Thank you very much for your input that is very interesting and for which I strongly agree.
1) This could be stated as a general rule of the template policy with a link reference to all OSI approved licenses.
3) Interesting but will probably bring some confusion. I agree that it has nothing to do with the NC clause of CC licenses (you can check if the CLA is for a foundation or a private company), but why would government "trust" more a NGO over a private actor not to abuse of the unfair advantage to own the copryright? Also not signing a CLA might simply prevent contributing to that project, so this warning should be raised when choosing the software and not once you want / need to contribute (and hence would be out of the perimeter of this policy). For this reason I would not make this distinction about the type (commercial or non-commercial) of the final entity.
4) Totally agree. I believe the choices for this flowchart could be discussed in this thread. I also totally agree with the licenses choices you keep: Apache 2.0, GPL 3.0 and AGPL3.0 (with an interesting option you pointed for Apache 2.0 when compatibility with GPL2.0 is required.
If I were to sum things up, I believe governments and administrations should not own software copyright and if it is the case it should be only temporary. This could be a ground principle for the template policy.
Based on another topic (distinguish private and professional contributions), I also believe that a ground principle is that we should recognize individual contributions. Even if I understand the philosophical reasons to publish administration code as CC0, no successful project will be 100% developed by civil servants during their professional time. For this reason, I would not add the CC0 for code, even if it is a very interesting choice made by the USA, and we should discuss it further.
Now with those two principles, as governments, the questions should be where you want to create "competition" and if the software is meant to be a digital common.
- If the purpose of the software is to be an infrastructure, or part of the "State as a Platform" approach, it should not create any competition and permissive license should be chosen (ie Apache 2.0)
- If the purpose is to great a digital common that could be used to create competition between actors of the civil society, whether private companies or NGO, a reciprocal license should be chosen without remote clause (GPLv3)
- If the purpose of the software is to maintain an active link with the citizen and a "no competition" between actors should be enforced, a remote reciprocal license should be chosen (AGPL v3) (competition between f/oss projects is always interesting)
Now licenses are not the only questions in the case of a greenfield development. Should governments have CLA? I suggest a specific topic on the subject : https://forum.etalab.gouv.fr/t/contributors-license-agreement-cla/3032
What about governance and organizations? Another topic here: https://forum.etalab.gouv.fr/t/organizations-accounts-governance-and-commit-rights/3033