Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD

2017-03-08 Thread Lawrence Rosen 
Nigel Tseng wrote:

> So is that legal advice from you via the internet? To just go for it? Awesome!

 

Of course not, unless I send you a bill and you pay it!  Privately, that would 
be awesome but I won't charge you for my free "informed" opinions over the 
Internet. Other lawyers may be scared to speak up, but I'm a flying livestock. 

 

More important, I'm willing to engage in a serious conversation about "patent 
rights and the OSD" if there are any other brave attorneys here willing to 
speak up without sending everyone a bill.

 

/Larry

 

 

From: Tzeng, Nigel H. [mailto:nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2017 12:33 PM
To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: RE: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD

 

Larry, 

 

I read it and even with some vague knowledge of the domain I don't think I can 
answer... 

 

So is that legal advice from you via the internet? To just go for it? Awesome!

 

Hey look...flying livestock! :)

Regards,

 

Nigel

From: Lawrence Rosen  >

Date: Wednesday, Mar 08, 2017, 3:08 PM

To: license-discuss@opensource.org   
 >

Cc: Lawrence Rosen  >

Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD

 

Nigel Tzeng wrote:

> Using US7460689B1 System and method of detecting, recognizing, and tracking 
> moving targets as an example it could be useful to have an open source 
> copyright license to any USG developed MTI implementation of US7460689B1 
> because the libraries and functions used to implement the patent could be 
> reusable.  

 

Nigel, I am avoiding reading that patent because I have no time, but since you 
did read it I can ask you some questions:

 

Is the patent already "reusable" for things other than "detecting, recognizing, 
and tracking moving targets"? What is the relationship between "libraries and 
functions used to implement the patent" and all those different uses of the 
patent claims than are disclosed in US7460689B1? Are those copyrighted 
"libraries and functions" themselves patented claims in US7460689B1? 

 

Without such a patent analysis – that no open source engineer is required to 
undertake prior to an infringement notice from the patent owner – I'm 
comfortable recommending that we implement such open source software. The hell 
with random patents tossed out by Nigel Tzeng to scare me. :-) 

 

/Larry

 

"If this had been legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill."

 

 

-Original Message-
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf 
Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2017 7:18 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org  
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD

 

Cem,

 

To give them a more concrete example (hopefully not a flawed one ☺) I skimmed 
ARLs patent portfolio.  

 

Using US7460689B1 System and method of detecting, recognizing, and tracking 
moving targets as an example it could be useful to have an open source 
copyright license to any USG developed MTI implementation of US7460689B1 
because the libraries and functions used to implement the patent could be 
reusable.  While a lot of the basic functions may exist today in GDL or SciPy 
the underlying image processing, change map creation, math, etc may have been 
reusable outside of the context of US7460689B1 and of greater interest to the 
software community when most of those capabilities were only widely available 
in systems like Matlab or IDL. 

 

Even more so the software components required to interface with Army systems 
that would have to be built around any operational MTI system.  Getting access 
to source code from another government agency/DoD program isn’t always as 
painless as one might expect.

 

While these could be broken out and individually open sourced it is an 
additional burden on the Army/DoD Program and it simply may not get done.  It 
would be far easier for the program to open source the entire system with the 
note that US7460689B1 and others apply to these 4 subsystems and care must be 
applied to any reuse of those components.

 

I’m also curious of their opinion on the impact of the policy to give away all 
software patents to Executive Order 10096 and the intent that individual 
government researchers have the opportunity to benefit from their inventions.  
Is there reason that software inventors should have less financial opportunity 
than hardware inventors?

 

What safeguards exist or will exist for the USG inventor that an unrelated ARL 
or DoD project will not open source code that unknowingly implements their 
patent and provide a free patent grant?  What happens to the entity that may 
have

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD

2017-03-08 Thread Tzeng, Nigel H. 
Larry,

I read it and even with some vague knowledge of the domain I don't think I can 
answer...

So is that legal advice from you via the internet? To just go for it? Awesome!

Hey look...flying livestock! :)

Regards,

Nigel
From: Lawrence Rosen >
Date: Wednesday, Mar 08, 2017, 3:08 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org 
>
Cc: Lawrence Rosen >
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD


Nigel Tzeng wrote:

> Using US7460689B1 System and method of detecting, recognizing, and tracking 
> moving targets as an example it could be useful to have an open source 
> copyright license to any USG developed MTI implementation of US7460689B1 
> because the libraries and functions used to implement the patent could be 
> reusable.



Nigel, I am avoiding reading that patent because I have no time, but since you 
did read it I can ask you some questions:



Is the patent already "reusable" for things other than "detecting, recognizing, 
and tracking moving targets"? What is the relationship between "libraries and 
functions used to implement the patent" and all those different uses of the 
patent claims than are disclosed in US7460689B1? Are those copyrighted 
"libraries and functions" themselves patented claims in US7460689B1?



Without such a patent analysis – that no open source engineer is required to 
undertake prior to an infringement notice from the patent owner – I'm 
comfortable recommending that we implement such open source software. The hell 
with random patents tossed out by Nigel Tzeng to scare me. :-)



/Larry



"If this had been legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill."





-Original Message-
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf 
Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2017 7:18 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD



Cem,



To give them a more concrete example (hopefully not a flawed one ☺) I skimmed 
ARLs patent portfolio.



Using US7460689B1 System and method of detecting, recognizing, and tracking 
moving targets as an example it could be useful to have an open source 
copyright license to any USG developed MTI implementation of US7460689B1 
because the libraries and functions used to implement the patent could be 
reusable.  While a lot of the basic functions may exist today in GDL or SciPy 
the underlying image processing, change map creation, math, etc may have been 
reusable outside of the context of US7460689B1 and of greater interest to the 
software community when most of those capabilities were only widely available 
in systems like Matlab or IDL.



Even more so the software components required to interface with Army systems 
that would have to be built around any operational MTI system.  Getting access 
to source code from another government agency/DoD program isn’t always as 
painless as one might expect.



While these could be broken out and individually open sourced it is an 
additional burden on the Army/DoD Program and it simply may not get done.  It 
would be far easier for the program to open source the entire system with the 
note that US7460689B1 and others apply to these 4 subsystems and care must be 
applied to any reuse of those components.



I’m also curious of their opinion on the impact of the policy to give away all 
software patents to Executive Order 10096 and the intent that individual 
government researchers have the opportunity to benefit from their inventions.  
Is there reason that software inventors should have less financial opportunity 
than hardware inventors?



What safeguards exist or will exist for the USG inventor that an unrelated ARL 
or DoD project will not open source code that unknowingly implements their 
patent and provide a free patent grant?  What happens to the entity that may 
have contracted for an exclusive patent license agreement for that patent 
through their technology transfer office? Will the office responsible for 
approving ARL open source releases with patent grants be able to review source 
code applicability to not just ARL patents but those from the NRL or DOE?



There is a reason I favor the patent grant language in the Educational 
Community License v2.0 for GOSS and large research organizations.



Regards,



Nigel



ObDis:  Not speaking for the lab.



On 3/8/17, 9:36 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY 
RDECOM ARL (US)" >
 wrote:



I can pass it through ARL's lawyers, as well as pass it to the code.gov

people.



Thanks,

Cem Karan



> -Original

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] code.mil update

2017-03-08 Thread Luis Villa 
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 12:11 PM Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <
cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote:

> > -Original Message-
> > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org]
> On Behalf Of Luis Villa
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 2:51 PM
> > To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] code.mil update
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:03 AM Christopher Sean Morrison  < Caution-mailto:brl...@mac.com > > wrote:
> >
> >   > On Mar 8, 2017, at 9:32 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL
> (US)  > mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil > > wrote:
> >   >
> >   > You might want to re-read what they posted; the license applies
> only to those
> >   > portions of the code that have copyright attached, otherwise
> it's public
> >   > domain.  The trick is that while US Government (USG) works are
> ineligible for
> >   > copyright within the US, they may be eligible for copyright
> outside the US,
> >   > and in those areas the USG works are licensed under the
> OSI-approved license.
> >   > I'm not sure what it would mean for code that was moved across
> jurisdictions,
> >   > but I do understand and appreciate the intent of their approach.
> >
> >   They’ve slapped a copyright-based license file on the collective
> work with an INTENT file clarifying that it only applies to code that
> > has copyright attached.  I read what they wrote very carefully.  We’re
> saying exactly the same thing.
> >
> >   It’s an interesting approach that is not new, just untested and a
> point of dispute in the past as to what might happen.
> >
> >
> >
> > For what little it is worth, having just read intent.md < Caution-
> http://intent.md > , I think it's an eminently reasonable policy. It gives
> > some baseline certainty for non-.gov contributors, non-US entities, and
> US entities that are satisfied with a baseline set of FOSS rights. For
> > those who for some reason need the additional flexibility of US-only PD,
> they can do the research to figure out what is available in that
> > way.
> >
> >
> > Luis
>
> I agree; my only concern with it was that the law might be slightly
> different with regards to the USG-furnished code as it is public domain
> within the US, but may have copyright outside of it.  Just so everyone is
> on a level playing field I'd prefer it if the USG works that don't have
> copyright were released under CC0, but that is my personal preference.
>
> That said, it might be a question to put on the Federal Register, and get
> some comments.  I mean, would it be beneficial if the USG had a consistent
> policy on this (public domain or CC0 for works that don't have copyright)?
>

It certainly seems like the current frankenpolicy across various parts of
the government is not ideal, but I'm not an expert in how that might be
resolved.

(As I think I've said before, I think in 2017 CC0 is not an OSI-approvable
license because of the patent clause. Shame.)

Luis
-- 

*Luis Villa: Open Law and Strategy *
*+1-415-938-4552*
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] code.mil update

2017-03-08 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Luis Villa
> Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 2:51 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] code.mil update
> 
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:03 AM Christopher Sean Morrison  Caution-mailto:brl...@mac.com > > wrote:
> 
>   > On Mar 8, 2017, at 9:32 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
>  mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil > > wrote:
>   >
>   > You might want to re-read what they posted; the license applies only 
> to those
>   > portions of the code that have copyright attached, otherwise it's 
> public
>   > domain.  The trick is that while US Government (USG) works are 
> ineligible for
>   > copyright within the US, they may be eligible for copyright outside 
> the US,
>   > and in those areas the USG works are licensed under the OSI-approved 
> license.
>   > I'm not sure what it would mean for code that was moved across 
> jurisdictions,
>   > but I do understand and appreciate the intent of their approach.
> 
>   They’ve slapped a copyright-based license file on the collective work 
> with an INTENT file clarifying that it only applies to code that
> has copyright attached.  I read what they wrote very carefully.  We’re saying 
> exactly the same thing.
> 
>   It’s an interesting approach that is not new, just untested and a point 
> of dispute in the past as to what might happen.
> 
> 
> 
> For what little it is worth, having just read intent.md < 
> Caution-http://intent.md > , I think it's an eminently reasonable policy. It 
> gives
> some baseline certainty for non-.gov contributors, non-US entities, and US 
> entities that are satisfied with a baseline set of FOSS rights. For
> those who for some reason need the additional flexibility of US-only PD, they 
> can do the research to figure out what is available in that
> way.
> 
> 
> Luis

I agree; my only concern with it was that the law might be slightly different 
with regards to the USG-furnished code as it is public domain within the US, 
but may have copyright outside of it.  Just so everyone is on a level playing 
field I'd prefer it if the USG works that don't have copyright were released 
under CC0, but that is my personal preference.  

That said, it might be a question to put on the Federal Register, and get some 
comments.  I mean, would it be beneficial if the USG had a consistent policy on 
this (public domain or CC0 for works that don't have copyright)?

Thanks,
Cem Karan



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

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD

2017-03-08 Thread Lawrence Rosen 
Nigel Tzeng wrote:

> Using US7460689B1 System and method of detecting, recognizing, and tracking 
> moving targets as an example it could be useful to have an open source 
> copyright license to any USG developed MTI implementation of US7460689B1 
> because the libraries and functions used to implement the patent could be 
> reusable.  

 

Nigel, I am avoiding reading that patent because I have no time, but since you 
did read it I can ask you some questions:

 

Is the patent already "reusable" for things other than "detecting, recognizing, 
and tracking moving targets"? What is the relationship between "libraries and 
functions used to implement the patent" and all those different uses of the 
patent claims than are disclosed in US7460689B1? Are those copyrighted 
"libraries and functions" themselves patented claims in US7460689B1? 

 

Without such a patent analysis – that no open source engineer is required to 
undertake prior to an infringement notice from the patent owner – I'm 
comfortable recommending that we implement such open source software. The hell 
with random patents tossed out by Nigel Tzeng to scare me. :-) 

 

/Larry

 

"If this had been legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill."

 

 

-Original Message-
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf 
Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2017 7:18 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD

 

Cem,

 

To give them a more concrete example (hopefully not a flawed one ☺) I skimmed 
ARLs patent portfolio.  

 

Using US7460689B1 System and method of detecting, recognizing, and tracking 
moving targets as an example it could be useful to have an open source 
copyright license to any USG developed MTI implementation of US7460689B1 
because the libraries and functions used to implement the patent could be 
reusable.  While a lot of the basic functions may exist today in GDL or SciPy 
the underlying image processing, change map creation, math, etc may have been 
reusable outside of the context of US7460689B1 and of greater interest to the 
software community when most of those capabilities were only widely available 
in systems like Matlab or IDL. 

 

Even more so the software components required to interface with Army systems 
that would have to be built around any operational MTI system.  Getting access 
to source code from another government agency/DoD program isn’t always as 
painless as one might expect.

 

While these could be broken out and individually open sourced it is an 
additional burden on the Army/DoD Program and it simply may not get done.  It 
would be far easier for the program to open source the entire system with the 
note that US7460689B1 and others apply to these 4 subsystems and care must be 
applied to any reuse of those components.

 

I’m also curious of their opinion on the impact of the policy to give away all 
software patents to Executive Order 10096 and the intent that individual 
government researchers have the opportunity to benefit from their inventions.  
Is there reason that software inventors should have less financial opportunity 
than hardware inventors?

 

What safeguards exist or will exist for the USG inventor that an unrelated ARL 
or DoD project will not open source code that unknowingly implements their 
patent and provide a free patent grant?  What happens to the entity that may 
have contracted for an exclusive patent license agreement for that patent 
through their technology transfer office? Will the office responsible for 
approving ARL open source releases with patent grants be able to review source 
code applicability to not just ARL patents but those from the NRL or DOE?

 

There is a reason I favor the patent grant language in the Educational 
Community License v2.0 for GOSS and large research organizations.

 

Regards,

 

Nigel

 

ObDis:  Not speaking for the lab.

 

On 3/8/17, 9:36 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY 
RDECOM ARL (US)" < 

 license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org on behalf of cem.f.karan@mail.mil> 
wrote:

 

I can pass it through ARL's lawyers, as well as pass it to the code.gov 

people.



Thanks,

Cem Karan



> -Original Message-

> From: License-discuss [  
mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On 

> Behalf Of Stephen Kellat

> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 10:41 PM

> To:   
license-discuss@opensource.org

> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the 

> OSD

>

> All active links contained in this email were disabled.  Please verify 
the 

> identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] code.mil update

2017-03-08 Thread Luis Villa 
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:03 AM Christopher Sean Morrison 
wrote:

>
> > On Mar 8, 2017, at 9:32 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <
> cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote:
> >
> > You might want to re-read what they posted; the license applies only to
> those
> > portions of the code that have copyright attached, otherwise it's public
> > domain.  The trick is that while US Government (USG) works are
> ineligible for
> > copyright within the US, they may be eligible for copyright outside the
> US,
> > and in those areas the USG works are licensed under the OSI-approved
> license.
> > I'm not sure what it would mean for code that was moved across
> jurisdictions,
> > but I do understand and appreciate the intent of their approach.
>
> They’ve slapped a copyright-based license file on the collective work with
> an INTENT file clarifying that it only applies to code that has copyright
> attached.  I read what they wrote very carefully.  We’re saying exactly the
> same thing.
>
> It’s an interesting approach that is not new, just untested and a point of
> dispute in the past as to what might happen.
>

For what little it is worth, having just read intent.md, I think it's an
eminently reasonable policy. It gives some baseline certainty for non-.gov
contributors, non-US entities, and US entities that are satisfied with a
baseline set of FOSS rights. For those who for some reason need the
additional flexibility of US-only PD, they can do the research to figure
out what is available in that way.

Luis
-- 

*Luis Villa: Open Law and Strategy *
*+1-415-938-4552*
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD

2017-03-08 Thread Tzeng, Nigel H. 
Cem,

To give them a more concrete example (hopefully not a flawed one ☺) I skimmed 
ARLs patent portfolio.  

Using US7460689B1 System and method of detecting, recognizing, and tracking 
moving targets as an example it could be useful to have an open source 
copyright license to any USG developed MTI implementation of US7460689B1 
because the libraries and functions used to implement the patent could be 
reusable.  While a lot of the basic functions may exist today in GDL or SciPy 
the underlying image processing, change map creation, math, etc may have been 
reusable outside of the context of US7460689B1 and of greater interest to the 
software community when most of those capabilities were only widely available 
in systems like Matlab or IDL. 

Even more so the software components required to interface with Army systems 
that would have to be built around any operational MTI system.  Getting access 
to source code from another government agency/DoD program isn’t always as 
painless as one might expect.

While these could be broken out and individually open sourced it is an 
additional burden on the Army/DoD Program and it simply may not get done.  It 
would be far easier for the program to open source the entire system with the 
note that US7460689B1 and others apply to these 4 subsystems and care must be 
applied to any reuse of those components.

I’m also curious of their opinion on the impact of the policy to give away all 
software patents to Executive Order 10096 and the intent that individual 
government researchers have the opportunity to benefit from their inventions.  
Is there reason that software inventors should have less financial opportunity 
than hardware inventors?

What safeguards exist or will exist for the USG inventor that an unrelated ARL 
or DoD project will not open source code that unknowingly implements their 
patent and provide a free patent grant?  What happens to the entity that may 
have contracted for an exclusive patent license agreement for that patent 
through their technology transfer office? Will the office responsible for 
approving ARL open source releases with patent grants be able to review source 
code applicability to not just ARL patents but those from the NRL or DOE?

There is a reason I favor the patent grant language in the Educational 
Community License v2.0 for GOSS and large research organizations.

Regards,

Nigel

ObDis:  Not speaking for the lab.

On 3/8/17, 9:36 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY 
RDECOM ARL (US)"  wrote:

I can pass it through ARL's lawyers, as well as pass it to the code.gov 
people.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Stephen Kellat
> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 10:41 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the 
> OSD
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>
> On Mar 7, 2017, at 10:08 PM, Tzeng, Nigel H.  
wrote:
> >
> > You know the more I think about this, the disclaimer of patent rights 
in 
> > CC0 is probably best for GOSS because it avoids the attempt for
> a one size fit all patent grant language among different agencies with 
> different policies and the complexity under which patent rights are
> awarded to whom under the Bayh-Dole Act and Executive Order 10096.
> >
> > Employees of federal agencies, especially research oriented ones, have 
> > some financial interest and rights under 10096.
> >
> > Likewise non-profits and small businesses under Bayh-Dole.
> >
> > IMHO patent grant language in FOSS licenses provide a false sense of 
> > security.
> >
> > I would rather the government open source as much as possible 
regardless 
> > of patent rights as long as any known patents are disclosed.
> As seen in Ximpleware v Versata the patents typically only cover a small 
> portion of the overall system (VTD-XML). While it is relevant from
> the perspective of being able to use the system as built it is less 
relevant 
> from a code reuse perspective.
> >
> > For large government systems significant software components could 
often 
> > be reused without the specific portions covered under
> patent.
> >
> > So just having a copyright license to the entire project would provide 
> > significant value to the community. There is code I wrote 30 years
> ago I'd love to get access to again even if I

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] code.mil update

2017-03-08 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison
> Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 10:03 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] code.mil update 
> 
> > On Mar 8, 2017, at 9:32 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
> >  wrote:
> >
> > You might want to re-read what they posted; the license applies only
> > to those portions of the code that have copyright attached, otherwise
> > it's public domain.  The trick is that while US Government (USG) works
> > are ineligible for copyright within the US, they may be eligible for
> > copyright outside the US, and in those areas the USG works are licensed 
> > under the OSI-approved license.
> > I'm not sure what it would mean for code that was moved across
> > jurisdictions, but I do understand and appreciate the intent of their 
> > approach.
> 
> They’ve slapped a copyright-based license file on the collective work with an 
> INTENT file clarifying that it only applies to code that has
> copyright attached.  I read what they wrote very carefully.  We’re saying 
> exactly the same thing.
> 
> It’s an interesting approach that is not new, just untested and a point of 
> dispute in the past as to what might happen.
> 
> Sean

Got it, I misunderstood what you were saying.

Thanks,
Cem Karan



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

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] code.mil update

2017-03-08 Thread Christopher Sean Morrison 

> On Mar 8, 2017, at 9:32 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
>  wrote:
> 
> You might want to re-read what they posted; the license applies only to those 
> portions of the code that have copyright attached, otherwise it's public 
> domain.  The trick is that while US Government (USG) works are ineligible for 
> copyright within the US, they may be eligible for copyright outside the US, 
> and in those areas the USG works are licensed under the OSI-approved license. 
> I'm not sure what it would mean for code that was moved across jurisdictions, 
> but I do understand and appreciate the intent of their approach.

They’ve slapped a copyright-based license file on the collective work with an 
INTENT file clarifying that it only applies to code that has copyright 
attached.  I read what they wrote very carefully.  We’re saying exactly the 
same thing.

It’s an interesting approach that is not new, just untested and a point of 
dispute in the past as to what might happen.

Sean

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD

2017-03-08 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
I can pass it through ARL's lawyers, as well as pass it to the code.gov 
people.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Stephen Kellat
> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 10:41 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the 
> OSD
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>
> On Mar 7, 2017, at 10:08 PM, Tzeng, Nigel H.  wrote:
> >
> > You know the more I think about this, the disclaimer of patent rights in 
> > CC0 is probably best for GOSS because it avoids the attempt for
> a one size fit all patent grant language among different agencies with 
> different policies and the complexity under which patent rights are
> awarded to whom under the Bayh-Dole Act and Executive Order 10096.
> >
> > Employees of federal agencies, especially research oriented ones, have 
> > some financial interest and rights under 10096.
> >
> > Likewise non-profits and small businesses under Bayh-Dole.
> >
> > IMHO patent grant language in FOSS licenses provide a false sense of 
> > security.
> >
> > I would rather the government open source as much as possible regardless 
> > of patent rights as long as any known patents are disclosed.
> As seen in Ximpleware v Versata the patents typically only cover a small 
> portion of the overall system (VTD-XML). While it is relevant from
> the perspective of being able to use the system as built it is less relevant 
> from a code reuse perspective.
> >
> > For large government systems significant software components could often 
> > be reused without the specific portions covered under
> patent.
> >
> > So just having a copyright license to the entire project would provide 
> > significant value to the community. There is code I wrote 30 years
> ago I'd love to get access to again even if I couldn't use the rest of the 
> system.
> >
> >
> > ___
> > License-discuss mailing list
> > License-discuss@opensource.org
> > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>
> After a less than fabulous day at work for IRS dealing with my tiny corner 
> of tax law as well as my accounts work, I am tempted after
> reading this.  Perhaps this could be used as well as the rest of this thread 
> as pre-decisional input to open a tight Inquiry in the Federal
> Register.  That's the first step we can take to move into building a formal 
> record for a body of law.  Alternatively getting something
> chartered under the Federal Advisory Committees Act might help move this 
> forward.
>
> I think the debate has dragged on a bit for more than a few months.  Moving 
> to where desirable federal policy/policies are adopted is
> probably doable.  Could we narrow this down to 3 or fewer courses of action 
> that might be explored by ARL counsel in an inquiry notice?
> Even if list participants are the only people that respond to a notice in 
> the Federal Register we're still building a useful record for later use
> such as Federal Acquisition Rules changes, for example.
>
> Depending upon what shows up in the President's budget set to drop Monday, I 
> either will have a lot of time on my hands coming up or
> an ICTAP certificate plus lots of time on my hands.  I want to see Federal 
> OSS policy evolve.  We have laid the groundwork here but need
> to get it in the official record soon.
>
> Stephen Michael Kellat
> GS-0962-07/1
> These views are solely my own and not those of the US Government.  Rank, 
> position, grade, and bureau are cited for identification
> purposes only.
>
>
>
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> 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

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] code.mil update

2017-03-08 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
You might want to re-read what they posted; the license applies only to those 
portions of the code that have copyright attached, otherwise it's public 
domain.  The trick is that while US Government (USG) works are ineligible for 
copyright within the US, they may be eligible for copyright outside the US, 
and in those areas the USG works are licensed under the OSI-approved license. 
I'm not sure what it would mean for code that was moved across jurisdictions, 
but I do understand and appreciate the intent of their approach.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison
> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 9:13 PM
> To: License Discussion Mailing List 
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] [License-discuss] code.mil update
>
> 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.
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
> On a rather unrelated note (apologies for the deluge of e-mails today!), the 
> folks behind code.mil have responded to public feedback and
> are proposing significant changes to their approach.
>
> Instead of wrapping an OSI license as before, they now propose to directly 
> utilize an existing copyright-based open source license.  That is,
> they may actually attempt to test the theory postulated by Richard Fontana 
> et al., namely that horrible things might not actually happen
> if the USG slaps a copyright-based license on their works.  Instead of 
> wrapping the license, they use it straight up with an INTENT.md file
> to explain that what's public domain obviously remains as such, and what's 
> not falls under the license.  Details here:
>
>
> Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil#welcome-to-codemil---an-experiment-in-open-source-at-the-department-of-defense
> < 
> Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil#welcome-to-codemil---an-experiment-in-open-source-at-the-department-of-
> defense >



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

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD

2017-03-08 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
I see your point.  OK, so I'm going throw out a strawman here, just to see what 
happens.  Assume for the sake of argument that OSI decides to add a patent 
grant/license/whatever as part of the requirements of the OSD.  Will OSI then 
re-evaluate all currently approved licenses using the new criteria (potentially 
rejecting some that were previously accepted), or will it 'grandfather in' the 
currently approved licenses, and reject any new ones that don't have some kind 
of patent clause?  I can see arguments both for and against either approach.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 7:14 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD
> 
> 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 dislike this approach. If CC0 passes OSD then it should get approved as is. 
> If a patent grant is now a requirement to pass the OSD it
> should be added as a criteria and a license passes or fails based on the 
> license text itself.
> 
> Not CC0 and some patent agreement that has not been written.
> 
> If Creative Commons feels strongly that CC0 should only be used with some 
> sort of patent grant the easiest course is simply to remove the
> disclaimer of patent grant and call it CC0-software or something. Then it 
> would have the same implicit grant as BSD and there is no issue
> with approval and no new composite license structure that will just confuse 
> people even more.
> From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)  Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil > >
> Date: Tuesday, Mar 07, 2017, 4:56 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org  Caution-mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org > >
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD
> 
> That is true, but OSI can make it clear that when software is licensed, then 
> the licensor is expected to license any necessary patents that
> the licensor owns along with licensing the copyright.  If there are patents 
> that the licensor is unaware of, then the licensor can't do
> anything about that either.
> 
> And like you, I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
> 
> 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
> > Ben Tilly
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 4:45 PM
> > To: License Discuss 
> > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] patent rights and the
> > OSD
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> > My legal rights to software on the computer in front of me may be
> > restricted by many things.  A short and incomplete list includes
> > copyright law, patents, contracts, who owns the computer and my employment 
> > status.  Any and all of these can impact whether I
> actually enjoy the freedoms that the OSD describes.  I may be unaware of or 
> misinformed about any or all these potential encumbrances.
> >
> > When we talk about whether a software license is OSD compliant, we are
> > only addressing the question of whether this license restricts
> > software under copyright law in a way that violates the OSD.  In principle 
> > it is generally impossible to decide whether I *actually* have
> the rights described by the OSD to the software in front of me.
> >
> > (I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.)
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Christopher Sean Morrison  > Caution-Caution-mailto:brl...@mac.com > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >In light of the recent CC0 discussion, I’m refreshing my mind
> > on what rights are provided under patent law, each of the OSD criteria, and 
> > any connections between them.
> >
> >From my reading, a patent gives the holder the right to exclude
> > others from (a) making, (b) using, (c) selling, or (d)
> > importing/exporting their invention.  The OSD clauses refer to “the 
> > distribution terms” in rather license- and copyright-agnostic terms,
> so here’s my basic layman analysis:
> >
> >1) Exclusion (a) seems not problematic for the OSD as it precludes 
> > others outside of licensing.
> >2) Certainly a problem in the broad sense, but exclusion

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] patent rights and the OSD

2017-03-08 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
Just to be clear, if you're talking about the US Army Research Laboratory 
(ARL) policy 
(https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions),
 
that policy only applies to personnel at the US Army Research Laboratory. 
Other agencies are free to adopt and adapt that policy; I'm encouraging anyone 
I run in to do so, but other agencies in theory could adopt very different 
policies.  Caveat emptor (or whatever the equivalent is in this case).

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen
> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 4:57 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen 
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] patent rights and the OSD
>
> 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.
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
> Richard Fontana suggested:
>
> > So in other words, "this license is Open Source to the extent that, when 
> > used, it is accompanied by [a separate appropriate patent
> license grant]", for example?
>
>
>
> Richard, that sounds like a great compromise that the government agencies 
> might be able to live with. :-)  If I understand correctly, there
> is already an existing government policy that patent rights are granted to 
> all users of the software, albeit separately by policy rather than
> by license.
>
>
>
> And if I understand correctly, that is already the implied promise in 
> Europe?
>
>
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss 
> [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Richard 
> Fontana
> Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 1:09 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] patent rights and the OSD
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 03:55:37PM +, Christopher Sean Morrison wrote:
>
>
>
> > Of particular significance, it calls into question whether there are
>
> > any OSI-approved licenses that specifically exclude patent rights in
>
> > the current portfolio or whether CC0 would be the first of its kind.
>
> > If there ARE, then CC0 would not create a precedent situation any
>
> > worse than currently exists and approval could move forward.
>
>
>
> I'm not aware of any.
>
>
>
> There is the 'Clear BSD' license, which the FSF considers not only a free 
> software license but also GPL-compatible:
>
>
>
> Caution-https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:ClearBSD < 
> Caution-https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:ClearBSD >
>
> Caution-https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#clearbsd < 
> Caution-https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#clearbsd
> >
>
>
>
> But I am not aware of this license ever having been submitted for OSI 
> approval.
>
>
>
> I've also seen one or two companies engage in the practice of licensing code 
> under GPLv2 accompanied by a statement that no patent
> licenses are granted.
>
>
>
> > If there AREN'T, that begs under non-proliferation for any new licenses 
> > that explicitly disclaim patent rights to be found OSD-
> inadequate, particularly w.r.t. clauses #1 and #7.  Moreover, any license 
> approval for a new license containing a patent disclaimer (e.g.,
> CC0) would necessarily require modification or accompaniment by a required 
> patent grant mechanism (such as ARL's approach) in order
> to satisfy the OSD.
>
>
>
> So in other words, "this license is Open Source to the extent that, when 
> used, it is accompanied by [a separate appropriate patent license
> grant]", for example?
>
>
>
> Richard
>
> ___
>
> 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