I would just encourage you to consider instead recommending the enlightened approach being taken by your colleagues at github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil, which would be more consistent with the ARL lawyers' apparent belief that some horrible disaster will occur if they put US published code under a copyright license. :)
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017, at 04:47 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: > That was what I was afraid of. OK, in that case I'll make the > recommendation that ARL does what I was outlining before, and hope that > CC0 will one day be considered Open Source as well. > > Thanks, > Cem Karan > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > > Behalf Of Richard Fontana > > Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 11:18 AM > > 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 don't see how you could convince OSI of this in any way that would not > > involve submission and approval of CC0. > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 12:32:26PM +0000, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM > > ARL (US) wrote: > > > 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 > > > > [Caution-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- > > > > 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-Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org < > > > > Caution-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-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- > > > > Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan....@mail.mil > < Caution- > > > > > Caution-Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan....@mail.mil < > > > > Caution-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-Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org > > > > < Caution-Caution- > > mailto:license-discuss- > > > > boun...@opensource.org > < > > > > Caution-Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss- < > > > > Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss- > > > > > > boun...@opensource.org < > > > > Caution-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-Caution-mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org > < > > > > Caution-Caution- > > Caution-mailto:license- > > > > disc...@opensource.org < > > > > Caution-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-Caution-http://code.gov > < Caution- > > > > > Caution-Caution-http://code.gov < > > > > Caution-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-Caution-mailto:boun...@opensource.org > < Caution-Caution- > > > > Caution-mailto:boun...@opensource.org < > > > > Caution-Caution-mailto:boun...@opensource.org > > on behalf of > > > > cem.f.karan....@mail.mil < Caution- Caution- > > mailto:cem.f.karan....@mail.mil > < Caution- > > > > > Caution-Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan....@mail.mil < > > > > Caution-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-Caution-https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and- > > Instructions < > > > > Caution-Caution-https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions > > > > > < Caution- > > > > > > > > > Caution-Caution-https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions > > > > < Caution- 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-Caution-mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org > < > > > > Caution-Caution-Caution- > > mailto:License- > > > > disc...@opensource.org < > > > > Caution-Caution-mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org > > > > > > > > > > > > Caution-Caution-Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > > > < Caution- > > > > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/licens > > > > e-discuss > < > > > > Caution-Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi- < Caution- > > > > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi- > > > > > > bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > License-discuss mailing list > > > > > License-discuss@opensource.org < > > > > Caution-Caution-mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org > < > > > > Caution-Caution-Caution- > > mailto:License- > > > > disc...@opensource.org < > > > > Caution-Caution-mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org > > > > > > > > > > > Caution-Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > > > < Caution- > > > > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/licens > > > > e-discuss > < > > > > Caution-Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi- < Caution- > > > > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi- > > > > > > bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > License-discuss mailing list > > > > License-discuss@opensource.org < > > > > Caution-Caution-mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org > > > > > > > > > Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinf > > > > o/license-discuss < > > > > Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi- > > > > bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > License-discuss mailing list > > > License-discuss@opensource.org > > > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license- > > > discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > > License-discuss mailing list > > License-discuss@opensource.org > > Caution-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 > Email had 1 attachment: > + smime.p7s > 9k (application/pkcs7-signature) _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
