I've passed your question along, I'll answer as soon as I know. Thanks, Cem Karan
> -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 5:16 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > 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. > > > > > ---- > > Awesome. You may wish to ask your tech transfer office if any of your army > UARCs care about apache vs ECL v2. The patent grants are > slightly different and ECL v2 is geared toward the odd needs of research > universities. I'm guessing not because very few projects actually > use ECL v2. On the other hand DoD OSS projects are somewhat special cases > themselves and UARCs have to deal with a variety of > research grant sources and are typically smaller pieces of the larger > university system. > > > On 7/28/16, 4:38 PM, "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: > > >I am working with ARL Legal counsel on the license continuously. There > >are times when I'm slow in answering messages on this list because I > >have to run down to their office and get their opinions. I've been > >working with our Tech Transfer folks to make sure they are onboard with > >the proposed policy. I believe (but I'll double check) that our legal > >counsel is talking up the chain of command as well, so that should be > >taken care of as well. Thank you for pointing that out! > > > >Thanks, > >Cem Karan > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: License-discuss > >>[Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] > >>On Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > >> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 2:50 PM > >> To: license-discuss@opensource.org > >> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] U.S. Army Research > >>Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > >> > >> 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. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ---- > >> > >> Has this been reviewed by the ARL Office of Chief Counsel? I know > >>the army has an intellectual property counsel as part of the > >>JAG/USALSA out at Ft. Belvoir. > >> > >> > >> You also have a tech transfer office at ARL that handles Patent > >>License Agreements for ARL under 15 USC 3710a who would probably want > >>to have input on any ARL open source agreement that includes patent > >>grants. > >> > >> There are likely a lot of regulations and policy (DoD and Army) you > >>need to be aware of before attempting to submit an ARL branded open > >>source license. ARL may or may not be able to do so without > >>permission from RDECOMŠwho may elect to punt the issue up to JALS-IP > >>as the IP issue you are trying to solve does not appear to be trivial > >>and is a USG/DoD/Army wide issue. > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> License-discuss mailing list > >> License-discuss@opensource.org > >> > >>Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ > >>license-dis > >>cuss > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > 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
