> -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Philippe Ombredanne > Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 2:27 AM > To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] US Army Research Laboratory > Open Source License proposal > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 11:23 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com> wrote: > > > > It is true that this public domain result doesn't apply outside the > > U.S. But if you apply a valid open source license to it – such as > > Apache 2.0 – that should be good enough for everyone who doesn't live > > in the U.S. and irrelevant for us here. > > Larry, are you suggesting that Cem considers using some statement more or > less like this, rather than a new license? > This U.S. Federal Government work is not copyrighted and dedicated > to the public domain in the USA. Alternatively, the Apache-2.0 license > applies > outside of the USA ?
This won't work for us. We want the terms in the Apache 2.0 license that deal with liability, prevents misrepresentation via misuse of trademarks, and prevents IP trolling. The original works by the USG will go through an internal process that waives the IP rights irrevocably, but that doesn't cover the contributions by others. That is why the Apache 2.0 license is so appealing; it protects not only the USG, but also all contributors and users, not only from the USG, but from each other. We need an equivalent that will also work in the USA. Thanks, Cem Karan
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
