From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_WORDY, LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,7bcba1db9ed24fa7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-16 10:39:04 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!207.115.63.138!newscon04.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr11.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Ken Garlington" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <67F27.14089$Kf3.151364@www.newsranger.com> <5ee5b646.0107101433.fedfed8@posting.google.com> <5ee5b646.0107110830.1a134d7e@posting.google.com> <5ee5b646.0107140605.5c5d76eb@posting.google.com> Subject: Re: Contributing patches to GPL Ada projects (was: Is Ada dead?) Organization: ex-FlashNet, now Prodigy X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.65.210.237 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr11.news.prodigy.com 995305042 6207069 65.65.210.237 (Mon, 16 Jul 2001 13:37:22 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 13:37:22 EDT Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:37:22 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10008 Date: 2001-07-16T17:37:22+00:00 List-Id: "Ted Dennison" wrote in message news:cUD47.21022$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.)