Subject: RE: Question on OSD #5
From: "Tzeng, Nigel H." <Nigel.Tzeng@jhuapl.edu>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:19:18 -0500
Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:19:18 -0500
>Chris Travers wrote:
> Personally I don't buy that argument.  One shouldn't build government
> rules into licenses.  The fact is that if a government wants to
> violate your copyright license there isn't a lot you can do about it
> anyway except ask them to stop.  The proper response is not to treat
> governments differently in the license but realize that enforcement
> options are more limited.

Reviewing the licenses for the software that I am using, I noticed this clause in the
now
retired JOSL:

		5. Inability to Comply Due to Statute or Regulation. If it is impossible for you to
comply with any of the terms of this License with respect to some or all of the Licensed
Product due to statute, judicial order, or regulation, then you must (i) comply with
the terms of this License to the maximum extent possible, (ii) cite the statute or regulation
that prohibits you from adhering to the License, and (iii) describe the limitations
and the code they affect. Such description must be included in the LEGAL file described
in Section 4(d), and must be included with all distributions of the Source Code. Except
to the extent prohibited by statute or regulation, such description must be sufficiently
detailed for a recipient of ordinary skill at computer programming to be able to understand
it.

This clause describes my intent:  Comply as much as you are allowed by law.  Don't
sweat it if you cannot and use the code anyway.
 
This is of course different from "if you can't comply, you can't use the code."
 
I'm going to make the bald assertion that most government program managers will 
NOT violate your copyright license even if enforcement might be percieved as difficult.
 
If you say you must comply or not use the software, they simply would not use the
software.  Mostly they are simply being honest.  Sometimes its an excuse to protect
the home grown version or to build a home grown version.
 
Regards,
 
Nigel


Re: Question on OSD #5
>Chris Travers wrote:
> Personally I don't buy that argument.  One shouldn't build government
> rules into licenses.  The fact is that if a government wants to
> violate your copyright license there isn't a lot you can do about it
> anyway except ask them to stop.  The proper response is not to treat
> governments differently in the license but realize that enforcement
> options are more limited.
Reviewing the licenses for the software that I am using, I noticed this clause in the now
retired JOSL:

5. Inability to Comply Due to Statute or Regulation. If it is impossible for you to comply with any of the terms of this License with respect to some or all of the Licensed Product due to statute, judicial order, or regulation, then you must (i) comply with the terms of this License to the maximum extent possible, (ii) cite the statute or regulation that prohibits you from adhering to the License, and (iii) describe the limitations and the code they affect. Such description must be included in the LEGAL file described in Section 4(d), and must be included with all distributions of the Source Code. Except to the extent prohibited by statute or regulation, such description must be sufficiently detailed for a recipient of ordinary skill at computer programming to be able to understand it.

This clause describes my intent:  Comply as much as you are allowed by law.  Don't
sweat it if you cannot and use the code anyway.
 
This is of course different from "if you can't comply, you can't use the code."
 
I'm going to make the bald assertion that most government program managers will
NOT violate your copyright license even if enforcement might be percieved as difficult.
 
If you say you must comply or not use the software, they simply would not use the
software.  Mostly they are simply being honest.  Sometimes its an excuse to protect
the home grown version or to build a home grown version.
 
Regards,
 
Nigel