You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I read the note on licensing and found it helpful. However, one case is not quite clear to me and perhaps it can be clarified in the "Recommendations" section. I imagine a common situation when a software developer is employed by a non-profit organization such as a national lab or a university and funded by a government agency like DOE. In such case, should the organization and/or the agency be mentioned in the copyright notice as an owner along with the actually contributing authors? Is there a common rule for that or it should be decided on a case by case basis? I would be interested to know how it applies to the US.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
@plexoos - seems your question was dormant for multiple years. That is part of the lab's policy who owns the copyright in the end. In a future iteration we will see whether we can concretise things a bit more - as at least for DOE there are not so many cases one has to look at.
I read the note on licensing and found it helpful. However, one case is not quite clear to me and perhaps it can be clarified in the "Recommendations" section. I imagine a common situation when a software developer is employed by a non-profit organization such as a national lab or a university and funded by a government agency like DOE. In such case, should the organization and/or the agency be mentioned in the copyright notice as an owner along with the actually contributing authors? Is there a common rule for that or it should be decided on a case by case basis? I would be interested to know how it applies to the US.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: