Re: Contributing patches to GPL Ada projects (was: Is Ada dead?)

["Ken Garlington" <Ken.Garlington@computer.org>]

"Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message
news:cUD47.21022$Kf3.263983@www.newsranger.com...
: In article <5ee5b646.0107140605.5c5d76eb@posting.google.com>, Robert Dewar
: says...

: >Is the copyright on your software really held jointly by the US
: >Government and a private company? I doubt it, that would be very
: >unusual, I think you are talking about data rights, not copyright
: >here.
:
: When I was at LMC, I understood that our contracts usually had us deliver
the
: sofware to the DoD as DoD-owned software, allowed them to also keep
relatively
: unencumbered copies for themselves under their own copyright. This was for
: non-classified work. I wasn't really aware of these issues when I was
doing
: classified work, but I suspect we wouldn't have had a need for, or a
desire for
: keeping copies of classified software around after delivery.

If you're referring to unclassified non-commercial defense articles, then
DFARS 252.227-7013 and 252.227.7014 would be the controlling regulation. I'm
no lawyer, but my understanding is the Government gets "unlimited rights" to
noncommercial software and documentation if they paid for its development.
The DFARS says this means "rights to use, modify, reproduce, release,
perform, display, or disclose computer software or computer software
documentation in whole or in part, in any manner and for any purpose
whatsoever, and to have or authorize others to do so." There may be some
technical distinction between being a "copyright owner" and "assigning a
copyright license," but I can't explain it. I would expect that, if you
wanted to provide non-commercial software of this type to the government
under the GPL, you would have to negotiate limited rights with them.

On the other hand, the rules for commercial software (and to some extent
non-commercial software) were rewritten in 1995, and I believe the GPL is
compatible with those rules. This would include minor modifications to
existing commercial software. See

http://www.gcwf.com/articles/gca/gca_3.html

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/dfars/dfars252
_227.htm#P298_15676


: I was told we have a similar situation here, but a closer look at our
headers
: reveals a different story altogether. Currently, our files appear to
contain no
: explicit copyright notice, although there is the name of the company and
project
: at the top. However, there is an interesting "distribution notice" (which
I
: imagine would be completely incompatable with the GPL, were that an
issue). Note
: that RAC is our customer, not my employer.
:
: -- DISTRIBUTION "D":  Distribution authorized to Department of Defense
(DOD),
: -- Raytheon Aircraft Company (RAC), and DOD subcontractors only to protect
: -- technical or operational data or information from automatic
dissemination
: -- under the International Exchange Program or by other means.  This
protection
: -- covers information required solely for administrative or operational
: -- purposes, date of document as shown hereon 3 April 1998 ASC/YTK.

: There's also a legal note. I'm a bit unsure how the GPL interacts with
such
: laws. Since its not a license clash, but rather a legal one, I'd think it
would
: still allow you to distribute with a GPL-licensed product (if it weren't
for the
: other clause above). You'd just be subject to prosecution if you gave it
to the
: wrong person or entity.

: -- WARNING:  This document contains technical data whose export is
restricted
: -- by the Arms Export Control Act (Title 22, U. S. C. 2751 et seq) or
: -- Executive Order 12470.  Violation of these export control laws is
subject
: -- to severe criminal penalties.  Dissemination of this document is
controlled
: -- under DOD Directive 5230.25
:
: I hope that law doesn't prevent us from separately selling these things to
the
: Greeks, because that's what we are right now in the process of doing...

As I understand distribution statements, they are related to the exporting
of technology outside the U.S., as required by the Arms Export Control Act
or the Export Administration Act. There's two separate issues here --
control of military technology and following commercial export rules. AFAIK,
neither is intimately related to copyright issues. I wouldn't think the GPL
would have anything to do with them. You could release controlled technology
with the GPL; that would make you no more or less liable to prosecution if
you exported it outside the U.S. illegally.

As far as "selling these things to the Greeks" - a business can't export
covered technology (military or commercial) without an export license (or
via certain other technical exceptions). However, the U.S. Government can.
So, if this is a government-to-government sale, or you have a license,
there's no problem.

: I'm guessing (and this is just a guess), that the company name at the top
: creates a copyright in my company's name alone, despite the fact that it
doesn't
: explicitly assert copyright. Thus, despite what I was told verbally and
repeated
: here, handing it to any other party constitues a "distribution". The
: "Distribution D:" clause is essentially a (non Free) license. I guess
that's
: what I get for not reading "the sources". :-)

Again, as far as I know, the distribution statement is unrelated to any
copyright license. (It may be related to an export license, or the lack
thereof, though.)