Source: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110906101834630
Timestamp: 2020-06-05 10:53:59
Document Index: 531201010

Matched Legal Cases: ['§105', '§403', '§105', '§2320', '§201', '§403', '§106']

Groklaw - Publicly Releasing Open Source Software Developed for the U.S. Government by Dr. David A. Wheeler
Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 08:00 AM EDT
by Dr. David A. Wheeler
Before going further, a few definitions and warnings are necessary. In this section, the term “government” means the U.S. federal government. “You” means the government organization or contractor who wants to release software to the public as OSS. “Releasing to the public as OSS” means (1) releasing the software source code to the general public (such as through a public website) and (2) giving its users the freedom to use it (for any purpose), study it, modify it, and redistribute it (modified or not)1. Note that these freedoms can be given by releasing the software under an OSS license,2 or by releasing it without any copyright protection. This section is not legal advice, and variations of specific facts can produce different results. Also, note that government contracting is very different from commercial practices; do not presume that commercial practices apply.
To determine if you can release to the public some software developed with government funds as OSS, you must answer the following questions:
What contract applies, what are its terms, and what decisions have been made?
Do you have the necessary copyright-related rights?
Do you have the necessary other intellectual rights3 (e.g., patents)?
Do you have permission to release to the public (e.g., classification and export control)?
Do you have the materials (e.g., source code) and are all materials properly marked?
Each of these questions is explained below, followed by a discussion of who can make certain decisions.
1. What contract applies, what are its terms, and what decisions have been made?
First, find the contract and find what terms apply, particularly which data rights clauses apply. Most contracts use one of a small set of standard data rights clauses, but you need to find out which clauses apply, and if the contract grants exceptions. If the clause text is different (e.g., older) than the clauses discussed here, or makes an exception, then the contract (if legal) governs. Also, determine what data rights decisions have been made by the contracting officer.
2. Do you have the necessary copyright-related rights?
The following table shows the default copyright-related rights for common circumstances. The first row is a special case, where a federal employee develops the software as part of his or her official duties. Later rows discuss the typical impact of common data rights clauses from the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) or the Department of Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) (but note the dates):
Can government release as OSS?
Can contractor release as OSS?
U.S. federal government employee (including military personnel) develops software as part of his/her official duties. This makes it a “Work of the U.S. government.”
Effectively yes. The software is not subject to copyright protection in the U.S. per 17 USC §105, so if released, anyone in the U.S. can read, use, modify, and redistribute it. The government may apply for copyright outside U.S., but still release the software as OSS.
FAR 52.227-14 contract clause defaults (December 2007), software first produced in performance of contract.
Government has not granted the contractor the right to assert copyright (default).
Yes. The government normally has unlimited rights (essentially the same rights as a copyright holder) per (b)(1). In the FAR source code is software, and software is data, so source code is data.
No. The contractor may request permission to assert copyright.
Government has granted the contractor the right to assert copyright (e.g., via specific written permission or via clause alternate IV).
No. The government does not have sufficient rights, per (c)(1)(iii); it cannot distribute copies to the public. The government should be wary of granting a request to assert copyright, as it permanently loses many rights to data it paid to develop.
Yes. The contractor may assert copyright.
DFARS 252.227-7014 contract clause defaults (June 1995).
Developed exclusively with government funds.
Yes. The government has unlimited rights (essentially the same rights as a copyright holder). Per (b)(2)(ii), the 5-year period from mixed funding can be negotiated to a different length of time, and it starts “upon execution of the contract, subcontract, letter contract (or similar contractual instrument), contract modification, or option exercise that required development of the computer software.”
Yes. Copyright is held by the contractor/​supplier.
Developed by mixed funding (government partly paid for its development) and (sub)contract execution/mod more than 5 years ago.
Developed by mixed funding (government partly paid for its development) and (sub)contract execution/mod less than 5 years ago.
No. The government does not have sufficient rights. Per (b)(2)(ii), the 5-year period from mixed funding can be negotiated to a different length of time; during this time the government only has “government purpose rights.” If software is developed exclusively at private expense, by default the government only has “restricted rights”; the government should be wary of dependencies on such components. The government can negotiate for greater rights per (b)(3) and (b)(4).
DFARS 252.227-7018 contract clause defaults (June 1995): Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program.
Less than five years after completion of the project
No. The government does not have sufficient rights, per (b)(4)(i).
Yes. The contractor has copyright.
More than five years after completion of the project and alternate I is not used.
Yes. The government has unlimited rights (essentially the same rights as a copyright holder) per (b)(1)(vi). Unfortunately, it is sometimes difficult to determine when the time period has expired.
More than five years after completion of the project and alternate I is used.
Sometimes. Under alternate I the Government cannot exercise its rights to release if, within certain time limits, the software is published and the contracting officer is notified. This limitation continues as long as it is reasonably available to the public for purchase (after which the government can release it as OSS). See alternate I for details.
No. The government does not have sufficient rights, per (b)(2).
FAR 52.227-17 “Special works” contract clause defaults (December 2007)
Government has not granted the contractor the right to assert copyright (default), and the software was first produced in performance of the contract.
Yes, either through unlimited rights or by holding copyright. By default, the government has unlimited rights in all data delivered under the contract, and in all data first produced in the performance of the contract, per (b)(1)(i). Per (c)(ii), if the contractor has not been granted permission to assert copyright rights, the contracting officer can direct the contractor to assign copyright to the government.
No. Contractor cannot assert copyright rights per (c)(1)(i). The contractor may request permission to assert copyright; if granted see below.
Government has granted the contractor the right to assert copyright, and the software was first produced in performance of the contract.
No. The government only has the more limited rights listed at the end of (c)(1)(i), and these rights are limited to uses “by or on behalf of the Government.”
Yes. Contractor has copyright.
Software not first produced in the performance of this contract.
It depends. Note that a contractor cannot include copyrighted software into a deliverable without written permission of the contracting officer, see (c)(2) for more.
DFARS 252.227-7020 “Special works” contract clause defaults (June 1995).
Work first produced, created, or generated and required to be delivered under the contract.
Yes. The government receives the copyright, per (c)(2).
No. The government has copyright.
Other copyrighted works incorporated into a required deliverable (unless written approval granted for an exception).
Normally yes. Per (c)(3) and (d), the contractor must normally grant to the government a long list of data rights when incorporating other copyrighted works, and these rights permit OSS release. The contractor may only incorporate software without those rights into a deliverable if the government contracting officer gives written approval, per (d).
Normally yes. The contractor must already have the rights for OSS release to incorporate it, unless given written approval.
These are the general rules, but you must examine your specific circumstances to determine exactly what you can do. There are details in the FAR and DFARS clauses not emphasized here, and the contract can change from these defaults to something very different. Some contracts will use different versions of the FAR and DFARS clauses, so check to see if there are any relevant differences. Note that some other agencies (like NASA) have FAR supplements, which are not covered here.
The table above only applies to software that was either (1) developed by a government employee as part of his or her official duties or (2) developed by a government contractor (directly or indirectly) as part of a government contract. Such software may include or depend on other software, such as commercial software, that does not meet these criteria. When a system includes commercial software, the commercial license applies to those components, and everyone must comply with their license terms. Commercial software includes any software that is used for at least one non-governmental use and has been sold, leased, or licensed to the general public (per 41 USC §403 and DFARS 252.227-7014(a)(1)), so nearly all publicly-available OSS is commercial software. Commercial software with minor modifications is still considered commercial software.
In many cases the contractor receives copyright. When there are multiple contractors or suppliers (e.g., a lead integrator and subcontractors), the legal arrangements between the organizations determine which contractors/suppliers are legally allowed to assert copyright. Lead contractors do not necessarily receive copyrights from their subcontractors and suppliers. Note that the government can receive and hold copyrights transferred to it, per 17 USC §105.
In many cases the government is not the copyright holder but has unlimited rights (see rows B, D, E, and I). If the government has unlimited rights, it has essentially the same rights as a copyright holder for purposes of releasing the software as OSS4. Thus, it can release the software under any OSS license it chooses, including the GNU General Public License (GPL) and Lesser GPL (LGPL)5. When the government has unlimited rights but is not the copyright holder, there are a few actions it cannot take, e.g., the right to transfer or assign rights, and standing to sue in court over copyright infringement6. However, for the purposes here these are technicalities; the key point is that the government can release the software as OSS, under any OSS license it chooses, once it receives unlimited rights.
The government should be extremely wary of receiving less than unlimited rights for software or systems it paid to develop. For example, some contractors will intentionally embed components over which they have exclusive control, and then design the rest of the system to depend on those components. When the government has less than unlimited rights, it risks creating a dependency on a contractor, rendering competition for that system meaningless7 and in some cases putting military capability at risk.8 9
Some have misunderstood U.S. law and policy as requiring the government to mindlessly accept proposals which give less than unlimited rights for systems developed though government funding. It is true that 10 U.S.C. §2320(a)(2)(F) states that “a contractor or subcontractor (or a prospective contractor or subcontractor) may not be required, as a condition of being responsive to a solicitation or as a condition for the award of a contract, to … sell or otherwise relinquish to the United States any rights in technical data [except in certain cases, and may not be required to ] refrain from offering to use, or from using, an item or process to which the contractor is entitled to restrict rights in data”10. However, this is not the whole story. “If the Government has properly required certain data or software in a solicitation, it is entitled to certain rights in accordance with the statute and an offer failing to propose at least those rights could be held unacceptable.” What is more, the government may (and should) evaluate proposals “on the basis of data rights and giving higher ratings to offerors willing to provide more than the bare minimum rights”11
Under many of the FAR (but not DFARS) clauses, if the government agrees to allow contractors to assert copyright, the government loses many of its rights, forever, to software that the government paid to develop (see rows B, C, L, and M). This loss of rights can be quite detrimental to the government. What’s more, it creates a difficult decision for a contracting officer to make, as the contracting officer must anticipate all possible future uses to make a good decision (something that is difficult in practice). The usual DFARS clause (252.227-7014) avoids this problem; in this clause, typically the government ends up with unlimited rights to software it paid to develop (in some cases after a delay), and the contractor has copyright, enabling both parties to take actions such as releasing the software as OSS.
Here are a few notes about specific clauses:
Under FAR 52.227-14 (rows B and C), the government can grant a contractor the right to assert copyright, at which point the contractor gains rights but the government permanently loses rights. Per FAR 27.404-3(a)(2), the government should grant this request only “when [that] will enhance appropriate dissemination or use.” Government officials should not grant this automatically, as doing so dramatically reduces the government's rights to software that the government paid to develop. The government could choose to grant this permission on condition that the software be immediately released to the public under some specific OSS licenses (with the license agreed upon as part of the condition for release). In such a case, public release as OSS would be used as a method to enhance dissemination and use. Deliverables can include data not first produced in the performance of the contract, per (c)(2), but in this case it is not clear to this author if the government can release software as OSS.
Under DFARS 252.227-7014 (rows D-G), the contractor normally gets copyright. The government gets the same rights as a copyright holder (via unlimited rights) if (1) the software was developed exclusively with government funding or (2) the funding was mixed and five years have passed after the relevant contract or contract modification that caused its development was signed. The government should beware of situations where the contractor attempts to deliver software that vitally depends on some component that they developed entirely at private expense. Such a dependency can inhibit any future competition for maintenance, as by default the government only has restricted rights to such components.
Under DFARS 252.227-7018 (rows H-J), the government typically gets unlimited rights to software not exclusively developed at private expense, but only after five years after the project has completed (note that this is a different starting time than DFARS 252.227-7014). Amendment I can remove this right as long as the product is “reasonably available to the public for purchase.”
FAR 52.227-17 (rows L-N) is, according to FAR 27.409(e), to be used for software for the “government’s internal use” or where “there is a need to limit distribution” or to “obtain indemnities for liabilities.” However, purposes change; software originally developed for the “government’s internal use” may become software that should be publicly released as OSS. This document simply describes what is allowed, rather than the expectations of the original contract authors.
DFARS 252.227-7020 (rows O-P, the special works clause) is discussed in DFARS 227.7106. That discussion does not specifically mention software, but the -7020 clause can be used for software. DFARS 227.7106(2) says it can be used for “a work” and is not just limited to “technical data.” This clause should be used if the government must own or control copyright. For example, it might be appropriate if the government wishes publicly release OSS and be able to (1) directly enforce copyright in court, and/or (2) provide indemnification.
More information about export control regulations under the EAR are provided by the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) (http://www.bis.doc.gov/ licensing/). In particular, see their pages on “Export Control Basics” and “Licensing Guidance.” Any item (including software) that is sent from the US to a foreign destination, including to any foreign national, is an export – even if the item originally came from outside the US. Certain U.S. exports/re- exports require a license from BIS. A key is knowing whether the item you are intending to export has a specific Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) as listed in the Commerce Control List (CCL), available on the EAR website. In addition, a license is required for virtually all exports and many re-exports to embargoed destinations and countries designated as supporting terrorist activities.
However, if the DoD determines that something it has purview over is releasable to the public, it is no longer subject to export control. This is because 15 C.F.R. 734.3(b)(3) says that “The following items are not subject to the EAR . . . Publicly available technology and software....” Similarly, 22 CFR 125.4 (13) notes that technical data is exempt from ITAR export controls if it is “approved for public release (i.e., unlimited distribution) by the cognizant U.S. government department or agency or Office of Freedom of Information and Security Review.” Thus, if software is intended to be released to the public, having the cognizant U.S. government department or agency (such as the DoD) approve its public release is often the best way to fully comply with export control regulations.
Under DFARS 252.227-7014, the definition of “computer software” includes not only “computer programs” but also “source code, source code listings... and related material that would enable the software to be reproduced, recreated, or recompiled.” Thus, a delivery of developed software is supposed to include source code by default. Also, (b)(1)(i) and (b)(2)(i) state that the government has rights to software (whether it was a deliverable or not) if its funds were used.
It would be best if the source code also included the historical record (e.g., a complete record of each change, who made it, and when), in an electronic form adequate for transfer to another configuration management system. Ideally, the government should have sufficient access to the software engineering environment (SEE) of the contractor, so that the government could monitor changes as they are made.
As noted above, when there are multiple contractors or suppliers, the legal arrangements between the organizations determine which contractors/suppliers are legally allowed to assert copyright. Lead contractors do not necessarily receive copyrights from their subcontractors and suppliers. By U.S. law (17 USC §201), “Copyright... vests initially in the author or authors of the work... In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author [and holds the copyright] unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them.”
(2) The Government has the rights to reproduce and release the item, and to authorize others to do so. For example, the Government has public release rights when the software is developed by Government personnel, when the Government receives "unlimited rights" in software developed by a contractor at Government expense, or when pre-existing OSS is modified by or for the Government.
(3) The public release of the item is not restricted by other law or regulation, such as the Export Administration Regulations or the International Traffic in Arms Regulation, and the item qualifies for Distribution Statement A, per DoD Directive 5230.24 (reference (i)).”
If the government and relevant contractors intend to release software as OSS, it’s best if that is explicitly stated ahead of time. For example, OSS could be identified as the planned software maintenance philosophy per DFARS 227.7203-2(b)(1). However, since many contracts do not discuss releasing software as OSS, it’s important to understand the default rules for commonly-encountered cases.
If software is released to the public as OSS and it becomes “customarily used by the general public or by nongovernmental entities for purposes other than governmental purposes,” then that software becomes commercial software. This is by both law (41 USC §403) and regulation (e.g., DFARS 252.227-7014(a)(1)). It does not matter if the software was originally developed with government funds, or not. Thus, releasing software as OSS can be a commercialization approach.
The U.S. government and its contractors have released many programs as OSS. I hope that this material helps you understand how you can release software as OSS in a manner consistent with laws, regulations, and contracts.
The publication of this paper does not indicate endorsement by the Department of Defense or IDA, nor should the contents be construed as reflecting the official positions of those organizations.
1 This is, in summarized form, the Free Software Definition (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) from the Free Software Foundation. A similar definition is in the DoD’s “Clarifying Guidance Regarding Open Source Software (OSS)” (http://cio-nii.defense.gov/sites/oss/2009OSS.pdf). A more detailed definition of OSS is the Open Source Definition (http://www.opensource.org/osd.html) from the Open Source Initiative.
2 To release under an OSS license you must have the copyright-related rights (listed in 17 USC §106) to reproduce the work, to prepare derivative works, to distribute copies, and to permit others to perform those actions.
3 Some lawyers use the term “intellectual property rights,” but many believe this term is misleading. Intellectual works (like software) are fundamentally different from physical property, because someone can receive an intellectual work (or rights to it) without its first possessor losing the work or their rights. The authors recommend using the term “intellectual rights” instead.
4 The Council on Governmental Relations (CAGR)’s “Technical Data and Computer Software: A Guide to Rights and Responsibilities Under Federal Contracts, Grants and Cooperative Agreements” states that “This unlimited license enables the government to act on its own behalf and to authorize others to do the same things that it can do, thus giving the government essentially the same rights as the copyright owner.”
5 CENDI’s “Frequently Asked Questions about Copyright and Computer Software” at http://cendi.gov/publications/09-1FAQ_OpenSourceSoftware_FINAL_110109.pdf question 4.3 says: “an agency may distribute software created by a vendor to all users under an open source licensing scheme if it acquired sufficient rights from the vendor to do so in the software. For example, an “unlimited rights license” acquired under a DFARS procurement-type contract...” Similarly, the “DoD Open Source Software (OSS) FAQ” says that once the government has unlimited rights, it can “use those rights to release that software under a variety of conditions (including an open source software license), because it has the use and modify the software at will, and has the right to authorize others to do so.”
6 The government can probably take other measures against someone who does not comply with the license, though. For example, the government may be able to sue for breach of license. Also, an infringer may lose any ability to enforce rights over the resulting work in U.S. court due to the doctrine of unclean hands.
7 Ashton B. Carter, “Memorandum to Acquisition Professionals Subject: Better Buying Power: Mandate for Restoring Affordability and Productivity in Defense Spending” https://dap.dau.mil/policy/Documents/Policy/Carter%20Memo%20on%20Defense%20Spending%2028%20Jun%202010.pdf - His first point on providing incentives is to “Avoid directed buys and other substitutes for real competition. Use technical data packages and open systems architectures to support a continuous competitive environment.”
8 GAO GAO-06-839 “WEAPONS ACQUISITION: DOD Should Strengthen Policies for Assessing Technical Data Needs to Support Weapon Systems” (July 2006) http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06839.pdf reported that “The lack of technical data rights has limited the services’ flexibility to make changes to sustainment plans that are aimed at achieving cost savings and meeting legislative requirements regarding depot maintenance capabilities... Unless DOD assesses and secures its rights for the use of technical data early in the weapon system acquisition process when it has the greatest leverage to negotiate, DOD may face later challenges in sustaining weapon systems over their life cycle.”
9 See, for example, “Fire support’s dependence on contractors,” Sgt Timothy Caucutt, http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/paying-pirates
10 This U.S. law does not cover software, but the DoD also applies this to software per DFARS 227.7203-1(c) and (d).
11 George O. Winborne, Jr., “Who’s Killing the Goose?” American Bar Association Section of Public Contract Law Program Intellectual Property in Government Contracts—What You Didn‘t Learn in Kindergarten, November 11-12, 2010, Seaport Hotel, Boston, Massachusetts. https://acc.dau.mil/adl/en-US/401584/file/54029/Winborne_ABAPCL_paper_Who%27s_Killing_the_Goose_For%20_Release.pdf
Publicly Releasing Open Source Software Developed for the U.S. Government by Dr. David A. Wheeler | 102 comments | Create New Account
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 08:22 AM EDT
You're welcome! We need to get the word out. - Authored by: dwheeler on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 01:16 PM EDT
Unfortunately, Dr. Wheeler, as you point out, right now the U.S. gov - Authored by: sgtrock on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 02:11 PM EDT
Software patents - Authored by: dwheeler on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 07:08 PM EDT
Software patents - Authored by: StormReaver on Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 09:23 AM EDT
Software patents - Authored by: luvr on Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 09:39 AM EDT
Oh, I agree with your position. - Authored by: sgtrock on Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 12:10 PM EDT
Oh, I agree with your position. - Authored by: jonathon on Sunday, September 11 2011 @ 11:08 AM EDT
Unfortunately, Dr. Wheeler, as you point out, right now the U.S. gov - Authored by: darkonc on Sunday, September 11 2011 @ 12:28 PM EDT
No one can release software - Authored by: dwheeler on Wednesday, September 14 2011 @ 03:52 PM EDT
Here's a pre-.gov algorithm for software release circa 1984 - Authored by: retiarius on Sunday, September 11 2011 @ 11:57 PM EDT
Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 08:47 AM EDT
Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 08:48 AM EDT
Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 08:49 AM EDT
MPAA's Bogus 'Piracy' Numbers Mean It Thinks Downloaders Would Buy 200 More DVDs Per Year - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 09:09 AM EDT
MPAA's Bogus 'Piracy' Numbers Mean It Thinks Downloaders Would Buy 200 More DVDs Per Year - Authored by: Bernard on Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 02:27 AM EDT
MPAA's Bogus 'Piracy' Numbers Mean It Thinks Downloaders Would Buy 200 More DVDs Per Year - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 08:26 AM EDT
MPAA's Bogus 'Piracy' Numbers Mean It Thinks Downloaders Would Buy 200 More DVDs Per Year - Authored by: jonathon on Sunday, September 11 2011 @ 11:25 AM EDT
Learning Unix - Authored by: complex_number on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 09:35 AM EDT
Learning Unix - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 09:46 AM EDT
teco joke - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 11:37 AM EDT
EDT was teco.. underneath. - Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 12:04 PM EDT
Another Teco joke - Authored by: betajet on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 02:35 PM EDT
teco joke - Authored by: red floyd on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 06:38 PM EDT
Learning Unix - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 02:13 PM EDT
Learning Unix - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 02:19 PM EDT
Helpful help files - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 12:02 PM EDT
My take on Miguel's Learning Unix - Authored by: celtic_hackr on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 02:23 PM EDT
My take on Miguel's Learning Unix - Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 08:13 PM EDT
Other editors - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 11:59 AM EDT
Emacs is the best editor possible... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 02:43 PM EDT
Nonsense, everyon knows EMACS is a USENET news client - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 04:02 PM EDT
Linux is a bootloader for EMACS - Authored by: jjs on Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 12:14 PM EDT
I liked "ed" - Authored by: betajet on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 02:59 PM EDT
I liked "ed" - Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 03:37 PM EDT
I liked "ed" - Authored by: joef on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 04:50 PM EDT
You don't run "vi", you invoke it. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 03:53 PM EDT
Great... now vi is governed by magic... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 05:45 PM EDT
Great... now vi is governed by magic... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 06:46 PM EDT
I liked "ed" - Authored by: soronlin on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 06:09 PM EDT
ed! It's the system editor! [n/t, but...] - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 08:05 PM EDT
ed! It's the system editor! [n/t, but...] - Authored by: gfim on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 11:35 PM EDT
By George, I think you've got it - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 07:18 PM EDT
Most commands I use in vi start with colon - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 11:50 PM EDT
I know someone who likes edlin! - Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 03:24 AM EDT
"Emacs has had a strong influence in Unix over the years." - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 04:22 PM EDT
The evil incluence of COMMAND.COM and CMD.EXE - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 05:17 PM EDT
"...would need significantly more resources." - Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 03:44 AM EDT
Self-taught megalomaniacs - Authored by: stegu on Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 05:04 AM EDT
"...would need significantly more resources." - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 06:11 AM EDT
The evil incluence of COMMAND.COM and CMD.EXE - Authored by: greed on Sunday, September 11 2011 @ 12:32 PM EDT
RPN calculators are wonderful - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 07:35 PM EDT
Hear hear! - Authored by: Bernard on Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 02:35 AM EDT
Hear hear! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 05:49 AM EDT
Hear hear! - Authored by: tknarr on Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 12:00 PM EDT
I still use my HP-15C - Authored by: NetArch on Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 11:03 AM EDT
Consider the source - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 05:06 PM EDT
Google Said to Be Raided by South Korean Antitrust Regulator - Authored by: TemporalBeing on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 01:45 PM EDT
Google Said to Be Raided by South Korean Antitrust Regulator - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 04:36 PM EDT
Oh, great! I can see the new series of copying methods and concepts lawsuits! - Authored by: mcinsand on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 04:45 PM EDT
Keyboard alert n/t - Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 08:15 PM EDT
Linux, binary compatible with Windows - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 01:54 AM EDT
Linux, binary compatible with Windows - Authored by: Illiander on Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 02:55 AM EDT
Linux, binary compatible with Windows - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 10:16 AM EDT
Linux, binary compatible with Windows - Authored by: tknarr on Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 01:37 PM EDT
So... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 05:11 PM EDT
Google take over of Moto Mobile - Authored by: complex_number on Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 05:32 AM EDT
Google take over of Moto Mobile - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 09:06 AM EDT
HTC Sues Apple With Patents Bought From Google - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 06:03 AM EDT
Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 08:50 AM EDT
Sweden: every law, ordinance and report hostile to the net and civil liberties a US initiative - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 09:14 AM EDT
A Swedish Tangent - Authored by: mcinsand on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 01:03 PM EDT
Sweden: every law, ordinance and report hostile to the net and civil liberties a US initiative - Authored by: digger53 on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 03:24 PM EDT
Like the UK, silent - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 09 2011 @ 02:47 AM EDT
Partnering with Microsoft doesn't pay off - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 10:05 AM EDT
Partnering with Microsoft doesn't pay off - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 10:12 AM EDT
Freudian slip? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 04:38 PM EDT
Freudian slip? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 04:54 PM EDT
Partnering with Microsoft doesn't pay off - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 04:07 PM EDT
Let 'em - Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 08:14 PM EDT
Let 'em - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 11:49 PM EDT
Yahoo, the No. 1 search engine early last decade, - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 04:51 PM EDT
BillG patents 'Virtual Entertainment' - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 01:32 PM EDT
'Virtual Entertainment' - Prior Art - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 03:27 PM EDT
Bring back the Working Model. n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 04:55 PM EDT
Fart oo difficult. ...nt - Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 04:41 AM EDT
BillG patents 'Virtual Entertainment' - Authored by: dio gratia on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 07:12 PM EDT
can anyone from germany comment on the bailout ruling? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 03:57 PM EDT
Google takes issue with jury selection in Oracle vs Android case - Authored by: DannyB on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 05:36 PM EDT
Halloween Papers - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 06:53 PM EDT
Cables that mention open source software - Authored by: UncleVom on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 05:48 PM EDT
HTC Sues Apple Using Patents Obtained From Google Last Week - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 08:42 PM EDT
The Bombshell That Wasn’t: FOSS Patents’ Android Scoop Misses The Mark - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 03:05 AM EDT
TechCrunch gets wise to the Fud meister! -- - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 06:56 AM EDT
The Bombshell That Wasn’t: FOSS Patents’ Android Scoop Misses The Mark - Authored by: DannyB on Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 09:35 AM EDT
The Bombshell That Wasn’t: FOSS Patents’ Android Scoop Misses The Mark - Authored by: greed on Sunday, September 11 2011 @ 01:29 PM EDT
Yup - that sounds like what I was told
Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 08:52 AM EDT
Yup - that sounds like what I was told back when I was working as a contractor.
Fortunately, what I was working on (Kerberos) was already available, and my
maintenance/application work could be released.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 04:00 PM EDT
Thankfully, quite a few government agencies are already well ahead of the curve
and regularly release completed as public domain.
NIST is perhaps the best example and they have been doing it for at least 15
Some other less enlightened departments occiasionally release with more
restrictive OSS licences, but, I suppose its better than nothing.
Others do public domain release - Authored by: dwheeler on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 07:06 PM EDT
missile targeting software - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 08:45 AM EDT
Unlimited rights leads to weird case?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 09:10 PM EDT
"In many cases the government is not the copyright holder but has unlimited
rights (see rows B, D, E, and I). ... Thus, it can release the software under
any OSS license it chooses ... , there are a few actions it cannot take, e.g.,
the right to transfer or assign rights, and standing to sue in court over
So the government could release the software under the GPL, but if someone
violated the GPL, only the original contractor (who might not have wanted the
software GPLed) can sue?
Oh, I just noticed the footnote, which comments on this - but it is still weird.
"The government can probably take other measures against someone who does
not comply with the license, though. For example, the government may be able to
sue for breach of license. Also, an infringer may lose any ability to enforce
rights over the resulting work in U.S. court due to the doctrine of unclean
Different, yes; weird is in the eye of the beholder - Authored by: dwheeler on Friday, September 09 2011 @ 10:35 AM EDT