
>
> All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the
> identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links
> contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a
> Web browser.
>
>
>
>
> ----
>
> Cem,
>
> I think you're bringing up a very good point and I'd hate to see it lost.
> Any chance you can file a LEGAL JIRA and capture the context you provided?
> Caution-https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL
>
> Filing a LEGAL JIRA is the most effective way to put this on ASF's VP Legal
> radar.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 5:34 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL
> (US) <ce...@mail.mil> wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Christopher [Caution-mailto:ctubbsii@apache.org]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 5:15 PM
> >> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> >> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Suggested license mod or FAQ
> >>
> >> 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 < Caution-Caution-http://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-
> >> Caution-https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Fedora_Project_Contribut
> >> or_Agreement <
> >> Caution-
> >> Caution-https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Fedora_Project_Contribut
> >> or_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-
> >> Caution-http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html <
> >> Caution-Caution-http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html > ).
> >>
> >> What do you think?
> >
> > As one of those confused US Government employees, I would *definitely*
> > like to see some clarity here! One of my major concerns is
> > severability (Caution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability).
> > Assume that the US Government
> > (USG) licenses some work under the ASL 2.0. ASL 2.0 depends on
> > copyright, which most USG works don't have within the USA. Could a US
> > court find that the license *as a whole* is void on the USG works
> > because of this? That could open up a real can of worms, not just the
> > USG, but for anyone that has downloaded the code for their own use.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Cem Karan
Re: [Non-DoD Source] Suggested license mod or FAQ
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
Cem,
I think you're bringing up a very good point and I'd hate to see it lost.
Any chance you can file a LEGAL JIRA and capture the context you
provided?
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL
Filing a LEGAL JIRA is the most effective way to put this on ASF's
VP Legal radar.
Thanks,
Roman.
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 5:34 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL
(US) <ce...@mail.mil> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Christopher [mailto:ctubbsii@apache.org]
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 5:15 PM
>> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
>> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Suggested license mod or FAQ
>>
>> 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 < Caution-http://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 <
>> 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 <
>> Caution-http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html > ).
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> As one of those confused US Government employees, I would *definitely* like to
> see some clarity here! One of my major concerns is severability
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability). Assume that the US Government
> (USG) licenses some work under the ASL 2.0. ASL 2.0 depends on copyright,
> which most USG works don't have within the USA. Could a US court find that
> the license *as a whole* is void on the USG works because of this? That could
> open up a real can of worms, not just the USG, but for anyone that has
> downloaded the code for their own use.
>
> Thanks,
> Cem Karan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org