I've forwarded your frustrations onwards; I don't know what the response will be.
Thanks, Cem Karan > -----Original Message----- > From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com] > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 1:43 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org; Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > <cem.f.karan....@mail.mil> > Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com> > Subject: RE: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] 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 Karan wrote: > > > As for our legal counsel posting to this list directly, they've told me in > > the past that they won't do that because it violates some statute > or contract clause[1]. > > [1] I'm not sure what exactly, they've explained it to me, but I keep > forgetting the finer details. > > > > I apologize for again writing to you, Cem, since you are doing a great job > at this thread, but it is the only way I know to get my message to > your attorneys: > > > > Their behavior in funneling their license to this public list via a > non-lawyer is insulting to those of us on this list who are lawyers and who > well understand the law of copyright and open source. They are also > insulting the non-lawyers on this list who know more about open > source licenses than most lawyers in your government agency apparently do. > Please ask them to talk to us as professionals. > > > > As far as some "statute or contract clause" that would prevent a lawyer from > justifying his or her own submission of a license to this > public open source mail list, I doubt that! > > > > I am personally so frustrated at this unnecessary barrier that I might file > a FOIA request to force them to speak up publicly about their > public legal issue that concerns all of us who use the Apache license with > public domain components in our software. That's not the way > the open source community works out such issues. > > > > /Larry > > > > Lawrence Rosen > > Rosenlaw (Caution-www.rosenlaw.com) > > 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 > > Cell: 707-478-8932 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Karan, > Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US) > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 10:10 AM > To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1 > > > > I've forwarded your question to our internal counsel, and I'm hoping to get > a message back in a day or two. I'll post it when they get back > to me. > > > > As for our legal counsel posting to this list directly, they've told me in > the past that they won't do that because it violates some statute or > contract clause[1]. So, I apologize if I have to act as a filter, but that > is the best I can do at the moment. > > > > Thanks, > > Cem Karan > > > > [1] I'm not sure what exactly, they've explained it to me, but I keep > forgetting the finer details. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Lawrence Rosen [Caution-mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com < > > Caution-mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com > ] > > > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 12:50 PM > > > To: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > > > <cem.f.karan....@mail.mil < Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan....@mail.mil > >; > > license-discuss@opensource.org < Caution-mailto:license- > disc...@opensource.org > > > > Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com < > > Caution-mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com > > > > > Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] 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 Karan wrote: > > > > > > > I'm not a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer, I don't pretend to be one on > > > > TV or anywhere else, and nothing I say should be construed as legal > > > advice. > > > > > > > > > > > > In that situation, it would be unfair to ask you my question directly, > > > so please forward my email directly to your lawyer(s). I'd like to > > > hear from them directly or on this list. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cem Karan wrote: > > > > > > . . . the truly serious issue is severability > > > Caution-Caution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability < Caution- > > > Caution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability < > > Caution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability > > ). The concern is > > that > > > if the USG uses a license that depends on copyright (e.g., Apache > > > 2.0), and those clauses are declared unenforceable by the courts, then > > > it may be possible to declare the entire license unenforceable. > > > > > > > > > > > > Larry Rosen asked: > > > > > > Apache-licensed software also may (and frequently does) contain public > > > domain components. Are you suggesting that "severability" is a > > > potential problem with Apache software? > > > > > > > > > > > > /Larry > > > > > > > > > > > > Lawrence Rosen > > > > > > Rosenlaw (Caution-Caution-www.rosenlaw.com) > > > > > > 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 > > > > > > Cell: 707-478-8932 > >
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
