I find it odd that your lawyers are making you argue the legal issues here even though you aren't a lawyer, and won't themselves join in to the conversation.
Further on my point, the US DOJ (i.e., the top government lawyers in the USA) website states that most of the material on their website is public domain and freely usable by the public, yet still appends a disclaimer of liability to that material: https://www.justice.gov/legalpolicies That seems to me like a pretty concrete example of the USG understanding that a disclaimer of liability is not null and void just because the materials for which liability is disclaimed is not licensable because it is in the public domain. The very problem the ARL lawyers are saying this new license proposal is attempting to solve. -----Original Message----- From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 7:03 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] > On Behalf Of Smith, McCoy > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 4:51 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > I think what a lot of the lawyers on here are trying to say to you is > -- why not just use Apache 2.0 and be done with it? > > You appear to find Apache 2.0 wanting because some of the materials > that will be transmitted might not be copyrightable in some > jurisdictions. And you believe as a result, the entire Apache 2.0 > license (including the patent grants, and the disclaimer of > warranties) would be rendered null & void as a result. Perhaps the > lawyers from ARL are telling you that; if so, perhaps you could > invite them to the conversation. I have, but they've refused, and won't budge on it. > I think many people on here are skeptical of the latter part of your > analysis. In fact, I suspect that virtually every piece of code > licensed under Apache 2.0 has some parts that aren't subject to > copyright, since they don't satisfy the provisions of 17 USC 102 and > the various judicial tests to separate expressive vs. non-expressive content. Possibly true. If our management eventually says that they're willing to take the risk and go with it, I'll be willing to drop the ARL OSL. So far it hasn't happened, and so far our lawyers are convinced that the copyright is going to be a problem. Thanks, Cem Karan _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
