I've forwarded the link to our lawyers, I'll ping them on Friday when I get back in the office to see what they say.
Thanks, Cem Karan > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Wright [mailto:jim.wri...@oracle.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 11:27 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Cc: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan....@mail.mil>; > Richard Fontana <font...@sharpeleven.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. > > > > > ---- > > Of course, as Richard pointed out earlier, this would also be true as to the > ASL, etc., except to the extent that the government choosing to > effectively “waive" patent rights as Cem has said is not the same thing as a > terminable patent license in the ASL - the UPL thus arguably > putting the government on the most equal footing possible with everyone else > given the expressed intent re: license scope… maybe the > grant of “any and all copyright rights” would make them feel better about the > copyright grant by virtue of not suggesting there necessarily > are any? Obviously tooting the horn here but it seems odd to me to require a > dedication to the public domain in any event - stuff is either > in the public domain by law or isn’t, and to whatever extent it isn’t, we > should have a copyright license, full stop. Similarly as to patents, I > don’t want to have to look at some ostensible policy on waiving patent > rights, we should all have a clearly scoped patent license for the > project, government and private contributors alike, and there is an easy > vehicle to achieve this, use an OSI approved license. > > > > On Mar 1, 2017, at 7:49 AM, Jim Wright <jim.wri...@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > Indeed, if there’s no copyright in the US, there may be no need of a > > copyright license from the government here, but in any event there > *is* an OSI approved permissive license that licenses both any applicable > copyright rights (without actually requiring that the government > have any) and patent rights applicable to the project - the UPL. > > > > If the government releases code under the UPL, and accepts contributions > > under the UPL, they are using an OSI approved license, full > stop, no need of extra terms or to treat other contributors any differently > than the government itself, no need of an express public domain > dedication which is any different than what is already true by law, everyone > is simply licensing whatever copyright rights they possess as > well as whatever patent rights they possess covering the project as they > contributed to or provided it, and it seems to me at first glance > like nothing else need be done…? > > > > Regards, > > Jim > > > > > >> On Mar 1, 2017, at 6:49 AM, Richard Fontana <font...@sharpeleven.org> > >> wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 09:37:13AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote: > >>> Strictly speaking, the use of > >>> CC0 assumes that you have copyright ownership. > >> > >> I guess that's a bit of an overstatement, but still given the nature > >> of the angst I've heard from US government people over the years > >> concerning the use of nominal copyright licenses, I'd find it > >> surprising if CC0 was treated differently. > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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
