On 7/21/17 11:02 AM, phil@reseau-libre.net wrote:
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.