[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RE: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Checking the ARL's scheme for releasing software

Thank you, I've forwarded your message to the relevant parties.

Cem Karan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Florian Weimer [mailto:fw@deneb.enyo.de]
> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 10:03 AM
> To: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan.civ@mail.mil>
> Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
> 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.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Reply to: