Other than JOSS I still don’t see how it makes a big difference for the
Government. And the ability to publish in JOSS seems like a rather secondary
consideration…and I say that as a software developer in an academic environment…
On 3/17/17, 8:32 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY
RDECOM ARL (US)" <license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org on behalf of
cem.f.karan....@mail.mil> wrote:
OK, so different groups have different opinions. I'm glad Fedora views CC0
as meeting the OSD definitions though. I'd still like to convince OSI that the
route I outlined earlier should be considered to be Open Source; I think it'll
make things easier for a lot of the Government.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
Behalf Of Tom Callaway
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 8:46 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.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> I'd think the only ones who get to apply the "Open Source" label to
licenses would be the OSI. Fedora's opinion is that CC-0 meets the
> OSD.
>
> On Mar 16, 2017 4:31 PM, "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)"
<cem.f.karan....@mail.mil < Caution-
> mailto:cem.f.karan....@mail.mil > > wrote:
>
>
> Cool! Would Fedora/Red Hat consider it to be Open Source?
>
> 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 Tom Callaway
> > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 3:31 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.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > 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 > < Caution-
> > Caution-mailto: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-Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org <
Caution-mailto:license-discuss-
> boun...@opensource.org > < Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss- <
Caution-mailto:license-discuss- >
> > boun...@opensource.org < Caution-mailto: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 > <
Caution-Caution-mailto:license-
> disc...@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 > < Caution-
> > Caution-http://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 > < Caution-Caution-
> mailto:boun...@opensource.org < Caution-mailto:boun...@opensource.org >
> on behalf of cem.f.karan....@mail.mil < Caution-
> mailto:cem.f.karan....@mail.mil > < Caution-
> > Caution-mailto: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-Caution-https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions
<
>
Caution-https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions
> < 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-mailto:License-
> disc...@opensource.org < Caution-mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org >
>
> > >
Caution-Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
< Caution-
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss >
< Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi- < 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-Caution-mailto:License-
> disc...@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 >
< Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi- < 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 >
>
>
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
