[I don't think my previous message on
code.mil got
through moderation (sent by incorrect address); re-sending this
one, though now that we're on the topic of
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 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 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 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."