OK, thank you, I'll contact them and see what they think. Thanks, Cem Karan
> -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Marc Jones > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 4:31 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 also can't speak for Debian. But it is my understanding that Debian does > not rely on OSI for determining if a license is free. They use their > own Debian Free Software Guidelines. (Although they are very similar.) > Someone at Debian maintains a FAQ on the DFSG [1] > > Debian also has a Licensing page that is not exactly on point but suggests > that you might want to contact the Debian Legal Mailing list. [2] > > Warm regards, > > -Marc > > [1] Caution-https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq < > Caution-https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq > [2] Caution- > https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ < > Caution-https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ > > > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 3:32 PM Tom Callaway <tcall...@redhat.com < > Caution-mailto:tcall...@redhat.com > > wrote: > > > 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 > > 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-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org < > Caution-mailto:license-discuss- > 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 > > > 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 > . 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 > on behalf of > 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-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-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > < 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
