Well the complication is mainly a response to Cem wanting the OSI to bless his proposed approach. I think however that code.mil has already rejected this sort of idea.
I think the code.mil approach is much more elegant without introducing the use of CC0. On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 03:08:22PM +0000, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: > Richard, > > It is very hard for me to take a complaint that CC0 not being OSI approved as > a significant issue vs continued feet dragging when the OSI won’t provide > guidance on license asymmetry, won’t vote on NOSA v2.0 and had the > opportunity to pass CC0 years ago. > > CC0 is accepted as open source by the FSF and by the GSA (see Federal Source > Code Policy examples). The fact that the OSI has not approved CC0 is a > “complication” of its own making. One easily solved with an email from the > OSI to CC requesting that CC resubmit CC0 and then the OSI board approving > it. > > Nigel > > On 3/1/17, 9:37 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Richard Fontana" > <license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org on behalf of font...@sharpeleven.org> > wrote: > > I really like the approach as it currently exists. But why is use of > CC0 necessary? If some work of the US government is in the public > domain by virtue of the Copyright Act, there is no need to use > CC0. Indeed, I would think use of CC0 by the Government is just as > problematic, or non-problematic, as the use of any open source > license, such as the Apache License 2.0. Strictly speaking, the use of > CC0 assumes that you have copyright ownership. > > Only noting this because the fact that OSI has not approved CC0 makes > this more complicated than the case where CC0 is not used at all. > > The code.mil folks discussed an earlier version of this approach with > the OSI. But this is the first I've heard of using CC0. > > Richard > > > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 04:23:12PM +0000, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM > ARL (US) wrote: > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
