LWN: Comments on ""We the people" source released" https://lwn.net/Articles/513236/ This is a special feed containing comments posted to the individual LWN article titled ""We the people" source released". en-us Sat, 25 Oct 2025 15:47:31 +0000 Sat, 25 Oct 2025 15:47:31 +0000 https://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification lwn@lwn.net "We the people" source released https://lwn.net/Articles/513325/ https://lwn.net/Articles/513325/ david.a.wheeler <p> Uncle Sam holds lots of copyrights. When US (federal) government employees create works as part of their official duties, their work is not subject to copyright in the US. But most software for Uncle Sam is written by contractors, who aren't subject to that law.</p> <p> For details, see my paper: <a href="http://journal.thedacs.com/issue/56/180">Publicly Releasing Open Source Software Developed for the U.S. Government</a>, Journal of Software Technology, February 2011, Vol. 14, Number 1. Fri, 24 Aug 2012 14:22:41 +0000 "We the people" source released https://lwn.net/Articles/513304/ https://lwn.net/Articles/513304/ Klavs <div class="FormattedComment"> How do you know the code has been forked?<br> <p> Have you checked that core Drupal and all the modules which have an upstream (different than the one who created the site) isn't just the same - but added to github to make it "simple" (ie. just duplicated code - nothing else) ?<br> <p> Normally, Drupal developers are good at following the standard way of developing Drupal sites, which means NO core changes, and all changes done using hooks - in a module they write themselves, and in the theme itself.<br> <p> So I don't think there's a lot of forking going on here - I actually highly doubt it.<br> <p> I'm sure that's probably not the same for many other projects, but Drupal is actually a very well managed project with very sane development practicses IMHO. I particularly enjoy the fact, that new releases of same major version (f.ex. 6.0,6.1 etc.) just as RHEL does it, only contains severe bugfixes, and security updates - meaning you can actually upgrade rather safely, without getting featurechanges etc. They don't support each release for as many years, as RHEL does though - "only" until two new major releases has come out.<br> <p> So Drupal is IMHO a very company friendly project, in that you get security upgrades ONLY - support for this for a long time - and security announcements as well.<br> <p> PHP is in many ways not a well-designed language - but that does not mean Drupal isn't a great project or CMS Framework.<br> </div> Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:26:02 +0000 "We the people" source released https://lwn.net/Articles/513289/ https://lwn.net/Articles/513289/ rwst <div class="FormattedComment"> People no longer fork only because chemistry between developers is bad, they fork more now because it's much easier with git to fork (and merge again). There is however something in the observation that PHP forks are culminating. I'm personally not touching that language with a long stick.<br> </div> Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:55:05 +0000 "We the people" source released https://lwn.net/Articles/513286/ https://lwn.net/Articles/513286/ os3294 <div class="FormattedComment"> That's hardly unique to web frameworks, look at all the forks in major Open Source projects lately. Hardly a day goes by without a part of the desktop stack being forked because people can't play nicely together.<br> </div> Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:43:30 +0000 "We the people" source released https://lwn.net/Articles/513285/ https://lwn.net/Articles/513285/ reddit <div class="FormattedComment"> Considering they are written in one of the worst languages ever conceived, that's not surprising at all.<br> <p> </div> Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:35:24 +0000 "We the people" source released https://lwn.net/Articles/513276/ https://lwn.net/Articles/513276/ job <div class="FormattedComment"> Lots of code forking here. These big PHP frameworks have a code reusability problem.<br> </div> Fri, 24 Aug 2012 08:13:34 +0000 "We the people" source released https://lwn.net/Articles/513260/ https://lwn.net/Articles/513260/ smoogen <div class="FormattedComment"> It really depends on what one means by "Hold a Copyright". The have been ways that works have been "copyright" of the United States since at least the Reagan administration and probably a lot longer.<br> <p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U.S._government">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_...</a><br> <p> Most of the stuff I have seen was stuff done by contractors and then transferred to the US Government.<br> </div> Fri, 24 Aug 2012 03:36:19 +0000 "We the people" source released https://lwn.net/Articles/513261/ https://lwn.net/Articles/513261/ mjg59 <div class="FormattedComment"> "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise. - 17 USC S105<br> <p> Further, something doesn't need to be copyrightable under domestic law to be considered copyrightable under Berne. The US government claims the right to assert copyright over its works outside the US.<br> </div> Fri, 24 Aug 2012 03:36:02 +0000 "We the people" source released https://lwn.net/Articles/513259/ https://lwn.net/Articles/513259/ imgx64 From the Github page: <blockquote> This project constitutes a work of the United States Government and is not subject to domestic copyright protection under 17 USC ยง 105. <br><br> The project utilizes code licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public License and therefore is licensed under GPL v2 or later. </blockquote> Fri, 24 Aug 2012 02:57:59 +0000 "We the people" source released https://lwn.net/Articles/513258/ https://lwn.net/Articles/513258/ jhoblitt <div class="FormattedComment"> Since when can uncle sam hold a copyright? (With a copyright needed to apply a copyright license)<br> </div> Fri, 24 Aug 2012 02:53:21 +0000