Government public domain software

Additionally, we waive copyright and related rights in the work worldwide through the CC0 1. Project Open Source could provide guidance to help agencies choose the appropriate open source license or public domain dedication for worldwide use of their in-house government works. In Membership in the Open Source Community , add another principle this suggestion begins by copying the first sentence from Government-Wide Code Reuse :.

Edit: Updated footnote numbering due to this fix. The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:. Public domain and CC0 should not be encouraged. They hardly even count as true Open Source software. The description of the Open Source Initiative's conclusion is a bit misleading.

To quote directly from that page: 'What about software in the "public domain"? Is that Open Source? For most practical purposes, it is — sort of. I don't want "sort of" Open Source, I want the real thing. I don't think the patent issues of CC0 can be so easily dismissed. For example - can I re-use software built by 18F? Does anybody own software patents on that code? From a quick Google search it appears that several 18F employees have software patents.

Could I be sued for using some of that code? There's little benefit of Open Source software if it's not clear that anyone can use it. Almost none of the largest Open Source projects use public domain or CC0. This policy should follow the lead of successful Open Source projects and avoid the public domain as much as possible. Sorry, something went wrong. The OSI, on the answer you quoted, even addresses our situation directly and says there is no issue:.

There are certain circumstances, such as with U. In these cases, while it would be inaccurate to display the OSI logo or say that the license is OSI-approved since there is no license , nevertheless we think it is accurate to say that such software is effectively open source, or open source for most practical purposes, even though it is not officially released under an open source license.

This is assuming, of course, that in the laws of releasing jurisdiction the meaning of "public domain" is compatible with the Open Source Definition.

After all, the freedoms guaranteed by open source licenses are still present, and it is possible for the familiar dynamics of open source collaboration to arise around the software. Scotchester I'm not a lawyer but I think you're right that some work must be in the public domain.

My concern is that I don't want software to only be in the public domain unless absolutely necessary. Software patents make it unclear who can use public domain software. Copyright, or a lack of copyright, is not sufficient if the code is covered by a patent. This is why people have historically been concerned about Open Source code from some large companies like Microsoft. As the project got underway, it quickly became clear that a focus on customer use cases represented a new way of thinking for waterfall-trained developers.

So her team held focus-group sessions with representatives from companies that interact with the EEOC. It was a classic agile move, but it raised eyebrows within the agency. The quality of the feedback—and the resulting improvements—soon converted skeptics.

Participants in one focus group, for example, expressed concern that the system would email notifications back to only the submitter's address. They suggested one simple change: route email notifications to multiple addresses at the company instead of to a single employee who might miss the message if sick, on vacation or separated from the company.

When Australia's National Blood Authority NBA decided to update its proprietary BloodNet software used to track and distribute blood through the country's healthcare system, its leadership was determined to use agile approaches. The agency wanted to align its delivery practices with a push for greater agility on major multiyear IT projects by the Australian government's Digital Transformation Agency.

Two-week sprints, standing meetings and feedback-driven iterations were all new experiences for the NBA development team as it developed the new version of BloodNet. Led by Mr. Sithamparanathan, the team conducted user research at 39 hospitals and laboratories in nine cities. Once it had a working prototype running at its offices in Canberra, it invited 30 users from across the country to come and test the product. Their feedback led to modifications to the way the system handles documentation related to order fulfillment.

In another test, the NBA put inch monitor screens in select labs to see if the displays made the system easier to use. They did—and the screens are now standard. The new version of BloodNet is currently in beta-testing. Approximately 28, liters 7, gallons of blood are ordered and tracked through the platform each month. The system already is reducing blood waste by millions of dollars annually.

Sithamparanathan says. It's exciting to watch teams adapt to agile principles, tools and techniques. It's an organizational change. The BloodNet project shows a team can successfully implement agile—even a team steeped mainly in waterfall delivery practices. But many agile advocates worry that government agencies will incorporate only bits and pieces of agile within a larger waterfall framework—a hybrid model that Ms.

Agilistas worry that if projects stall as a result of halfhearted implementation, agile itself will be blamed. The good news is that organizational and culture changes are entirely possible—government and agile approaches aren't intrinsically at odds with each other. If agile can demonstrate its effectiveness—as it already has in many agencies—genuine adoption should keep gaining steam.

Rieckhoff says. Take the view of Mark Radcliffe, the intellectual property attorney who's general counsel to the Open Source Initiative. When I asked Radcliffe if public domain software was open-source, he was clear: 'No. Truly public domain software is no longer protected by copyright, thus it cannot have a license which would impose the terms necessary to comply with any of the open source licenses,' he said. Agreeing with him is Louis Rosen, an attorney with Rosenlaw and Einschlag who previously led OSI's legal work and who still is involved.

He directed me to an older but still relevant piece he wrote about why the public domain isn't a license. It actually means 'No license required,' Rosen said. I just worry a bit when people or companies give software away in such an amateurish way, without understanding that licenses or covenants are far more efficient and effective. While 'public domain' isn't a license on OSI's official list of open-source licenses, Perens said it's not far off: 'Software that has been formally dedicated to the public domain through some sort of written statement meets the requirements of the Open Source definition only if the source code is available.