That is actually a part of ARL's policy. If you haven't looked at the policy yet, go to https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions and take a look.
Thanks, Cem Karan > -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 12:23 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. > > > ________________________________ > > > > OSI approval is not explicitly required under DOSA. It just says open source > license. > > If DOSA explicitly defines the licensing authority I would prefer it be > stated as any DOD approved open source license. > > That would insure that any projects we develop for sponsors and released as > open source will be under a license that has been reviewed > and accepted by DOD legal from both from a security as well as compliance > standpoint. > From: Jim Wright <jwri...@commsoft.com < Caution-mailto:jwri...@commsoft.com > > > > Date: Wednesday, Mar 01, 2017, 11:53 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org <license-discuss@opensource.org < > Caution-mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org > > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army > Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1 > > Certainly the approach code.mil spells out to contributions seems ok without > having to address the license issue at all, but these questions > seem orthogonal to me. Cem seems to be trying to ensure that all open source > projects operating using this process are under an OSI > approved license, which appears to require them to pick one (or several) FOSS > licenses to actually apply. CC0 doesn’t work for that > purpose because it’s not OSI approved anyway and also doesn’t have a patent > license, but observing this doesn’t solve Cem’s problem of > how to license this stuff in a way that *is* OSI approved, which I think is > what he’s getting at. (Feel free to correct me…) > > > > On Mar 1, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Richard Fontana <font...@sharpeleven.org> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > < 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
