4 ms·

It's 17 USC 105. Most agencies work around it by hiring contractors, which then leaves the copyright in the hands of the contractor. It's a loophole I'd like

It's 17 USC 105. Most agencies work around it by hiring contractors, which then leaves the copyright in the hands of the contractor. It's a loophole I'd like to see closed.

smcin 2y ago
Are the copyright provisions in govt contracts similar or different to civilian contracts? And does that vary by state much? Also, do govt software contractors worry much about AIs being trained on their codebases, attribution, etc.? Would that increase under this law?
- stonogo 2y ago
  It depends on the contract. In the DOE system it's usually national lab employees working under direct funding; in that case the operating contractor retains copyright. In the DOD world it's more common for development to be actual USG employees, in which case there is no copyright and the software is public domain. None of this applies to state or local government: 17 USC 105 applies only to federal matters. Attribution tends to be important to DOE people since they're usually academics working in the purview of Office of Science, and citations are how they get promoted. I don't think anyone worries about AI training on their codebases, since LLM providers are not held accountable to any copyright enforcement anyway.
  - smcin 2y ago
    You misunderstood my point about govt software contractors needing to worry about AIs being trained on their codebases: for their job security, automating and replacing them. Specifically, if the govt tries to do the same things we see in commercial SW devpt. (Not copyright claims against commercial LLM companies).
    - stonogo 2y ago
      I don't think anyone in that space really worries about being replaced by AI, because it's not really up to the task of replacing anyone.
Mountain_Skies 2y ago
If that were implemented at lower levels of government, it could increase costs for some while reducing it for others. If you're the State of Kansas and want to have software written for management of toll roads and toll payment accounts, you can spend a bunch of money developing it yourself, and then other states can freeload off your work. Or you can contract it out. If that contractor can then sell that same solution to other states, they can offer a lower rate to Kansas. But if they have to make their code available to all, they'll have to charge Kansas the full cost of development. If you're Nebraska and want to do the same thing as Kansas a few years later, you get a benefit from the spending Kansas has already done. Nebraska wins, Kansas loses.
- stonogo 2y ago
  It's more common for state governments to join forces to define standards for data, performance, features, and interoperability, and then require contractors to comply in the contract language. I'm not aware of many contracts for bespoke software in the state government space; it's far more frequent that someone identifies a need and then develops a solution to bring to market.

It's 17 USC 105. Most agencies work around it by hiring contractors, which then leaves the copyright in the hands of the contractor. It's a loophole I'd like to see closed.

smcin 2y ago

Are the copyright provisions in govt contracts similar or different to civilian contracts? And does that vary by state much? Also, do govt software contractors worry much about AIs being trained on their codebases, attribution, etc.? Would that increase under this law?

stonogo 2y ago
It depends on the contract. In the DOE system it's usually national lab employees working under direct funding; in that case the operating contractor retains copyright. In the DOD world it's more common for development to be actual USG employees, in which case there is no copyright and the software is public domain. None of this applies to state or local government: 17 USC 105 applies only to federal matters. Attribution tends to be important to DOE people since they're usually academics working in the purview of Office of Science, and citations are how they get promoted. I don't think anyone worries about AI training on their codebases, since LLM providers are not held accountable to any copyright enforcement anyway.
- smcin 2y ago
  You misunderstood my point about govt software contractors needing to worry about AIs being trained on their codebases: for their job security, automating and replacing them. Specifically, if the govt tries to do the same things we see in commercial SW devpt. (Not copyright claims against commercial LLM companies).
  - stonogo 2y ago
    I don't think anyone in that space really worries about being replaced by AI, because it's not really up to the task of replacing anyone.

Mountain_Skies 2y ago

If that were implemented at lower levels of government, it could increase costs for some while reducing it for others. If you're the State of Kansas and want to have software written for management of toll roads and toll payment accounts, you can spend a bunch of money developing it yourself, and then other states can freeload off your work. Or you can contract it out. If that contractor can then sell that same solution to other states, they can offer a lower rate to Kansas. But if they have to make their code available to all, they'll have to charge Kansas the full cost of development. If you're Nebraska and want to do the same thing as Kansas a few years later, you get a benefit from the spending Kansas has already done. Nebraska wins, Kansas loses.

stonogo 2y ago
It's more common for state governments to join forces to define standards for data, performance, features, and interoperability, and then require contractors to comply in the contract language. I'm not aware of many contracts for bespoke software in the state government space; it's far more frequent that someone identifies a need and then develops a solution to bring to market.