> -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Richard Fontana > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:33 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: > U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > 0.4.0 > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:17:07PM +0000, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US) wrote: > > > > 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. > > Even if you were correct in the assertions you've made about ARL code, why > is a new license needed for contributors other than ARL?
Are you suggesting a dual license scheme, where all copyrighted portions are under Apache 2.0, and all non-copyrighted portions are under the ARL OSL? 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
