On 2017-07-19 18:08, Shawn Wells wrote:
>
> SSG is Public Domain because of original co-sponsorship from the US
> Government (specifically, NSA). In the US, Government employees and
> contractors have no claims to intellectual property and must use public
> domain. Over time, Public Domain has accelerated contributions from
> other US Gov agencies and contractors (Lockheed, Northrup, etc) because
> they don't need special approvals to collaborate.
>
> I'm not sure how dual-licensing content (RHEL vs Deb) would work for
> downstream releases in RHEL(+derivatives) and Ubuntu. Can packages be
> dual licensed?
For Debian & derivatives it can, while the debian/copyright file is
properly written.
>
> p.s. while OpenSCAP tooling is LGPL [0], SSG is entirely Public Domain
> [1]. This has caused some issues in the past when proprietary companies
> took SSG and re-branded as their own content.... so there is definite
> interest in licensing to something that requires attribution.
>
> Martin: This has come up before, and you suggested there was a Public
> Domain variant that is more acceptable to the international community?
>
> Alternatively, could the Creative Commons licensing work? e.g.
> -
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Public_domain
> -
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC0
After taking a look to CC0, will have the same problem (i.e. can't
release the copyright):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_France
That's why i proposed BSD-1-clause, which seems the simpliest (and the
less restrictive) licencing for these files.
Personally I've no idea how to handle this, so I asked members of Red
Hat's legal team for help.
Also sent a note requesting feedback from other Red Hat members who work
on international FOSS projects on how they've handled this. Will report
back.