Re: licensing

Tom,

	Just wanted to clear up a couple of points.  The US government can
patent software (what a revolting thought).  I know because our echelon
2 command wanted me to patent some software that I was working on in
conjunction with two CRADAs.  It must look good on their permanent
record or something ;-)  Not everything that the US government pays for
is public domain.  Export controlled and classified software spring
instantly to mind.  The software that I am working on in the two CRADAs
is not public domain either (maybe someday).  I certainly hope you are
right about the DMCA!  Oh, BTW, I am extremely familiar with the OSSI
CRADA ;-)

Jan


On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 12:59, Tom Adelstein wrote:
> Taran,
> 
> You're correct. Some people on this thread, however, don't understand 
> the role of copyright/intellectual property. People from various 
> countries will have a different view of the subject based on the 
> precepts of their governments/constitution, etc.
> 
> In the US, the presumption extended beyond the government paying for 
> intellectual properties. In the US, the government precludes themselves 
> from copyright and patents. If the government pays for something, it's 
> public domain.
> 
> As far as citizens, the protection of a copyright or patent should only 
> allow for the collection of bounties for a limited period.
> 
> The pharmaceutical industry follows the intent, but the software 
> industry does not.
> 
> Since no amendments to the constitution exist, eventually, the DMCA and 
> other changes to the copyright laws will fail a test of 
> constitutionality. In the meantime, we're strapped with the notion that 
> the same rules of commerce apply to governments. They don't.
> 
> OSSI (http://oss-institute.org) recently did a CRADA which allowed us to 
> go into a government entity and extract technology to open to the 
> public. We received funding from commercial entities.
> 
> The entire Internet received funding from the US Government originally 
> and that's why it has a tradition of open standards and open source.
> 
> All this falls under the doctrine of " for the common good". You can see 
> a revision of this doctrine in Massachusetts today.
> 
> Now, this hasn't been a bad thread. It's demonstrated the confusion 
> around the issue. The license should protect the "people" as in "we, the 
> people".
> 
> -Tom
> 
> 
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Jeremy,
> > 
> > The point is that when it comes to software developed by a government, 
> > the citizens are the people paying for the product. When you pay taxes, 
> > you pay your government to do certain things.
> > 
> > Why would you pay your government to write software that another company 
> > - in another country - can profit from? I don't know how to atomize this 
> > further for people to understand, but if I need to, I will try.
> > 
> > Taran
> > 
> > Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> > 
> >>> You're right. We disagree. Intellectualization of reality still leaves
> >>> us with reality. That farmer will still pay for code in proprietary
> >>> products if their government chooses a BSD license.
> >>>   
> >>
> >>
> >> I don't understand how the farmer is forced to purchase proprietary
> >> products.
> >>
> >> But I do understand how the farmer (since he is knowledgable) can choose
> >> to build a proprietary product (and a financial livelihood) based on the
> >> properly-licensed code.
> >>
> >>   Jeremy C. Reed
> >>   http://bsd.reedmedia.net/
> >>
> >>
> >>  
> >>
> > 
> > 
-- 

********************************
Jan C. Depner
Code N43T
Naval Oceanographic Office
1002 Balch Blvd
Stennis Space Center MS, 39522
228.688.5609
********************************

I'm a programmer with a soldering iron, and I'm not afraid to use it.