> -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Smith, McCoy > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:34 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. > Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > 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.
They have their reasons, but I'll try to get at least one on this list again. > 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: Caution- > 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. Once again, liability isn't the only issue; there are also copyright issues (for contributors), and IP issues. If we could solve the problem via a simple disclaimer of liability, we would. We need to handle ALL the issues. 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