Cem, I'd be happy to put you in touch with Alvand in the white house if you are not already chatting. Email me off thread if so..
On Aug 18, 2016 8:47 AM, "Smith, McCoy" <mccoy.sm...@intel.com> wrote: > Given that the White House just released a memorandum on encouraging the > USG to make more use of open source, and specifically said that it will be > releasing licensing guidance on code.gov, perhaps the issues around 17 > USC 105 and existing open source licenses will be resolved (or at least, > the issues around existing open source licenses will be identified clearly) > on behalf of all the USG: > https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/ > memoranda/2016/m_16_21.pdf > > > -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 1:27 AM > 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 > > There is exceptional evidence that the status quo is wholly inadequate. > OSI fails to recognize challenges faced within the Federal Government, and > it hurts open source adoption. > > Statistically speaking as the largest producer of source code on the > planet, the U.S. Federal Government *should* be one of the largest > participants in open source yet there is barely a presence. Some people > recognize NASA as one of the largest proponents in the Gov’t space, yet > they are one of the smaller agencies with one of the smallest budgets. > Federal R&D, which is predominantly computer science work, is more than > double the size of NASA’s entire agency! There are more computer > scientists writing code for the Gov’t than there are for any single company > in existence, including the likes of Google and Microsoft. > > Let that sink in for a minute. > > Where is all the code? If it was simply a release issue, there would at > least be lots of public domain code floating — there’s demonstrably not. > [1] If even a measurable percentage of Government lawyers felt existing > OSI licenses were apropos, there would be a ample evidence of agencies > using MIT/Apache/LGPL/etc — there’s demonstrably not. [2] > > There has been presented here a position by at least two major federal > agencies (DoD and NASA) that copyright-based licensing is specifically > viewed as a problem by their respective lawyers. There is obvious > disagreement and uncertainty, but therein lies a fundamental problem. > Nobody’s opinion has been tested. Nobody can prove that their point is any > more or less correct. > > Lacking case law evidence, all that remains is overwhelming industry > evidence that what is currently available is not in any way viewed as > adequate in the Federal space. At a minimum, there is enough uncertainty > that there is zero-% penetration. > > You have agencies here trying their damnedest to find ways to support open > source amidst ambiguous regulations, unique legal circumstances > (copyright), notoriously risk-averse environments, and untested theories. > You have specific representatives (for huge organizations) here saying “I > would use this, it would help us”. That to me those make for pretty > freaking compelling reasons to support any new open source licensing, if it > will increase adoption of open source in the Federal space. > > I ran on this platform for the 2016 OSI board election and missed it by > fewer votes than I have fingers. This is a problem to a tremendous number > of people. OSI licensing isn’t the only problem [3] faced by the Federal > Government, but it is one of the most significant that has solutions being > presented. NOSA 1.3 was offered but was then immediately shot down by FSF > (for good reason, why is it even still on OSI's list??); NOSA 2.0 won’t > likely be a solution without rework. ARL OSL aims to be so transparently > compatible that it arguably limits proliferation (to the extent you can > while creating a new agreement) and has much greater adoption potential > with ASL’s rigor behind it. > > Dissenting won’t make agencies suddenly agree to just slap copyright-based > licensing on their works or even releasing into PD. It will just continue > to be lost opportunities for open source until there is congressional > mandate, DoJ/DoC clarity, or case law clarity. White house is currently > advocating and creating discussion, but we’ll see if that survives the > election. > > Cheers! > Sean > > [1] NIST, NASA, and 18F are outliers among hundreds of agencies. > [2] What you can find are works involving contractors where copyright gets > assigned. > [3] Cultural ignorance is so maligned that DoD CIO actually had to tell > agencies it’s *illegal* to NOT consider open source. > > > > On Aug 17, 2016, at 5:46 PM, Radcliffe, Mark < > mark.radcli...@dlapiper.com> wrote: > > > > I agree with McCoy. As outside General Counsel of the OSI for more than > 10 years, the drafting of a new "open source" license requires strong > reasons. The reasons that I have seen in the list don't meet that > standard. I strongly recommend against trying to develop a new "open > source" license. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] > > On Behalf Of Smith, McCoy > > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:54 AM > > 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 > > > > Or to put a finer point on it, the other issues you identify appear to > be ones that are explicitly addressed in many already-approved OSI > licenses, including Apache 2.0, the one you are modeling your license upon. > > > > I hope you're getting a sense that there are several lawyers on this > mailing list -- lawyers who have years of experience looking at, debating, > and giving advice on the issues you identify in this submission -- who > think that your proposed license is a variant of Apache 2.0 designed to > solve a "problem" for USG users with Apache 2.0 that we are skeptical even > exists. Perhaps the ARL lawyers can clarify what the problem is, and that > we are missing something. But I think at least I am having a hard time > understanding how this license does anything that Apache 2.0 doesn't. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] > > On Behalf Of Richard Fontana > > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:33 AM > > 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? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > License-discuss mailing list > > License-discuss@opensource.org > > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > > License-discuss mailing list > > License-discuss@opensource.org > > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > Please consider the environment before printing this email. > > > > The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or > legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended > recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, > you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, > dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of > its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > communication in error, please reply to the sender and destroy all copies > of the message. To contact us directly, send to postmas...@dlapiper.com. > Thank you. > > _______________________________________________ > > License-discuss mailing list > > License-discuss@opensource.org > > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss >
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
