Subject: Re: Question on OSD #5
From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 23:12:56 +0000

Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
>> With respect to OSD #5 do folks believe that releasing under an OSI
>> approved license but having to mark the software as FOUO (For Official Use
>> Only) or SECRET breaks OSD #5?
> 
> Interesting. I think you would have to look at the actual license terms
> of the applicable OSI-certified licenses instead of just the OSD.
> For e.g. MIT-licensed material this should not be an issue.

Only because you can create works whose overall licence is OSD 
non-compliant.  I think that the proposed term would violate the fields 
of endeavour rule (although normally people would try it on the other 
way, i.e. restricting to non-military use).

However, I'd tend to the theory that creating the software on a "system 
high" network, without any security restrictions in the software 
licence, would not really be different from supplying a customer with 
copyleft products only when you thought there was no reasonable 
likelihood that they would try to redistribute them (a workable tactic 
in some vertical markets), and therefore valid according to the letter 
of the licence, if not the spirit.


-- 
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.