ve
> was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL
> OSL) Version 0.4.1
>
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
> <cem.f.karan@mail.mil < Caution-
> mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil > > wrote:
>
>
>
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <
cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote:
> OK, thank you, I'll contact them and see what they think.
Note that the DFSG #1-#9 are verbatim the same as OSD #1-#9, but the
interpretations may differ. (#10 is separate and
g
> 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 conf
March 17, 2017 1:56 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
I would just encourage you to consider instead recommending the enlightened
riday, March 17, 2017 4:56 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
gt; > 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 P
ce.org] On
> Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 1:16 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
s-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) Versi
y
> 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 a
; >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Cem Karan
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: License-discuss
> > [Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org <
>
cuss-
> 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: Thursda
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 8:45 PM, Tom Callaway wrote:
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.
>
"Open source", whether upper or lower case, is not a protected mark of the
---
> > > 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-d
2017 2:48 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 w
e.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, an
o: 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 ve
gt; 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
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. 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
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
ct: [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 o
on-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative
> was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL
> OSL) Version 0.4.1
>
> Jim Wright wrote:
>
> > it seems odd to me to require a dedication to the public domain in
> > any event
rce.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
>
>
> A proposed solution, however, is that the U.S. government will
> distribute software unde
ce.org] On
> Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 1:28 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
gt;>
Date: Wednesday, Mar 01, 2017, 12:40 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
<license-discuss@opensource.org<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
org; Jim Wright <jwri...@commsoft.com>
> 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
&
s-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) Versi
half Of Richard Fontana
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 12:10 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
> > O
ensource.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
> O
scuss@opensource.org
> Cc: Richard Fontana <font...@sharpeleven.org>; Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM
> ARL (US) <cem.f.karan....@mail.mil>
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re:
> U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License
urce] 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
d Fontana <font...@sharpeleven.org>; Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM
> ARL (US) <cem.f.karan....@mail.mil>
> 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
>
> Certainly the
t; >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: License-discuss
> > > > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of
> > > > Richard Fontana
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 9:37 AM
> > > > To
017 11:30 AM
> 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
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
Fontana
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 9:37 AM
> > 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
> >
>
s-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Richard Fontana
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 9:37 AM
> 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.
ssible 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
iscuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Smith, McCoy
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 12:10 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was:
> Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Sour
38 matches
Mail list logo