shapj@us.ibm.com wrote: > I personally believe that all software done under gov't contract should be > distributed in a way that (a) makes the software free to use for all, (b) > ensures acknowledgement of the original author(s), and (c) protects those > authors from liability associated with subsequent use. Note that some recent government contracts are doing something close to this. One example is the S/MIME Freeware Library funded by NSA and developed by JG Van Dyke and Associates; SFL has a license which on a quick reading looks like it's OSD-compliant and also GPL-compatible: http://www.armadillo.huntsville.al.us./software/smime/sfl_license.txt (I should also note that this software is also more widely available now with the recent loosening of US encryption export regulations.) Some other recent examples of government-funded software being released under open source licenses include the Certificate Management Library (also from Van Dyke and funded by NSA), the Certificate Path Development Library (from Cygnacom, I believe funded by NSA), and the Collaborative Virtual Workspace (from Mitre, I believe funded by various intelligence agencies). > I do NOT think the government should require GPL or OSD licenses because > I don't believe that it is sound policy to mandate the economic environment > of the subsequent use; on this issue the government should be neutral. I > therefore don't think that proprietary use should be prohibited provided > that open use is also possible. I agree with your second point (allowing proprietary use) in the case of software developed totally under US government contract. However I see no problem with adopting a government-wide policy of using OSD-compliant licenses, as long as the licenses are unrestricted enough that they both allow proprietary use and are also compatible with the GPL, e.g., something like the X11 license. Frank -- Frank Hecker work: http://www.collab.net/ frank@collab.net home: http://www.hecker.org/