[I don't think my previous message on
code.mil
<
http://code.mil> got
through moderation (sent by incorrect address); re-sending this one,
though now that we're on the topic of
code.mil <
http://code.mil>
contribution policies and license minutiae we're already most of the
way to the end. but...]
For discussion purposes (as I consider the right license to be very
important) here's a response from my colleague (who used to work with
the Software Freedom Law Center) posted here without further comment:
"Seems like a reasonable choice, every situation is different but
there really isn't much difference between a BSD license and a MIT
license in most cases.
It may not matter to his decision, but he may be misunderstanding the
code.mil <
http://code.mil> stuff slightly though. He is correct that
it is treating non-US copyrights slightly differently, but only to the
extent that the U.S. government can actually claim copyrights in at
least some foreign jurisdictions. Copyright is a right granted country
by country so for example when a private person writes a book they are
essentially simultaneously, but independently, granted a U.S.
copyright in the book and a separate Canadian copyright in the same book.
But as a matter of US law, when the US government authors, via its
*employees*, a book the U.S. government is not in the typical case
granted a copyright in the book in the U.S.. Whether the U.S.
government is granted a Canadian copyright is a matter of Canadian law
and a separate legal question.
A related point of confusion might be that if the U.S. government
contracts with a independent contractor to write a book then the
typical case is that the independent contractor as the author would
have a copyright in the book; both in the U.S. (and presumably in
Canada. But again that depends on Canadian law.) Now it might be that
the U.S. government requires the contractor to assign the copyright to
the U.S. government but in that case the U.S. government would
actually own the U.S. copyright in the book. Any required assignments
would be part of the contract between the independent contractor and
the u.s. government.
It is not true that when the U.S. government hires a independent
contractor to produce a book that there is no copyright in the book.
Just the opposite is typically true.
The details will depend on the contracts involved. But a U.S.
government contractor can typically assert a copyright over a work the
U.S. government paid to have produced. But again contracts may change
the default rules.
It looks like they are going with the 3 clause BSD license. But they
discuss the 4 clause. They should keep in mind another reason NOT to
use the 4-clause is that it is generally regarded as incompatible with
the GPL.
If he is concerned about getting credit where credit is due, the GPL
or other copyleft license, such as the LGPL, might be a better choice
then the 4 or 3 clause license. If I recall correctly some of the
code.mil <
http://code.mil> stuff mentions wanting to have the option
to use the GPL, but they still had questions about it. But they do not
say it can't be used. But again the federal government sits in a
different situation then its independent contractors so
code.mil
<
http://code.mil> may have different concerns as a government agency.
But Section 7 of the GPLv3 allows some additional restrictions that
might serve similar functions to the no endorsement clause of the 3
clause BSD license. Or at least allow the inclusion of a required non
endorsement clause from a contract.
Red Hat legal or a private attorney, such as SFLC, might be able to
tell him how this all applies to his situation."