date:20170317

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

2017-03-17 Thread Lawrence Rosen

Richard Fontana wrote:

> ... 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. :)

 

Richard, what horrible disaster will come if OSI approves CC0 as an open source 
license? 

 

Public domain in the United States doesn't need a copyright license, but give 
it one anyway. No horrible disaster either way.

 

/Larry

 

 

-Original Message-
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf 
Of Richard Fontana
Sent: Friday, 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 
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 +, 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 Labor

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

2017-03-17 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)

I'd love to, but ARL's lawyers disagree with code.mil's interpretation, and 
neither the upper levels of the DoD nor the White House have given us an all 
clear to use copyright-based licenses on code that is in the public domain.  
(code.mil is not in ARL's chain of command, so we can't just salute and obey.  
And until someone we CAN salute and obey gives us the OK, we have to follow the 
more conservative approach).

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Richard Fontana
> Sent: Friday, 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 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 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
> > > [Caution-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 +, 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-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)"
> > > > >  > > > > 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-Caution-mailto:license-discuss-bounces@opensour
> > > > > ce.org <
> > > > > Caution-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-Caution-mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org >
> > > > >   > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible
> > > >

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

2017-03-17 Thread Richard Fontana

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 +, 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)"
> > > >  > > > 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)"  > > > 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).

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

2017-03-17 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)

You're probably right.  I don't **think** that there are any other journals 
that will turn down code if it doesn't come with an OSI-approved license; can 
anyone think of one?

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.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 0.4.1
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other than JOSS I still don’t see how it makes a big difference for the 
> Government.  And the ability to publish in JOSS seems like a rather
> secondary consideration…and I say that as a software developer in an academic 
> environment…
> 
> On 3/17/17, 8:32 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY 
> RDECOM ARL (US)"  boun...@opensource.org on behalf of cem.f.karan@mail.mil> 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)" 
>  > 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)"  > 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 ho

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

2017-03-17 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)

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 +, 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)"
> > >  > > 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)"  > > 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-Cautio

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

2017-03-17 Thread Tzeng, Nigel H.

Other than JOSS I still don’t see how it makes a big difference for the 
Government.  And the ability to publish in JOSS seems like a rather secondary 
consideration…and I say that as a software developer in an academic environment…

On 3/17/17, 8:32 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of 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 [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)" 
 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)" 
 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

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

2017-03-17 Thread Richard Fontana

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 +, 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 [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)" 
> >  > 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)" 
> >  > 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 
> > add

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

2017-03-17 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)

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)" 
>  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)" 
>  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 >  < Cautio

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information