What's the license?
-
What's the license?
Edit: Ugh, it's licensed CC0 public domain. Assholes.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Seems correct to me. It was paid for by the US public, using US public funds, it belongs in the public domain.
I also wish they had GPL'd it, but I'm not sure this would be appropriate here.
-
Seems correct to me. It was paid for by the US public, using US public funds, it belongs in the public domain.
I also wish they had GPL'd it, but I'm not sure this would be appropriate here.
A copyleft would absolutely be appropriate here.
It was paid for with public funds.
-
Not familiar how is that bad?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]It means that any company can take that code, modify it (as would be required every year per IRS tax changes), and resell it without being required to publish the source code changes.
What many European countries are doing is requiring the government to publish code under a copyleft license. That would allow companies to also benefit from this code to make their own tools (which they could also sell), and it would require them to publish the source code of their improvements.
Basically copyleft legally ensures collaboration. Public domain does not.
-
A copyleft would absolutely be appropriate here.
It was paid for with public funds.
CC0 = Everyone owns it, no one can claim rights to it
Copyleft = No one owns it, the code owns itself and claims rights to itself
Since everyone paid for it, everyone owns it.
If no one paid for it, or if a single owning entity is feeling benevolent, then copyleft is appropriate.
I assume it would be difficult to get the consent of every US taxpayer to license this as copyleft, I believe CC0 (or proprietary, unfortunately) is the rightful default when in this situation. It's debatable whether any government code should be proprietary, save for deployment secrets.
-
CC0 = Everyone owns it, no one can claim rights to it
Copyleft = No one owns it, the code owns itself and claims rights to itself
Since everyone paid for it, everyone owns it.
If no one paid for it, or if a single owning entity is feeling benevolent, then copyleft is appropriate.
I assume it would be difficult to get the consent of every US taxpayer to license this as copyleft, I believe CC0 (or proprietary, unfortunately) is the rightful default when in this situation. It's debatable whether any government code should be proprietary, save for deployment secrets.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]CC0 = gift to corporations at the expense of taxpayers
Copyleft = everyone owns it and all derivatives, even from corporations
-
CC0 = gift to corporations at the expense of taxpayers
Copyleft = everyone owns it and all derivatives, even from corporations
Trust me, I get the feeling.
I'm only arguing from a legal standpoint, where it's more appropriate to have CC0.
-
Trust me, I get the feeling.
I'm only arguing from a legal standpoint, where it's more appropriate to have CC0.
Nah, that law was written before copyleft licenses were widespread. There are exemptions for contractors and some groups like USPS.
I'm saying that law is wrong, and it needs to be changed.
-
What's the license?
Edit: Ugh, it's licensed CC0 public domain. Assholes.
Why's that bad?
-
Why's that bad?
It means that any company can take that code, modify it (as would be required every year per IRS tax changes), and resell it without being required to publish the source code changes.
What many European countries are doing is requiring the government to publish code under a copyleft license. That would allow companies to also benefit from this code to make their own tools (which they could also sell), and it would require them to publish the source code of their improvements.
Basically copyleft legally ensures collaboration. Public domain does not.
-
It means that any company can take that code, modify it (as would be required every year per IRS tax changes), and resell it without being required to publish the source code changes.
What many European countries are doing is requiring the government to publish code under a copyleft license. That would allow companies to also benefit from this code to make their own tools (which they could also sell), and it would require them to publish the source code of their improvements.
Basically copyleft legally ensures collaboration. Public domain does not.
Ah thanks thats not as bad is I was fearing but not great
-
What's the license?
Edit: Ugh, it's licensed CC0 public domain. Assholes.
The law requires public domain for US Government works.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_the_federal_government_of_the_United_States
