Cem, my previous email about the Federal Register process wasn't clear. It certainly starts as a proposal from your department's lawyers for a formal legal policy of some sort.
THEN it becomes a public process. THEN there are public hearings and specific written feedback. THEN the arguments become relevant to the public. How that process concludes is up to democracy. But at least it won't be just a bunch of attorneys in a government department who are worried that their public domain software might already be used as a part of open source software without any new license confusion. I'm on YOUR side to see you join the open source community. /Larry P.S. I'm already dealing with Federal Register activities relating to the National Organic Program. I know how lengthy and confusing such regulations can become. -----Original Message----- From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) [mailto:cem.f.karan....@mail.mil] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 1:13 PM 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 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 _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
