You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to community@apache.org by "McGovern, James" <ja...@hp.com> on 2014/06/30 16:40:05 UTC
Government License
Has anyone ever explored creation of a license model that forbids the Federal Government in using its software? For example, you may want to create a new encryption algorithm but for whatever reasons, don’t want the NSA to have access to it.
http://facebook.com/McGovernForCT
Re: Government License
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Sure. But then it wouldn't be either an Open Source nor a Free Software
license.
On Jun 30, 2014, at 10:40 AM, McGovern, James <ja...@hp.com> wrote:
> Has anyone ever explored creation of a license model that forbids the Federal Government in using its software? For example, you may want to create a new encryption algorithm but for whatever reasons, don’t want the NSA to have access to it.
>
> http://facebook.com/McGovernForCT
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Government License
Posted by Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>.
On 06/30/2014 09:40 AM, McGovern, James wrote:
> Has anyone ever explored creation of a license model that forbids the
> Federal Government in using its software? For example, you may want to
> create a new encryption algorithm but for whatever reasons, don’t want
> the NSA to have access to it.
If so, it's automatically not compliant with the Open Source Definition:
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
(See: http://opensource.org/osd-annotated)
Best,
jzb
--
Joe Brockmeier
jzb@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Government License
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
That wouldn't be an open source license. Remember freedom #1 - free to
be able to use in any manner for any purpose.
That said there are actually a number of licenses that 'no evil'
clauses in them; and IIRC there are licenses that forbid use by the US
government; though a quick google failed me. But again, they aren't
open source.
--David
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 10:40 AM, McGovern, James <ja...@hp.com> wrote:
> Has anyone ever explored creation of a license model that forbids the
> Federal Government in using its software? For example, you may want to
> create a new encryption algorithm but for whatever reasons, don’t want the
> NSA to have access to it.
>
> http://facebook.com/McGovernForCT
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Government License
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jul 2, 2014, at 10:05 PM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 12:24 AM, David Welton <da...@dedasys.com> wrote:
> > Closest I've seen in the 'free' area is licensing that forbids military
> > uses.
>
> Which is, once again, neither 'free software' nor open source because
> it goes against the definition. You can't have it both ways: you
> can't exclude people from using it because they are military, gay,
> Illinois nazis, Alaskan women, Liechtensteiners or whatever else you
> happen to dislike.
>
> At risk of sounding flippant; the original poster didn't indicate he wanted a license that would be compatible with the definitions of free software or open source :)
>
True, but it was posted on an Apache community list, which kind
of implies it :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Government License
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 12:24 AM, David Welton <da...@dedasys.com> wrote:
> > Closest I've seen in the 'free' area is licensing that forbids military
> > uses.
>
> Which is, once again, neither 'free software' nor open source because
> it goes against the definition. You can't have it both ways: you
> can't exclude people from using it because they are military, gay,
> Illinois nazis, Alaskan women, Liechtensteiners or whatever else you
> happen to dislike.
At risk of sounding flippant; the original poster didn't indicate he wanted
a license that would be compatible with the definitions of free software or
open source :)
Hen
RE: Government License
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
The application of local law is a different matter. There is generally no reason to specify it in a license. Software with a mandated back-door or key-escrow arrangement in its implementation can certainly be open-source unless there is a legal prohibition of disclosing such code, in which case it is not open-source, is it (and that action may be in violation of an open-source license, but that’s a different matter).
Disclaimers and statements of warranty are different, although some licenses require that disclaimers be preserved. It is one thing to disclaim software as unsuitable for use in situations where there are hazards to life and property, such as nuclear reactor control software or pacemaker devices, and another to have the software be open-source.
The famous Java disclaimer about life-threatening situations is a disclaimer. The obligation to perpetuate the disclaimer is part of a licensing arrangement around the Java trademark and certification process, and doesn’t have anything to do with open-source licensing. The OpenJDK is under GPL2 with a class-path exception, so there is explicitly no warranty whatsoever for any use whatsoever. The special Java disclaimer is not present. (See http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/file/2df45ac1bf49/LICENSE.
- Dennis
From: Dirk-Willem van Gulik [mailto:dirkx@webweaving.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2014 01:46
To: community@apache.org
Cc: David Welton
Subject: Re: Government License
Op 2 jul. 2014, om 10:33 heeft Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com> > het volgende geschreven:
[ … ]
But I think the situation around this is a bit more complex there - and I think, we, as a community, should cut developers a bit more slack. As there you run into the issue that local laws, legislation and regulation. Which can force developers in specific communities to be cautious for certain areas. A well known one is software used in nuclear installations; others are medical (in quite a few countries), military (in very few) and aviation (decreasingly the case).
Dw.
Re: Government License
Posted by Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>.
Op 2 jul. 2014, om 10:33 heeft Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 2:24 AM, David Welton <da...@dedasys.com> wrote:
> > Closest I've seen in the 'free' area is licensing that forbids military
> > uses.
>
> Which is, once again, neither 'free software' nor open source because
> it goes against the definition. You can't have it both ways: you
> can't exclude people from using it because they are military, gay,
> Illinois nazis, Alaskan women, Liechtensteiners or whatever else you
> happen to dislike.
>
> I'm with you, Jake.
But I would like to keep the line exactly there - near what is generally seen as some sort of denial/exclusion to groups of _people_ based on some form of _prejudice_. As that follows the various legal systems, interpretation of the constitution or whatever in most countries (and almost certainly the contemporary interpretation of those).
Excluding certain types of use, certain institutions or other ‚non people’ things is just as undesirable.
But I think the situation around this is a bit more complex there - and I think, we, as a community, should cut developers a bit more slack. As there you run into the issue that local laws, legislation and regulation. Which can force developers in specific communities to be cautious for certain areas. A well known one is software used in nuclear installations; others are medical (in quite a few countries), military (in very few) and aviation (decreasingly the case).
Dw.
Re: Government License
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 2:24 AM, David Welton <da...@dedasys.com> wrote:
> > Closest I've seen in the 'free' area is licensing that forbids military
> > uses.
>
> Which is, once again, neither 'free software' nor open source because
> it goes against the definition. You can't have it both ways: you
> can't exclude people from using it because they are military, gay,
> Illinois nazis, Alaskan women, Liechtensteiners or whatever else you
> happen to dislike.
>
I'm with you, Jake.
Re: Government License
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Nope... Freedome #0 and OSD #6
On Jul 2, 2014, at 3:37 AM, Johannes Geppert <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Is it maybe possible not to exclude people or organisations, but concrete usage scenarios instead?
> Like cyber crime and/or spying
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Government License
Posted by Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net>.
I think this reasoning is a fluke. Terms "military" and "government" are by
far to be any kind of "minority".
In general yes, the license would not be OSS, but putting "specific group
of people" in same drawer as "goverment" does not hold IMO.
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:04 AM, jan i <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2 July 2014 09:42, Jan Matèrne <ja...@materne.de> wrote:
>
>> Even if you could exclude cyber crime and spying from a legal use by your
>> license - do you really think that these users would follow your license?
>>
> of course they would not, but that is beside the point.
>
> If you in a license exclude a specific group of people (like redhaired
> vikings), it would not hold up in court, and you run the risk of being sued
> for being against a minority. You can anytime exclude a specific use in
> your license, a good example is pro. licenses that often exclude use in
> conjunction with nuclear plants.
>
> Having made an exclusion in the license, is a possibility to sue for
> illegal use, or much more important, in case of goverments, bad press (much
> much effective at the fraction of the cost).
>
> rgds
> jan I
>
>>
>>
>> Jan
>>
>>
>>
>> *Von:* Johannes Geppert [mailto:jogep@apache.org]
>> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 2. Juli 2014 09:37
>> *An:* community@apache.org
>> *Betreff:* Re: Government License
>>
>>
>>
>> Is it maybe possible not to exclude people or organisations, but concrete
>> usage scenarios instead?
>>
>> Like cyber crime and/or spying
>>
>>
>>
>> Johannes
>>
>>
>> #################################################
>>
>> web: http://www.jgeppert.com
>>
>> twitter: http://twitter.com/jogep
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-07-02 9:24 GMT+02:00 David Welton <da...@dedasys.com>:
>>
>> > Closest I've seen in the 'free' area is licensing that forbids military
>> > uses.
>>
>> Which is, once again, neither 'free software' nor open source because
>> it goes against the definition. You can't have it both ways: you
>> can't exclude people from using it because they are military, gay,
>> Illinois nazis, Alaskan women, Liechtensteiners or whatever else you
>> happen to dislike.
>>
>> --
>> David N. Welton
>>
>> http://www.dedasys.com/
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: Government License
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On 2 July 2014 09:42, Jan Matèrne <ja...@materne.de> wrote:
> Even if you could exclude cyber crime and spying from a legal use by your
> license - do you really think that these users would follow your license?
>
of course they would not, but that is beside the point.
If you in a license exclude a specific group of people (like redhaired
vikings), it would not hold up in court, and you run the risk of being sued
for being against a minority. You can anytime exclude a specific use in
your license, a good example is pro. licenses that often exclude use in
conjunction with nuclear plants.
Having made an exclusion in the license, is a possibility to sue for
illegal use, or much more important, in case of goverments, bad press (much
much effective at the fraction of the cost).
rgds
jan I
>
>
> Jan
>
>
>
> *Von:* Johannes Geppert [mailto:jogep@apache.org]
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 2. Juli 2014 09:37
> *An:* community@apache.org
> *Betreff:* Re: Government License
>
>
>
> Is it maybe possible not to exclude people or organisations, but concrete
> usage scenarios instead?
>
> Like cyber crime and/or spying
>
>
>
> Johannes
>
>
> #################################################
>
> web: http://www.jgeppert.com
>
> twitter: http://twitter.com/jogep
>
>
>
>
>
> 2014-07-02 9:24 GMT+02:00 David Welton <da...@dedasys.com>:
>
> > Closest I've seen in the 'free' area is licensing that forbids military
> > uses.
>
> Which is, once again, neither 'free software' nor open source because
> it goes against the definition. You can't have it both ways: you
> can't exclude people from using it because they are military, gay,
> Illinois nazis, Alaskan women, Liechtensteiners or whatever else you
> happen to dislike.
>
> --
> David N. Welton
>
> http://www.dedasys.com/
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
>
>
>
AW: Government License
Posted by Jan Matèrne <ja...@materne.de>.
Even if you could exclude cyber crime and spying from a legal use by your license - do you really think that these users would follow your license?
Jan
Von: Johannes Geppert [mailto:jogep@apache.org]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. Juli 2014 09:37
An: community@apache.org
Betreff: Re: Government License
Is it maybe possible not to exclude people or organisations, but concrete usage scenarios instead?
Like cyber crime and/or spying
Johannes
#################################################
web: http://www.jgeppert.com
twitter: http://twitter.com/jogep
2014-07-02 9:24 GMT+02:00 David Welton <da...@dedasys.com>:
> Closest I've seen in the 'free' area is licensing that forbids military
> uses.
Which is, once again, neither 'free software' nor open source because
it goes against the definition. You can't have it both ways: you
can't exclude people from using it because they are military, gay,
Illinois nazis, Alaskan women, Liechtensteiners or whatever else you
happen to dislike.
--
David N. Welton
http://www.dedasys.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Government License
Posted by Johannes Geppert <jo...@apache.org>.
Is it maybe possible not to exclude people or organisations, but concrete
usage scenarios instead?
Like cyber crime and/or spying
Johannes
#################################################
web: http://www.jgeppert.com
twitter: http://twitter.com/jogep
2014-07-02 9:24 GMT+02:00 David Welton <da...@dedasys.com>:
> > Closest I've seen in the 'free' area is licensing that forbids military
> > uses.
>
> Which is, once again, neither 'free software' nor open source because
> it goes against the definition. You can't have it both ways: you
> can't exclude people from using it because they are military, gay,
> Illinois nazis, Alaskan women, Liechtensteiners or whatever else you
> happen to dislike.
>
> --
> David N. Welton
>
> http://www.dedasys.com/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: Government License
Posted by David Welton <da...@dedasys.com>.
> Closest I've seen in the 'free' area is licensing that forbids military
> uses.
Which is, once again, neither 'free software' nor open source because
it goes against the definition. You can't have it both ways: you
can't exclude people from using it because they are military, gay,
Illinois nazis, Alaskan women, Liechtensteiners or whatever else you
happen to dislike.
--
David N. Welton
http://www.dedasys.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Government License
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
Closest I've seen in the 'free' area is licensing that forbids military
uses.
Hen
On Monday, June 30, 2014, McGovern, James <ja...@hp.com> wrote:
> Has anyone ever explored creation of a license model that forbids the
> Federal Government in using its software? For example, you may want to
> create a new encryption algorithm but for whatever reasons, don’t want the
> NSA to have access to it.
>
> http://facebook.com/McGovernForCT
>
Re: Government License
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 10:40 AM, McGovern, James <ja...@hp.com> wrote:
> Has anyone ever explored creation of a license model that forbids the
> Federal Government in using its software? For example, you may want to
> create a new encryption algorithm but for whatever reasons, don’t want the
> NSA to have access to it.
>
Aside from the question of whether this violates the definition of
"open source", there is also the question of federal sovereign
immunity (called "crown immunity" in some countries), the concept by
which a state limits its ability to be subject to civil suits.
Regardsm
-Rob
> http://facebook.com/McGovernForCT
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org