> -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Engel Nyst > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:59 PM > To: license-discuss <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 8:32 PM, Richard Fontana <font...@sharpeleven.org> > wrote: > > 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? > > I'm assuming it's because they (ARL) don't have section 5 otherwise. > > ARL OSL can apply to public domain works and have a clause 5 to point to why > contributors' code is under AL2.0. > While arguably unnecessary, I believe I see where they're coming from, it's > not hurting, and it's better in a document that equally gives > from USG all AL2.0-for-public-domain-works including patent grant. > > Just my understanding of the needs of the OP.
Precisely; copyright is just one form of IP. We want to make sure that all IP is covered as completely as possible. 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
