OK, I've pushed it forward to the guys in charge of code.gov and the Federal Source Code policy; I'll bring it up with them on Thursday as well. I don't know if they'll support it, nor do I know if I'm allowed to point the list to where the comments are[1], but if I am, I'll aim everyone there. My only request is that everyone tries to get **all** their points in on the first round; that way we can limit the number of rounds we have to go through on the Federal Register (each round takes months to complete).
Thanks, Cem Karan [1] I'd be **very** surprised if I wasn't allowed to tell people about something in the Federal Register, but the law can be... unexpected. > -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 3:54 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > 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: > > > The Federal Register process may be the best way forwards. I'll bring it > > up in the next Federal Source Code policy meeting. > > > > That may be a good solution. The Federal Register process requires public > notice; public hearings; public feedback; written proposals > based on legal reasoning; etc. It is not an in-house in-government > discussion. :-) > > > > /Larry
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
