Cool! Would Fedora/Red Hat consider it to be Open Source? Thanks, Cem Karan
> -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tom Callaway > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 3:31 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative was: > Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL > OSL) Version 0.4.1 > > All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the > identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links > contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a > Web browser. > > > ________________________________ > > > > Can't speak for Debian, but Fedora will happily take software licensed as you > describe. > > On Mar 16, 2017 3:09 PM, "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" > <cem.f.karan....@mail.mil < Caution- > mailto:cem.f.karan....@mail.mil > > wrote: > > > I agree that the Government can release it as open source, but as I > understand it, not as Open Source. The difference is whether > or not the code will be accepted into various journals (Journal of Open > Source Software is one). It also affects whether or not various > distributions will accept the work (would Debian? I honestly don't know). > > And I'm not after plain vanilla CC0 code to be called Open Source, I'm > after the method I outlined earlier. This side-steps the need > to have CC0 put forth by the license steward (I hope!). I know that is > splitting hairs, but at this point I'm tearing my hair out over this, and > would like to put it to rest before I have to buy a wig. > > Thanks, > Cem Karan > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: License-discuss > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org < > Caution-mailto:license-discuss- > boun...@opensource.org > ] On Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 2:48 PM > > To: license-discuss@opensource.org < > Caution-mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org > > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible > alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source > License (ARL > > OSL) Version 0.4.1 > > > > All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please > verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all > links > > contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address > to a Web browser. > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > Cem, > > > > The USG does not need OSI’s approval to release code as open source > under CC0. It has done so already on code.gov < Caution- > http://code.gov > . This includes the > > OPM, NASA, GSA, DOT, DOL, DOC and others. CC0 is compliant with the > Federal Source Code Policy for open source release. > > > > It is unlikely that you can push CC0 through license review as you > aren’t the license steward. It is up to CC to resubmit CC0 for > approval. > > > > Regards, > > > > Nigel > > > > On 3/16/17, 8:56 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Karan, Cem F CIV > USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" <license-discuss- > > boun...@opensource.org < Caution-mailto:boun...@opensource.org > on > behalf of cem.f.karan....@mail.mil < Caution- > mailto:cem.f.karan....@mail.mil > > wrote: > > > > All, I want to keep this alive as I haven't seen a conclusion > yet. Earlier I > > asked if OSI would accept the US Government (USG) putting its > non-copyrighted > > works out under CC0 as Open Source **provided** that the USG > accepts and > > redistributes copyrighted contributions under an OSI-approved > license. Is > > this acceptable to OSI? Should I move this discussion to the > license-review > > list? > > > > To recap: > > > > 1) This would only cover USG works that do not have copyright. > Works that > > have copyright would be eligible to use copyright-based licenses, > and to be > > OSI-approved as Open Source would need to use an OSI-approved > license. > > > > 2) The USG work/project would select an OSI-approved license that > it accepted > > contributions under. The USG would redistribute the > contributions under that > > license, but the portions of the work that are not under > copyright would be > > redistributed under CC0. That means that for some projects (ones > that have no > > copyrighted material at all initially), the only license that the > works would > > have would be CC0. > > > > I can't speak to patents or other IP rights that the USG has, I > can only > > comment on what the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) has done > > > (Caution-Caution-https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions > < Caution- > https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions > > ), > > which includes a step to affirmatively waive any patent rights > that ARL might > > have in the project before distributing it. I am hoping that > other agencies > > will do something similar, but have no power or authority to say > that they > > will. > > > > Given all this, is it time to move this to license-review, or > otherwise get a > > vote? I'd like this solved ASAP. > > > > Thanks, > > Cem Karan > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > License-discuss mailing list > > License-discuss@opensource.org < > Caution-mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org > > > > Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > < Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi- > bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org < > Caution-mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org > > > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > < Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi- > bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > >
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
