As a part of ARL's internal release process, the Lab waives all patent/IP rights (except for the ARL trademarks). That only leaves the external contributions, which would be done under one of the OSI-approved licenses.
Thanks, Cem Karan > -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Smith, McCoy > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 12:10 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: > 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. > > > > > ---- > > 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 > [Caution-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 Caution- > 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 Caution- > 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 > 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
