OK, so different groups have different opinions. I'm glad Fedora views CC0 as meeting the OSD definitions though. I'd still like to convince OSI that the route I outlined earlier should be considered to be Open Source; I think it'll make things easier for a lot of the Government.
Thanks, Cem Karan > -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tom Callaway > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 8:46 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: 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. > > > ________________________________ > > > > I'd think the only ones who get to apply the "Open Source" label to licenses > would be the OSI. Fedora's opinion is that CC-0 meets the > OSD. > > On Mar 16, 2017 4:31 PM, "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" > <cem.f.karan....@mail.mil < Caution- > mailto:cem.f.karan....@mail.mil > > wrote: > > > Cool! Would Fedora/Red Hat consider it to be Open Source? > > Thanks, > Cem Karan > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: License-discuss > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org < > Caution-mailto:license-discuss- > boun...@opensource.org > ] On Behalf Of Tom Callaway > > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 3:31 PM > > To: license-discuss@opensource.org < > Caution-mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org > > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: 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. > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > Can't speak for Debian, but Fedora will happily take software > licensed as you describe. > > > > On Mar 16, 2017 3:09 PM, "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" > <cem.f.karan....@mail.mil < Caution- > mailto:cem.f.karan....@mail.mil > < Caution- > > Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan....@mail.mil < > Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan....@mail.mil > > > wrote: > > > > > > I agree that the Government can release it as open source, but > as I understand it, not as Open Source. The difference is > whether > > or not the code will be accepted into various journals (Journal of > Open Source Software is one). It also affects whether or not > various > > distributions will accept the work (would Debian? I honestly don't > know). > > > > And I'm not after plain vanilla CC0 code to be called Open > Source, I'm after the method I outlined earlier. This side-steps the > need > > to have CC0 put forth by the license steward (I hope!). I know that > is splitting hairs, but at this point I'm tearing my hair out > over this, and > > would like to put it to rest before I have to buy a wig. > > > > Thanks, > > Cem Karan > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: License-discuss > [Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org < > Caution-mailto:license-discuss- > boun...@opensource.org > < Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss- < > Caution-mailto:license-discuss- > > > boun...@opensource.org < Caution-mailto:boun...@opensource.org > > ] > On Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > > > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 2:48 PM > > > To: license-discuss@opensource.org < > Caution-mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org > < > Caution-Caution-mailto:license- > disc...@opensource.org < Caution-mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org > > > > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > Cem, > > > > > > The USG does not need OSI’s approval to release code as open > source under CC0. It has done so already on code.gov < > Caution-http://code.gov > < Caution- > > Caution-http://code.gov < Caution-http://code.gov > > . This > includes the > > > OPM, NASA, GSA, DOT, DOL, DOC and others. CC0 is compliant > with the Federal Source Code Policy for open source > release. > > > > > > It is unlikely that you can push CC0 through license review > as you aren’t the license steward. It is up to CC to resubmit CC0 > for > > approval. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Nigel > > > > > > On 3/16/17, 8:56 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Karan, Cem > F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" <license-discuss- > > > boun...@opensource.org < > Caution-mailto:boun...@opensource.org > < Caution-Caution- > mailto:boun...@opensource.org < Caution-mailto:boun...@opensource.org > > > on behalf of cem.f.karan....@mail.mil < Caution- > mailto:cem.f.karan....@mail.mil > < Caution- > > Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan....@mail.mil < > Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan....@mail.mil > > > wrote: > > > > > > All, I want to keep this alive as I haven't seen a > conclusion yet. Earlier I > > > asked if OSI would accept the US Government (USG) putting > its non-copyrighted > > > works out under CC0 as Open Source **provided** that the > USG accepts and > > > redistributes copyrighted contributions under an > OSI-approved license. Is > > > this acceptable to OSI? Should I move this discussion to > the license-review > > > list? > > > > > > To recap: > > > > > > 1) This would only cover USG works that do not have > copyright. Works that > > > have copyright would be eligible to use copyright-based > licenses, and to be > > > OSI-approved as Open Source would need to use an > OSI-approved license. > > > > > > 2) The USG work/project would select an OSI-approved > license that it accepted > > > contributions under. The USG would redistribute the > contributions under that > > > license, but the portions of the work that are not under > copyright would be > > > redistributed under CC0. That means that for some > projects (ones that have no > > > copyrighted material at all initially), the only license > that the works would > > > have would be CC0. > > > > > > I can't speak to patents or other IP rights that the USG > has, I can only > > > comment on what the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) has > done > > > > (Caution-Caution-Caution-https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions > < > Caution-https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions > > < Caution- > > > Caution-https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions > < Caution- > https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions > > > ), > > > which includes a step to affirmatively waive any patent > rights that ARL might > > > have in the project before distributing it. I am hoping > that other agencies > > > will do something similar, but have no power or authority > to say that they > > > will. > > > > > > Given all this, is it time to move this to > license-review, or otherwise get a > > > vote? I'd like this solved ASAP. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Cem Karan > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > License-discuss mailing list > > > License-discuss@opensource.org < > Caution-mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org > < > Caution-Caution-mailto:License- > disc...@opensource.org < Caution-mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org > > > > > > Caution-Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > < Caution- > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > < > Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi- < Caution- > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi- > > > bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > License-discuss mailing list > > License-discuss@opensource.org < > Caution-mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org > < > Caution-Caution-mailto:License- > disc...@opensource.org < Caution-mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org > > > > > Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > < Caution- > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > < > Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi- < Caution- > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi- > > > bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org < > Caution-mailto: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
