Thank you, I've forwarded your message to the relevant parties. Thanks, Cem Karan > -----Original Message----- > From: Florian Weimer [mailto:email@example.com] > Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 10:03 AM > To: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <firstname.lastname@example.org> > Cc: email@example.com > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Checking the ARL's scheme for releasing > software > > 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 F. Karan: > > >> In the past, I think the main problem with U.S. government works was > >> that some agencies merely repeated the legal situation regarding > >> copyright in government works, and it was not very clear if those > >> agencies intended to pursue copyright claims abroad (perhaps even > >> requiring compliance with proprietary licenses). Your proposal would > >> completely address that issue, I think. > > > > Can you point me to where this was discussed? There are some people > > within the USG that need to read that conversation ASAP. > > I think the most recent discussion may have been this: > > <Caution-https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2016/03/msg00010.html> > > The agency in question went beyond the usual, though, explicitly addressing > the problem. > > This discussion resurfaces periodically: > > <Caution-https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/01/msg00067.html> > <Caution-https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/04/msg00164.html> > > I can't find more discussions about specific pieces of software and their > licensing terms, though. I can try harder if it's really important to > move beyond abstract concerns.
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature