You should consider the fact that CC0 has an express disclaimer of patent licenses (in Section 4.a). That may mean that it doesn't address one of the concerns that I think you had (i.e., that there might be USG patents covering the non-US copyrightable USG work distributed by the USG).
The CC licenses are also not on the OSI list (although there has been some discussion in the past of whether they should be added, IIRC). -----Original Message----- From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 8:23 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1 All, the folks at code.mil came up with what may be a really, really good idea; see https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md. The basic idea is simple; when the Government releases code, it's in the public domain (likely CC0). The project owners select an OSI-approved license, and will only accept contributions to the project under their chosen license[1]. Over time the code base becomes a mixture, some of which is under CC0, and some of which is under the OSI-approved license. I've talked with ARL's lawyers, and they are satisfied with this solution. Would OSI be happy with this solution? That is, would OSI recognize the projects as being truly Open Source, right from the start? The caveat is that some projects will be 100% CC0 at the start, and can only use the chosen Open Source license on those contributions that have copyright attached. Note that Government projects that wish to make this claim would have to choose their license and announce it on the project site so that everyone knows what they are licensing their contributions under, which is the way that OSI can validate that the project is keeping its end of the bargain at the start. If this will satisfy OSI, then I will gladly withdraw the ARL OSL from consideration. If there are NASA or other Government folks on here, would this solution satisfy your needs as well? Thanks, Cem Karan [1] There is also a form certifying that the contributor has the right to do so, etc. The Army Research Laboratory's is at https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions/blob/master/ARL%20Form%20-%20266.pdf, and is, unfortunately, only able to be opened in Adobe Acrobat. We're working to fix that, but there are other requirements that will take some time. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
