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

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of John Cowan
> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 10:05 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
>
> 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:
>
>
>   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 unrelated in the
> two definitions.)  Note also that debian-legal does not control what 
> actually gets into Debian; that decision is in the hands of the trusted
> committers.
>
> --
> John Cowan  Caution-http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan < 
> Caution-http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan > co...@ccil.org < Caution-
> mailto:co...@ccil.org >

I understand, and appreciate the concern.  I'm not worried about Debian 
including ARL code; I'm concerned about Debian being precluded from including 
code because of actions on ARL's part.  Basically, I want to make sure they 
have the option of using ARL code; we have to earn the privilege to be 
included in there. :)

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: Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

[John Cowan]

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 unrelated in the two
definitions.)  Note also that debian-legal does not control what actually
gets into Debian; that decision is in the hands of the trusted committers.

-- 
John Cowan  http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
There is a Darwinian explanation for the refusal to accept Darwin.
Given the very pessimistic conclusions about moral purpose to which his
theory drives us, and given the importance of a sense of moral purpose
in helping us cope with life, a refusal to believe Darwin's theory may
have important survival value. --Ian Johnston
___
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: Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

OK, thank you, I'll contact them and see what they think.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Marc Jones
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 4:31 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative was: 
> Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL
> OSL) Version 0.4.1
> 
> All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the 
> identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links
> contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a 
> Web browser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also can't speak for Debian. But it is my understanding that Debian does 
> not rely on OSI for determining if a license is free. They use their
> own Debian Free Software Guidelines. (Although they are very similar.) 
> Someone at Debian maintains a FAQ on the DFSG [1]
> 
> Debian also has a Licensing page that is not exactly on point but suggests 
> that you might want to contact the Debian Legal Mailing list. [2]
> 
> Warm regards,
> 
> -Marc
> 
> [1] Caution-https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq < 
> Caution-https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq > [2] Caution-
> https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ < 
> Caution-https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ >
> 
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 3:32 PM Tom Callaway <tcall...@redhat.com < 
> Caution-mailto:tcall...@redhat.com > > wrote:
> 
> 
>   Can't speak for Debian, but Fedora will happily take software licensed 
> as you describe.
> 
>   On Mar 16, 2017 3:09 PM, "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" 
> <cem.f.karan@mail.mil < Caution-
> mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil > > wrote:
> 
> 
>   I agree that the Government can release it as open source, but 
> as I understand it, not as Open Source.  The difference is
> whether or not the code will be accepted into various journals (Journal of 
> Open Source Software is one).  It also affects whether or not
> various distributions will accept the work (would Debian?  I honestly don't 
> know).
> 
>   And I'm not after plain vanilla CC0 code to be called Open 
> Source, I'm after the method I outlined earlier.  This side-steps
> the need to have CC0 put forth by the license steward (I hope!).  I know that 
> is splitting hairs, but at this point I'm tearing my hair out over
> this, and would like to put it to rest before I have to buy a wig.
> 
>   Thanks,
>   Cem Karan
> 
>   > -Original Message-
>   > From: License-discuss 
> [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org < 
> Caution-mailto:license-discuss-
> boun...@opensource.org > ] On Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
>   > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 2:48 PM
>       > To: license-discuss@opensource.org < 
> Caution-mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org >
>   > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible 
> alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open
> Source License (ARL
>   > OSL) Version 0.4.1
>   >
>   > All active links contained in this email were disabled.  
> Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the
> authenticity of all links
>   > contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the 
> address to a Web browser.
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > 
>   >
>   > Cem,
>   >
>   > The USG does not need OSI’s approval to release code as open 
> source under CC0.  It has done so already on code.gov <
> Caution-http://code.gov > .  This includes the
>   > OPM, NASA, GSA, DOT, DOL, DOC and others. CC0 is compliant 
> with the Federal Source Code Policy for open source
> release.
>   >
>   > It is unlikely that you can push CC0 through license review 
> as you aren’t the license steward.  It is up to CC to resubmit
> CC0 for approval.
>   >
>   > Regards,
>   >
>   > Nigel
>   >
>   > On 3/16/17, 8:56 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Karan, Cem 
> F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)"> boun...@opensource.org < 
> Caution-mailto:boun...@opensource.org >  on behalf of 
> cem.f

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

[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> 
> > mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Richard 

> > Fontana

> > Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 11:18 AM

> > To:  <mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org> 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:  <mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org> 
> > > > 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%20%3c%20Caution-%20Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil%20>
> > > >  cem.f.karan@mail.mil < Caution- 
> > > > Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan....@mail.mil > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >   Cool!  

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

[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.
> > > > >
> > > >

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

[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)"
> > > > <cem.f.karan@mail.mil < Caution- 
> > > > Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >         Cool!  Would Fedora/Red Hat consider it to be Open Source?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >     Cem Karan
> > > >
> > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > From: License-discuss
> > > > [Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org <
> > > > Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss-
> > > > boun...@opensource.org > ] On Behalf Of Tom Callaway
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 3:31 PM
> > > > > To: license-discuss@opensource.org < 
> > > > Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org >
> > > > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible
> > > > alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License 
> > > > (ARL
> > > > > OSL) Version 0.4.1
> > > > >
> > > > > All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please
> > > > verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all 
> > > > links
> > > > > contained within the message prior to co

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

[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)" 
> <cem.f.karan@mail.mil < Caution-
> > Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil > > wrote:
> >
> >
> > Cool!  Would Fedora/Red Hat consider it to be Open Source?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Cem Karan
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: License-discuss 
> [Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org < 
> Caution-Caution-mailto:license-
> discuss-
>     > boun...@opensource.org > ] On Behalf Of Tom Callaway
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 3:31 PM
> > > To: license-discuss@opensource.org < 
> Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org >
> > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible 
> alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source
> > License (ARL
> > > OSL) Version 0.4.1
> > >
> > > All active links contained in this email were disabled. 
> Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all
> > links
> > > contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the 
> address to a Web browser.
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Can't speak for Debian, but Fedora will happily take software 
> licensed as you describe.
> > >
> > > On Mar 16, 2017 3:09 PM, "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL 
> (US)" <cem.f.karan@mail.mil < Caution-
> > Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil >  < Caution-
> > > Caution-Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil < 
> Caution-Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil >  > > wrote:
> > 

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

[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)"
> > > <cem.f.karan@mail.mil < Caution- 
> > > Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >   Cool!  Would Fedora/Red Hat consider it to be Open Source?
> > >
> > >   Thanks,
> > >   Cem Karan
> > >
> > >   > -Original Message-----
> > >   > From: License-discuss
> > > [Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org <
> > > Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss-
> > > boun...@opensource.org > ] On Behalf Of Tom Callaway
> > >   > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 3:31 PM
> > >   > To: license-discuss@opensource.org < 
> > > Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org >
> > >   > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible
> > > alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License 
> > > (ARL
> > >   > OSL) Version 0.4.1
> > >   >
> > >   > All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please
> > > verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all 
> > > links
> > >   > contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address 
> > > to a Web browser.
> > >   >
> > >   >
> > >   > 
> > >   >
> > >   >
> > >   >
> > >   > Can't speak for Debian, but Fedora will happily take software 
> > > licensed as you describe.
> > >   >
> > >   > On Mar 16, 2017 3:09 PM, "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL
> > > (US)" <cem.f.karan@mail.mil < Caution- 
> > > Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil >  < Caution-
> > >   > Caution-Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil < 
> > > Caution-Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil >  > > wrote:
> > >   >
> > >   >
> > >   >   I agree that the Government can release it as open source, but 
> > > as I unde

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

[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)" <license-discuss-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 [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-
> 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)" 
<cem.f.karan@mail.mil < Caution-
> 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, Mar

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

[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)" 
> > <cem.f.karan@mail.mil < 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-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)" 
> > <cem.f.karan@mail.mil < Caution-
> > 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- >
> > > bou

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

[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)" 
> <cem.f.karan@mail.mil < 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-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)" 
> <cem.f.karan@mail.mil < Caution-
> 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
>   >   >

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

[John Cowan]

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
OSI or anyone else.  When someone misuses it, we generally ask them nicely
not to (if we find out about it).  But only "OSI Certified" is or was
protected.

In particular, if for example a license were legally equivalent to the BSD
license, the OSI would probably not certify it, but it would still be an
open source license.

-- 
John Cowan  http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
Dievas dave dantis; Dievas duos duonos--Lithuanian proverb
Deus dedit dentes; deus dabit panem   --Latin version thereof
Deity donated dentition;
  deity'll donate doughnuts   --English version by Muke
Tever
God gave gums; God'll give granary--Version by Mat McVeagh
___
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: Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

[Tom Callaway]

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> wrote:

> Cool!  Would Fedora/Red Hat consider it to be Open Source?
>
> Thanks,
> Cem Karan
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org]
> On Behalf Of Tom Callaway
> > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 3:31 PM
> > To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative
> was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL
> > OSL) Version 0.4.1
> >
> > All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify
> the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links
> > contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to
> a Web browser.
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> > Can't speak for Debian, but Fedora will happily take software licensed
> as you describe.
> >
> > On Mar 16, 2017 3:09 PM, "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" <
> cem.f.karan@mail.mil < Caution-
> > mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >   I agree that the Government can release it as open source, but as
> I understand it, not as Open Source.  The difference is whether
> > or not the code will be accepted into various journals (Journal of Open
> Source Software is one).  It also affects whether or not various
> > distributions will accept the work (would Debian?  I honestly don't
> know).
> >
> >   And I'm not after plain vanilla CC0 code to be called Open Source,
> I'm after the method I outlined earlier.  This side-steps the need
> > to have CC0 put forth by the license steward (I hope!).  I know that is
> splitting hairs, but at this point I'm tearing my hair out over this, and
> > would like to put it to rest before I have to buy a wig.
> >
> >   Thanks,
> >   Cem Karan
> >
> >   > -Original Message-
> >   > From: License-discuss [Caution-mailto:license-
> discuss-boun...@opensource.org < Caution-mailto:license-discuss-
> > boun...@opensource.org > ] On Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> >   > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 2:48 PM
> >   > To: license-discuss@opensource.org < Caution-mailto:license-
> disc...@opensource.org >
> >   > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible
> alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source
> > License (ARL
> >   > OSL) Version 0.4.1
> >   >
> >   > All active links contained in this email were disabled.  Please
> verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all
> > links
> >   > contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the
> address to a Web browser.
> >   >
> >   >
> >   >
> >   >
> >   > 
> >   >
> >   > Cem,
> >   >
> >   > The USG does not need OSI’s approval to release code as open
> source under CC0.  It has done so already on code.gov < Caution-
> > http://code.gov > .  This includes the
> >   > OPM, NASA, GSA, DOT, DOL, DOC and others. CC0 is compliant with
> the Federal Source Code Policy for open source release.
> >   >
> >   > It is unlikely that you can push CC0 through license review as
> you aren’t the license steward.  It is up to CC to resubmit CC0 for
> > approval.
> >   >
> >   > Regards,
> >   >
> >   > Nigel
> >   >
> >   > On 3/16/17, 8:56 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Karan, Cem F
> CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)"  >   > boun...@opensource.org < Caution-mailto:boun...@opensource.org
> >  on behalf of cem.f.karan@mail.mil < Caution-
> > mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil > > wrote:
> >   >
> >   > All, I want to keep this alive as I haven't seen a
> conclusion yet.  Earlier I
> >   > asked if OSI would accept the US Government (USG) putting
> its non-copyrighted
> >   > works out under CC0 as Open Source **provided** that the USG
> accepts and
> >   > redistributes copyrighted contributions under an
> OSI-approved license.  Is
> >   > this acceptable to OSI?  Should I move thi

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

[Marc Jones]

I also can't speak for Debian. But it is my understanding that Debian does
not rely on OSI for determining if a license is free. They use their own
Debian Free Software Guidelines. (Although they are very similar.) Someone
at Debian maintains a FAQ on the DFSG [1]

Debian also has a Licensing page that is not exactly on point but suggests
that you might want to contact the Debian Legal Mailing list. [2]

Warm regards,

-Marc

[1] https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq
[2] https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 3:32 PM Tom Callaway <tcall...@redhat.com> wrote:

> Can't speak for Debian, but Fedora will happily take software licensed as
> you describe.
>
> On Mar 16, 2017 3:09 PM, "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" <
> cem.f.karan@mail.mil> 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 [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org]
> On Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 2:48 PM
> > To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> > 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.  This includes the
> > OPM, NASA, GSA, DOT, DOL, DOC and others. CC0 is compliant with the
> Federal Source Code Policy for open source release.
> >
> > It is unlikely that you can push CC0 through license review as you
> aren’t the license steward.  It is up to CC to resubmit CC0 for approval.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Nigel
> >
> > On 3/16/17, 8:56 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Karan, Cem F CIV
> USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)"  > boun...@opensource.org on behalf of cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote:
> >
> > All, I want to keep this alive as I haven't seen a conclusion yet.
> Earlier I
> > asked if OSI would accept the US Government (USG) putting its
> non-copyrighted
> > works out under CC0 as Open Source **provided** that the USG accepts
> and
> > redistributes copyrighted contributions under an OSI-approved
> license.  Is
> > this acceptable to OSI?  Should I move this discussion to the
> license-review
> > list?
> >
> > To recap:
> >
> > 1) This would only cover USG works that do not have copyright.
> Works that
> > have copyright would be eligible to use copyright-based licenses,
> and to be
> > OSI-approved as Open Source would need to use an OSI-approved
> license.
> >
> > 2) The USG work/project would select an OSI-approved license that it
> accepted
> > contributions under.  The USG would redistribute the contributions
> under that
> > license, but the portions of the work that are not under copyright
> would be
> > redistributed under CC0.  That means that for some projects (ones
> that have no
> > copyrighted material at all initially), the only license that the
> works would
> > have would be CC0.
> >
> > I can't speak to patents or other IP rights that the USG has, I can
> only
> > comment on what the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) has done
> > (Caution-
> https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions
> ),
> > which includes a step to affirmatively waive any patent rights that
> ARL might
> > have in the project before distributing it.  I am hoping that other
> agencies
> > will do something similar, but have no pow

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

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

Cool!  Would Fedora/Red Hat consider it to be Open Source?  

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Tom Callaway
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 3:31 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative was: 
> Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL
> OSL) Version 0.4.1
> 
> All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the 
> identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links
> contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a 
> Web browser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't speak for Debian, but Fedora will happily take software licensed as you 
> describe.
> 
> On Mar 16, 2017 3:09 PM, "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" 
> <cem.f.karan@mail.mil < Caution-
> mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil > > wrote:
> 
> 
>   I agree that the Government can release it as open source, but as I 
> understand it, not as Open Source.  The difference is whether
> or not the code will be accepted into various journals (Journal of Open 
> Source Software is one).  It also affects whether or not various
> distributions will accept the work (would Debian?  I honestly don't know).
> 
>   And I'm not after plain vanilla CC0 code to be called Open Source, I'm 
> after the method I outlined earlier.  This side-steps the need
> to have CC0 put forth by the license steward (I hope!).  I know that is 
> splitting hairs, but at this point I'm tearing my hair out over this, and
> would like to put it to rest before I have to buy a wig.
> 
>   Thanks,
>   Cem Karan
> 
>   > -Original Message-
>   > From: License-discuss 
> [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org < 
> Caution-mailto:license-discuss-
> boun...@opensource.org > ] On Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
>   > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 2:48 PM
>   > To: license-discuss@opensource.org < 
> Caution-mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org >
>   > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible 
> alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source
> License (ARL
>   > OSL) Version 0.4.1
>   >
>   > All active links contained in this email were disabled.  Please 
> verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all
> links
>   > contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address 
> to a Web browser.
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > 
>   >
>   > Cem,
>   >
>   > The USG does not need OSI’s approval to release code as open source 
> under CC0.  It has done so already on code.gov < Caution-
> http://code.gov > .  This includes the
>   > OPM, NASA, GSA, DOT, DOL, DOC and others. CC0 is compliant with the 
> Federal Source Code Policy for open source release.
>   >
>   > It is unlikely that you can push CC0 through license review as you 
> aren’t the license steward.  It is up to CC to resubmit CC0 for
> approval.
>   >
>   > Regards,
>   >
>   > Nigel
>   >
>   > On 3/16/17, 8:56 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Karan, Cem F CIV 
> USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)"> boun...@opensource.org < Caution-mailto:boun...@opensource.org >  on 
> behalf of cem.f.karan@mail.mil < Caution-
> mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil > > wrote:
>   >
>   > All, I want to keep this alive as I haven't seen a conclusion 
> yet.  Earlier I
>   > asked if OSI would accept the US Government (USG) putting its 
> non-copyrighted
>   > works out under CC0 as Open Source **provided** that the USG 
> accepts and
>   > redistributes copyrighted contributions under an OSI-approved 
> license.  Is
>   > this acceptable to OSI?  Should I move this discussion to the 
> license-review
>   > list?
>   >
>   > To recap:
>   >
>   > 1) This would only cover USG works that do not have copyright.  
> Works that
>   > have copyright would be eligible to use copyright-based licenses, 
> and to be
>   > OSI-approved as Open Source would need to use an OSI-approved 
> license.
>   >
>   > 2) The USG work/project would select an OSI-approved license that 
> it accepted
>   > contributions under.  The USG would redis

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

[Tom Callaway]

Can't speak for Debian, but Fedora will happily take software licensed as
you describe.

On Mar 16, 2017 3:09 PM, "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" <
cem.f.karan@mail.mil> 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 [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org]
> On Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 2:48 PM
> > To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> > 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.  This includes the
> > OPM, NASA, GSA, DOT, DOL, DOC and others. CC0 is compliant with the
> Federal Source Code Policy for open source release.
> >
> > It is unlikely that you can push CC0 through license review as you
> aren’t the license steward.  It is up to CC to resubmit CC0 for approval.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Nigel
> >
> > On 3/16/17, 8:56 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Karan, Cem F CIV
> USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)"  > boun...@opensource.org on behalf of cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote:
> >
> > All, I want to keep this alive as I haven't seen a conclusion yet.
> Earlier I
> > asked if OSI would accept the US Government (USG) putting its
> non-copyrighted
> > works out under CC0 as Open Source **provided** that the USG accepts
> and
> > redistributes copyrighted contributions under an OSI-approved
> license.  Is
> > this acceptable to OSI?  Should I move this discussion to the
> license-review
> > list?
> >
> > To recap:
> >
> > 1) This would only cover USG works that do not have copyright.
> Works that
> > have copyright would be eligible to use copyright-based licenses,
> and to be
> > OSI-approved as Open Source would need to use an OSI-approved
> license.
> >
> > 2) The USG work/project would select an OSI-approved license that it
> accepted
> > contributions under.  The USG would redistribute the contributions
> under that
> > license, but the portions of the work that are not under copyright
> would be
> > redistributed under CC0.  That means that for some projects (ones
> that have no
> > copyrighted material at all initially), the only license that the
> works would
> > have would be CC0.
> >
> > I can't speak to patents or other IP rights that the USG has, I can
> only
> > comment on what the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) has done
> > (Caution-https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-
> Source-Guidance-and-Instructions),
> > which includes a step to affirmatively waive any patent rights that
> ARL might
> > have in the project before distributing it.  I am hoping that other
> agencies
> > will do something similar, but have no power or authority to say
> that they
> > will.
> >
> > Given all this, is it time to move this to license-review, or
> otherwise get a
> > vote?  I'd like this solved ASAP.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Cem Karan
> >
> >
> > ___
> > License-discuss mailing list
> > License-discuss@opensource.org
> > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-
> discuss
>
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>
>
___
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: Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

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 [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 2:48 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> 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.  This includes the
> OPM, NASA, GSA, DOT, DOL, DOC and others. CC0 is compliant with the Federal 
> Source Code Policy for open source release.
> 
> It is unlikely that you can push CC0 through license review as you aren’t the 
> license steward.  It is up to CC to resubmit CC0 for approval.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Nigel
> 
> On 3/16/17, 8:56 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY 
> RDECOM ARL (US)"  boun...@opensource.org on behalf of cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote:
> 
> All, I want to keep this alive as I haven't seen a conclusion yet.  
> Earlier I
> asked if OSI would accept the US Government (USG) putting its 
> non-copyrighted
> works out under CC0 as Open Source **provided** that the USG accepts and
> redistributes copyrighted contributions under an OSI-approved license.  Is
> this acceptable to OSI?  Should I move this discussion to the 
> license-review
> list?
> 
> To recap:
> 
> 1) This would only cover USG works that do not have copyright.  Works that
> have copyright would be eligible to use copyright-based licenses, and to 
> be
> OSI-approved as Open Source would need to use an OSI-approved license.
> 
> 2) The USG work/project would select an OSI-approved license that it 
> accepted
> contributions under.  The USG would redistribute the contributions under 
> that
> license, but the portions of the work that are not under copyright would 
> be
> redistributed under CC0.  That means that for some projects (ones that 
> have no
> copyrighted material at all initially), the only license that the works 
> would
> have would be CC0.
> 
> I can't speak to patents or other IP rights that the USG has, I can only
> comment on what the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) has done
> 
> (Caution-https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions),
> which includes a step to affirmatively waive any patent rights that ARL 
> might
> have in the project before distributing it.  I am hoping that other 
> agencies
> will do something similar, but have no power or authority to say that they
> will.
> 
> Given all this, is it time to move this to license-review, or otherwise 
> get a
> vote?  I'd like this solved ASAP.
> 
> Thanks,
> Cem Karan
> 
> 
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> Caution-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] Re: Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

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 CC0 through license review as you aren’t the 
license steward.  It is up to CC to resubmit CC0 for approval.  

Regards,

Nigel

On 3/16/17, 8:56 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY 
RDECOM ARL (US)"  wrote:

All, I want to keep this alive as I haven't seen a conclusion yet.  Earlier 
I 
asked if OSI would accept the US Government (USG) putting its 
non-copyrighted 
works out under CC0 as Open Source **provided** that the USG accepts and 
redistributes copyrighted contributions under an OSI-approved license.  Is 
this acceptable to OSI?  Should I move this discussion to the 
license-review 
list?

To recap:

1) This would only cover USG works that do not have copyright.  Works that 
have copyright would be eligible to use copyright-based licenses, and to be 
OSI-approved as Open Source would need to use an OSI-approved license.

2) The USG work/project would select an OSI-approved license that it 
accepted 
contributions under.  The USG would redistribute the contributions under 
that 
license, but the portions of the work that are not under copyright would be 
redistributed under CC0.  That means that for some projects (ones that have 
no 
copyrighted material at all initially), the only license that the works 
would 
have would be CC0.

I can't speak to patents or other IP rights that the USG has, I can only 
comment on what the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) has done 

(https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions),
 
which includes a step to affirmatively waive any patent rights that ARL 
might 
have in the project before distributing it.  I am hoping that other 
agencies 
will do something similar, but have no power or authority to say that they 
will.

Given all this, is it time to move this to license-review, or otherwise get 
a 
vote?  I'd like this solved ASAP.

Thanks,
Cem Karan


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

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

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

All, I want to keep this alive as I haven't seen a conclusion yet.  Earlier I 
asked if OSI would accept the US Government (USG) putting its non-copyrighted 
works out under CC0 as Open Source **provided** that the USG accepts and 
redistributes copyrighted contributions under an OSI-approved license.  Is 
this acceptable to OSI?  Should I move this discussion to the license-review 
list?

To recap:

1) This would only cover USG works that do not have copyright.  Works that 
have copyright would be eligible to use copyright-based licenses, and to be 
OSI-approved as Open Source would need to use an OSI-approved license.

2) The USG work/project would select an OSI-approved license that it accepted 
contributions under.  The USG would redistribute the contributions under that 
license, but the portions of the work that are not under copyright would be 
redistributed under CC0.  That means that for some projects (ones that have no 
copyrighted material at all initially), the only license that the works would 
have would be CC0.

I can't speak to patents or other IP rights that the USG has, I can only 
comment on what the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) has done 
(https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions),
 
which includes a step to affirmatively waive any patent rights that ARL might 
have in the project before distributing it.  I am hoping that other agencies 
will do something similar, but have no power or authority to say that they 
will.

Given all this, is it time to move this to license-review, or otherwise get a 
vote?  I'd like this solved ASAP.

Thanks,
Cem Karan


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: Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

ARL's policy is to waive its own potential patent rights before releasing the 
software.  If there are extra rights that we can't license/release for this 
purpose, then our legal team will refuse to allow the software's release, so 
anything ARL releases under our policy should be clean from an IP standpoint.

That said, I see the point of a patent pledge of some kind; I'll ask our legal 
team if we can put something in, but then we'll have a situation of (OSI 
approved license) + CC0 + (patent pledge), which feels fairly cumbersome.  I'd 
prefer that we have something more streamlined in place that satisfy Government 
needs and OSI needs.  The best approach I know of **right now** is simply (OSI 
approved license) + CC0.

I'll bring this point up on the Federal Open Source Policy Group's list though, 
so they have a better idea of what the issues are.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Wright [mailto:jim.wri...@oracle.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 7:19 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Cc: Larry Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com>; 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
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We do agree for the most part, but not entirely here.  I was more looking 
> back to Cem’s original question about whether CC0 would
> ensure their projects are Open Source today, which it would not, in the 
> absence of action on CC0 that would not be unanimously
> supported to say the least.  My take is that they could better attend to this 
> problem right now by choosing any existing OSI license,
> preferably one with a clear patent license, and if Cem is looking to ensure 
> that their projects are Open Source in the immediate term, this
> is a path that requires nothing of the rest of us and little to nothing of 
> them either IMHO.
> 
> Of course my view is obviously colored by my take that CC0 is *not* a good 
> model for open source and that it would have been a bad
> thing for it to have been approved - a license that specifically reserves 
> rights of the author to pursue infringement claims against users is
> not a license we want to encourage the use of, by the government or anyone 
> else...
> 
>  Best,
>   Jim
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   On Mar 1, 2017, at 3:34 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com < 
> Caution-mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com > > wrote:
> 
> 
>   Jim Wright wrote:
> 
>   > Something is certainly better than nothing, I agree, but ...
> 
> 
>   Jim, I'm on your side on this. :-)  I'm hoping that a U.S. government 
> open source policy, someday published in the Federal Register
> and bearing the force of law, will also include an express patent pledge that 
> we can all rely on. Copyright isn't enough. Maybe even UPL?
> 
>   Such a pledge could become a model for other large patent-holding 
> institutions, such as universities, to give open source users
> reassurance that they are not patent infringers.
> 
>   That's a bigger topic than for here. It is largely up to that public 
> Federal Register process that eventually may ensue. It has nothing
> to do with OSI's approval of CC0. This WE can do now on our own on behalf of 
> government open source.
> 
>   /Larry
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   From: Jim Wright [Caution-mailto:jim.wri...@oracle.com < 
> Caution-mailto:jim.wri...@oracle.com > ]
>   Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 2:59 PM
>   To: lro...@rosenlaw.com < Caution-mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com > ; 
> license-discuss@opensource.org < Caution-mailto:license-
> disc...@opensource.org >
>   Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army 
> Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version
> 0.4.1
> 
> 
> 
>   Something is certainly better than nothing, I agree, but I think many 
> of us would rather have an express and broad license from all
> participants in a project, including the government, than to have to rely on 
> less than well understood public domain dedications and
> waivers of patent rights that do not apply to all participants.  Something 
> closer to symmetry and broad coverage should be achievable
> here IMHO - the perfect may sometimes be the enemy of the good, but in this 
> case, we can, I think, do better than CC0. 

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

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] 
> On Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 5:01 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
> 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
> 
> Jim Wright wrote:
> 
> > it seems odd to me to require a dedication to the public domain in 
> > any event - stuff is either in the public domain by law or isn’t, 
> > and to
> whatever extent it isn’t, we should have a copyright license, full 
> stop.  Similarly as to patents, I don’t want to have to look at some 
> ostensible policy on waiving patent rights, we should all have a clearly 
> scoped patent license for the project, government and private contributors 
> alike, and there is an easy vehicle to achieve this, use an OSI approved 
> license.
> 
> 
> 
> Jim, regardless of which OSI-approved license(s) the U.S. government chooses 
> for its distributed software, neither the "public domain"
> question nor the "patent license" question will EVER be fully answered 
> for any particular software simply by reading those licenses. You have to 
> look at the software itself. Of course, we could all sue each other and let 
> the courts decide
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be grateful for a published government policy – perhaps posted in 
> the Federal Register someday – that reassures us of a commitment by 
> government agencies to open source using any OSI-approved license.
> 
> 
> 
> Including CC0.

What would you want to see in such a policy that is different from what is on 
code.gov, or different from ARL's published policy?  I can bring this up at the 
Federal Source Code Policy meetings.  Note that if the Government takes that 
route, it will likely have to take the full Federal Register route, including 
comments, etc.  That means that any suggestions you make right now are only for 
me to gather preliminary information; nothing more.

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: Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

THANK YOU!

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 1:51 PM
> To: License Discussion Mailing List <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
> 
> 
>   A proposed solution, however, is that the U.S. government will 
> distribute software under CC0. I don't care if that is sensible. I
> don't care if that is odd. I do care that CC0 be an OSI-approved license, 
> regardless of its flaws.
> 
>   That will reaffirm the authority in our community of the OSI-approved 
> open source license list, regardless of the elegance of that
> solution for DOSA.
> 
> 
> I don’t think you’ll find any disagreement, even amongst USG developers and 
> lawyers.  OSI is the established authority and many programs
> (e.g., Google Summer of Code) require that projects utilize an OSI-approved 
> license.
> 
> If I recall correctly, there were no objections to CC0 when it was submitted 
> for OSI approval.  It was withdrawn by the steward after
> prolonged patent clause commentary.  considering what the implications of 
> explicitly denying patent rights may have on the liberal
> licenses.  That commentary was not grounds for disapproval and not a fault of 
> CC0, it was primarily a social and license impact discussion,
> but it was withdrawn regardless.  So …
> 
> The only question I have is whether the license steward is the only one 
> eligible to formally submit CC0 for reconsideration?  If not, I will
> formally submit it myself as there is ample evidence of prolific use, niche 
> utility that differentiates it from other licenses, and no known
> clauses that conflict with the OSD.
> 
> That way, we can all get past the distracting “it’s not OSI-approved” rote.
> 
> Cheers!
> Sean



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: Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

I understand; ARL's policy is LONG, and skimming is just about the only way to 
not have your brain fry. :)  That said, does it address your concerns about the 
patent issues?

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.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 0.4.1
> 
> 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,
> 
> Thanks. I missed that when skimming before. :). I think your materials are 
> ahead of what I've seen in the DOSA repo.
> 
> One of the concerns I have (not speaking for my organization) are the same 
> ones that prompted the patent changes to Apache for ECL
> V2.0.
> 
> Copyright is easy, I and my team wrote our code. Patent are harder because we 
> as developers or even program managers are not always
> aware of all patents owned or in progress by the far flung parts of a large 
> research organization. As I've stated before, I don't mind giving
> away my work. I don't want to accidentally give away someone else's work 
> (patent).
> 
> ECL is my natural conservative inclination over Apache. Most of what you see 
> under my name approved for open sourcerelease is actually
> under NOSA.
> 
> Nigel
> 
> From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan@mail.mil < 
> Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil > >
> Date: Wednesday, Mar 01, 2017, 12:40 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org <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
> 
> That is actually a part of ARL's policy.  If you haven't looked at the policy 
> yet, go toCaution-https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-
> Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions < 
> Caution-https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions
>  >
> and take a look.
> 
> Thanks,
> Cem Karan
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: License-discuss 
> > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org < 
> > Caution-mailto:license-discuss-
> boun...@opensource.org > ] On Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> > Sent: 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) 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.
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> > OSI approval is not explicitly required under DOSA. It just says open 
> > source license.
> >
> > If DOSA explicitly defines the licensing authority I would prefer it be 
> > stated as any DOD approved open source license.
> >
> > That would insure that any projects we develop for sponsors and
> > released as open source will be under a license that has been reviewed and 
> > accepted by DOD legal from both from a security as well as
> compliance standpoint.
> > From: Jim Wright <jwri...@commsoft.com <
> > Caution-Caution-mailto:jwri...@commsoft.com > >
> > Date: Wednesday, Mar 01, 2017, 11:53 AM
> > To: license-discuss@opensource.org <license-discuss@opensource.org <
> > Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org > >
> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army
> > Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
> >
> > Certainly the approach code.mil spells out to contributions seems ok
> > without having to address the license issue at all, but these
> > questions seem orthogonal to me.  Cem seems to be trying to ensure
> > that all open source projects operating using this process are under
> > an OSI approved license, which appears to require them to pick one (or
> > seve

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

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

Cem,

Thanks. I missed that when skimming before. :). I think your materials are 
ahead of what I've seen in the DOSA repo.

One of the concerns I have (not speaking for my organization) are the same ones 
that prompted the patent changes to Apache for ECL V2.0.

Copyright is easy, I and my team wrote our code. Patent are harder because we 
as developers or even program managers are not always aware of all patents 
owned or in progress by the far flung parts of a large research organization. 
As I've stated before, I don't mind giving away my work. I don't want to 
accidentally give away someone else's work (patent).

ECL is my natural conservative inclination over Apache. Most of what you see 
under my name approved for open sourcerelease is actually under NOSA.

Nigel

From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
<cem.f.karan@mail.mil<mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil>>
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 (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

That is actually a part of ARL's policy.  If you haven't looked at the policy 
yet, go to 
https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions 
and take a look.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-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) 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.
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> OSI approval is not explicitly required under DOSA. It just says open source 
> license.
>
> If DOSA explicitly defines the licensing authority I would prefer it be 
> stated as any DOD approved open source license.
>
> That would insure that any projects we develop for sponsors and released as 
> open source will be under a license that has been reviewed
> and accepted by DOD legal from both from a security as well as compliance 
> standpoint.
> From: Jim Wright <jwri...@commsoft.com < Caution-mailto:jwri...@commsoft.com 
> > >
> Date: Wednesday, Mar 01, 2017, 11:53 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org <license-discuss@opensource.org < 
> Caution-mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org > >
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army 
> Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
>
> Certainly the approach code.mil spells out to contributions seems ok without 
> having to address the license issue at all, but these questions
> seem orthogonal to me.  Cem seems to be trying to ensure that all open source 
> projects operating using this process are under an OSI
> approved license, which appears to require them to pick one (or several) FOSS 
> licenses to actually apply.  CC0 doesn’t work for that
> purpose because it’s not OSI approved anyway and also doesn’t have a patent 
> license, but observing this doesn’t solve Cem’s problem of
> how to license this stuff in a way that *is* OSI approved, which I think is 
> what he’s getting at.  (Feel free to correct me…)
>
>
> > On Mar 1, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Richard Fontana <font...@sharpeleven.org> wrote:
> >
> > Well the complication is mainly a response to Cem wanting the OSI to
> > bless his proposed approach. I think however that code.mil has already
> > rejected this sort of idea.
> >
> > I think the code.mil approach is much more elegant without introducing
> > the use of CC0.
> >
> >
>
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss 
> < Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-
> bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss >

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

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

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

Part of the internal process is that there is a scrub by legal to ensure that 
the ARL has the necessary rights to do the release.  If we can't procure the 
rights, then it isn't released.  My expectation is that other agencies would do 
something similar.  Note that I can't speak for other agencies, I'm only 
stating my personal opinion on this.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 12:37 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.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 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For government owned patents and software that would be fine but research 
> organizations often bring existing IP to the table funded
> through internal research and development funding. Some of which has limited 
> government use rights rather than full rights.
> 
> A blanket waiver of patent right by ARL may work for ARL because of the way 
> ARL contracts are negotiated but may not work for all DoD
> stakeholders working under DFARS.
> 
> 
> From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan@mail.mil < 
> Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil > >
> Date: Wednesday, Mar 01, 2017, 12:21 PM
> To: Jim Wright <jwri...@commsoft.com < Caution-mailto:jwri...@commsoft.com > 
> >, license-discuss@opensource.org  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
> 
> You've hit the nail on the head!  I personally want Government works to be 
> Open Source, not open source.  That was the whole point of
> the ARL OSL being put forwards.  There are statutory and regulatory limits on 
> what the Government can and cannot do; the lawyers I've
> talked with say that this is something we can do, which also protects 
> Government interests (IP licensing, not getting sued for
> warranty/liability, etc.).
> 
> Is the concern that the **Government** is not licensing its patent rights?  
> ARL's internal process includes waiving any potential IP rights
> (including patent rights) in the software that is being released, so that 
> should cover anyone downstream.
> 
> Thanks,
> Cem Karan
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jim Wright [Caution-mailto:jwri...@commsoft.com <
> > Caution-mailto:jwri...@commsoft.com > ]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 11:53 AM
> > To: license-discuss@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 (ARL
> > OSL) Version 0.4.1
> >
> > Certainly the approach code.mil spells out to contributions seems ok
> > without having to address the license issue at all, but these
> > questions seem orthogonal to me.  Cem seems to be trying to ensure
> > that all open source projects operating using this process are under
> > an OSI approved license, which appears to require them to pick one (or
> > several) FOSS licenses to actually apply.  CC0 doesn’t work for that
> > purpose because it’s not OSI approved anyway and also doesn’t have a
> > patent license, but observing this doesn’t solve Cem’s problem of how
> > to license this stuff in a way that *is* OSI approved, which I think
> > is what he’s getting at.  (Feel free to correct me…)
> >
> >
> > > On Mar 1, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Richard Fontana <font...@sharpeleven.org> 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Well the complication is mainly a response to Cem wanting the OSI to
> > > bless his proposed approach. I think however that code.mil has
> > > already rejected this sort of idea.
> > >
> > > I think the code.mil approach is much more elegant without
> > > introducing the use of CC0.
> > >
> > >
> 



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: Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

That is actually a part of ARL's policy.  If you haven't looked at the policy 
yet, go to 
https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions 
and take a look.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-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) 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OSI approval is not explicitly required under DOSA. It just says open source 
> license.
> 
> If DOSA explicitly defines the licensing authority I would prefer it be 
> stated as any DOD approved open source license.
> 
> That would insure that any projects we develop for sponsors and released as 
> open source will be under a license that has been reviewed
> and accepted by DOD legal from both from a security as well as compliance 
> standpoint.
> From: Jim Wright <jwri...@commsoft.com < Caution-mailto:jwri...@commsoft.com 
> > >
> Date: Wednesday, Mar 01, 2017, 11:53 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org <license-discuss@opensource.org < 
> Caution-mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org > >
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army 
> Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
> 
> Certainly the approach code.mil spells out to contributions seems ok without 
> having to address the license issue at all, but these questions
> seem orthogonal to me.  Cem seems to be trying to ensure that all open source 
> projects operating using this process are under an OSI
> approved license, which appears to require them to pick one (or several) FOSS 
> licenses to actually apply.  CC0 doesn’t work for that
> purpose because it’s not OSI approved anyway and also doesn’t have a patent 
> license, but observing this doesn’t solve Cem’s problem of
> how to license this stuff in a way that *is* OSI approved, which I think is 
> what he’s getting at.  (Feel free to correct me…)
> 
> 
> > On Mar 1, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Richard Fontana <font...@sharpeleven.org> wrote:
> >
> > Well the complication is mainly a response to Cem wanting the OSI to
> > bless his proposed approach. I think however that code.mil has already
> > rejected this sort of idea.
> >
> > I think the code.mil approach is much more elegant without introducing
> > the use of CC0.
> >
> >
> 
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> 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

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

[Richard Fontana]

I see (I think). So you want to approximately harmonize the treatment
of US government works outside the US with the treatment inside the
US, but not harmonize the treatment of US government works with the
treatment of non-US-government works. 


On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 05:33:57PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL 
(US) wrote:
> No.  The material can always be separated into two piles; stuff that has 
> copyright attached, and stuff that does not have copyright attached.  The 
> stuff that has copyright attached is always released under the chosen 
> OSI-approved license; everything else is released under CC0.  Within the US, 
> that means that material that has no copyright attached is in the public 
> domain.  CC0 makes this the same for jurisdictions outside of the US.
> 
> In general, if a contribution has copyright attached, then the contributor 
> will retain copyright (unless they choose to assign it to the US Government 
> for some reason).  To contribute, the contributor must agree to license the 
> contribution to the USG under that project's chosen OSI-approved license 
> (e.g. 
> Apache 2.0).  From then on, when the USG redistributes **that particular 
> contribution**, it will be under that license (e.g. Apache 2.0).  However, 
> material that does not have copyright will be redistributed under CC0.  This 
> will result in a mosaic of material in each project, where some portions are 
> under CC0, and others are under the OSI-approved license.  You will need to 
> use the version control system to determine which is which.
> 
> Thanks,
> Cem Karan
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On 
> > Behalf 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
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:39:01PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM 
> > ARL 
> > (US) wrote:
> > > I see your points about the Apache license vs. CC0, but the reason CC0
> > > is more palatable is because we're not trying to make any restrictions
> > > based on copyright.  We're trying to meet the spirit of US law, and
> > > our lawyers believe that CC0 has the best chance of doing that.
> > >
> > > As to your second point, that is PRECISELY what I'm proposing.  The
> > > material that has copyright attached will be accepted under the
> > > OSI-approved license that the project controllers wish to use, and all
> > > other material will be distributed under CC0.  This way the US
> > > Government is not claiming copyright where none exists.
> >
> > So your proposal is: US government releases simultaneously under CC0 (for 
> > the US case) and some designated open source license (for the
> > non-US case)?
> >
> > I like the code.mil approach better. (This doesn't have much to do with the 
> > fact that CC0 is not OSI-approved - I would have a similar
> > reaction to, say, use of the Free Public License (aka Zero Clause
> > BSD).)
> >
> > BTW, CC0 does not have a limitation of liability provision as far as I can 
> > tell (not counting the prefatory one that applies only to Creative
> > Commons Corp.).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > The approach I understand code.mil to be taking is that a given
> > > > project will have an open source license and that license will cover
> > > > anything that isn't statutory public domain, including both
> > > > contributions coming in through the DCO and code released by the US
> > > > government that may be public domain in the US but not elsewhere.
> > > >
> > > > See:
> > > > Caution-Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/maste
> > > > r/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md#1-license
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Note that I am not a lawyer, and none of this should be construed
> > > > > as legal advi

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

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

I've forwarded the link to our lawyers, I'll ping them on Friday when I get 
back in the office to see what they say.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Wright [mailto:jim.wri...@oracle.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 11:27 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.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
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, as Richard pointed out earlier, this would also be true as to the 
> ASL, etc., except to the extent that the government choosing to
> effectively “waive" patent rights as Cem has said is not the same thing as a 
> terminable patent license in the ASL - the UPL thus arguably
> putting the government on the most equal footing possible with everyone else 
> given the expressed intent re: license scope… maybe the
> grant of “any and all copyright rights” would make them feel better about the 
> copyright grant by virtue of not suggesting there necessarily
> are any?  Obviously tooting the horn here but it seems odd to me to require a 
> dedication to the public domain in any event - stuff is either
> in the public domain by law or isn’t, and to whatever extent it isn’t, we 
> should have a copyright license, full stop.  Similarly as to patents, I
> don’t want to have to look at some ostensible policy on waiving patent 
> rights, we should all have a clearly scoped patent license for the
> project, government and private contributors alike, and there is an easy 
> vehicle to achieve this, use an OSI approved license.
> 
> 
> > On Mar 1, 2017, at 7:49 AM, Jim Wright <jim.wri...@oracle.com> wrote:
> >
> > Indeed, if there’s no copyright in the US, there may be no need of a 
> > copyright license from the government here, but in any event there
> *is* an OSI approved permissive license that licenses both any applicable 
> copyright rights (without actually requiring that the government
> have any) and patent rights applicable to the project - the UPL.
> >
> > If the government releases code under the UPL, and accepts contributions 
> > under the UPL, they are using an OSI approved license, full
> stop, no need of extra terms or to treat other contributors any differently 
> than the government itself, no need of an express public domain
> dedication which is any different than what is already true by law, everyone 
> is simply licensing whatever copyright rights they possess as
> well as whatever patent rights they possess covering the project as they 
> contributed to or provided it, and it seems to me at first glance
> like nothing else need be done…?
> >
> > Regards,
> >  Jim
> >
> >
> >> On Mar 1, 2017, at 6:49 AM, Richard Fontana <font...@sharpeleven.org> 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 09:37:13AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
> >>> Strictly speaking, the use of
> >>> CC0 assumes that you have copyright ownership.
> >>
> >> I guess that's a bit of an overstatement, but still given the nature
> >> of the angst I've heard from US government people over the years
> >> concerning the use of nominal copyright licenses, I'd find it
> >> surprising if CC0 was treated differently.
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> 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] Re: Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

For government owned patents and software that would be fine but research 
organizations often bring existing IP to the table funded through internal 
research and development funding. Some of which has limited government use 
rights rather than full rights.

A blanket waiver of patent right by ARL may work for ARL because of the way ARL 
contracts are negotiated but may not work for all DoD stakeholders working 
under DFARS.


From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
<cem.f.karan@mail.mil<mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil>>
Date: Wednesday, Mar 01, 2017, 12:21 PM
To: Jim Wright <jwri...@commsoft.com<mailto:jwri...@commsoft.com>>, 
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 (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

You've hit the nail on the head!  I personally want Government works to be Open 
Source, not open source.  That was the whole point of the ARL OSL being put 
forwards.  There are statutory and regulatory limits on what the Government can 
and cannot do; the lawyers I've talked with say that this is something we can 
do, which also protects Government interests (IP licensing, not getting sued 
for warranty/liability, etc.).

Is the concern that the **Government** is not licensing its patent rights?  
ARL's internal process includes waiving any potential IP rights (including 
patent rights) in the software that is being released, so that should cover 
anyone downstream.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Wright [mailto:jwri...@commsoft.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 11:53 AM
> To: license-discuss@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 (ARL
> OSL) Version 0.4.1
>
> Certainly the approach code.mil spells out to contributions seems ok without 
> having to address the license issue at all, but these questions
> seem orthogonal to me.  Cem seems to be trying to ensure that all open source 
> projects operating using this process are under an OSI
> approved license, which appears to require them to pick one (or several) FOSS 
> licenses to actually apply.  CC0 doesn’t work for that
> purpose because it’s not OSI approved anyway and also doesn’t have a patent 
> license, but observing this doesn’t solve Cem’s problem of
> how to license this stuff in a way that *is* OSI approved, which I think is 
> what he’s getting at.  (Feel free to correct me…)
>
>
> > On Mar 1, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Richard Fontana <font...@sharpeleven.org> wrote:
> >
> > Well the complication is mainly a response to Cem wanting the OSI to
> > bless his proposed approach. I think however that code.mil has already
> > rejected this sort of idea.
> >
> > I think the code.mil approach is much more elegant without introducing
> > the use of CC0.
> >
> >

___
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: Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

No.  The material can always be separated into two piles; stuff that has 
copyright attached, and stuff that does not have copyright attached.  The 
stuff that has copyright attached is always released under the chosen 
OSI-approved license; everything else is released under CC0.  Within the US, 
that means that material that has no copyright attached is in the public 
domain.  CC0 makes this the same for jurisdictions outside of the US.

In general, if a contribution has copyright attached, then the contributor 
will retain copyright (unless they choose to assign it to the US Government 
for some reason).  To contribute, the contributor must agree to license the 
contribution to the USG under that project's chosen OSI-approved license (e.g. 
Apache 2.0).  From then on, when the USG redistributes **that particular 
contribution**, it will be under that license (e.g. Apache 2.0).  However, 
material that does not have copyright will be redistributed under CC0.  This 
will result in a mosaic of material in each project, where some portions are 
under CC0, and others are under the OSI-approved license.  You will need to 
use the version control system to determine which is which.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On 
> Behalf 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
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:39:01PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL 
> (US) wrote:
> > I see your points about the Apache license vs. CC0, but the reason CC0
> > is more palatable is because we're not trying to make any restrictions
> > based on copyright.  We're trying to meet the spirit of US law, and
> > our lawyers believe that CC0 has the best chance of doing that.
> >
> > As to your second point, that is PRECISELY what I'm proposing.  The
> > material that has copyright attached will be accepted under the
> > OSI-approved license that the project controllers wish to use, and all
> > other material will be distributed under CC0.  This way the US
> > Government is not claiming copyright where none exists.
>
> So your proposal is: US government releases simultaneously under CC0 (for 
> the US case) and some designated open source license (for the
> non-US case)?
>
> I like the code.mil approach better. (This doesn't have much to do with the 
> fact that CC0 is not OSI-approved - I would have a similar
> reaction to, say, use of the Free Public License (aka Zero Clause
> BSD).)
>
> BTW, CC0 does not have a limitation of liability provision as far as I can 
> tell (not counting the prefatory one that applies only to Creative
> Commons Corp.).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > The approach I understand code.mil to be taking is that a given
> > > project will have an open source license and that license will cover
> > > anything that isn't statutory public domain, including both
> > > contributions coming in through the DCO and code released by the US
> > > government that may be public domain in the US but not elsewhere.
> > >
> > > See:
> > > Caution-Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/maste
> > > r/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md#1-license
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Note that I am not a lawyer, and none of this should be construed
> > > > as legal advice.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Cem Karan
> > > >
> > > > > -Original Message-----
> > > > > From: License-discuss
> > > > > [Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss-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 0.4.1
> > > > >
> > > > > All active links conta

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

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

You've hit the nail on the head!  I personally want Government works to be Open 
Source, not open source.  That was the whole point of the ARL OSL being put 
forwards.  There are statutory and regulatory limits on what the Government can 
and cannot do; the lawyers I've talked with say that this is something we can 
do, which also protects Government interests (IP licensing, not getting sued 
for warranty/liability, etc.).

Is the concern that the **Government** is not licensing its patent rights?  
ARL's internal process includes waiving any potential IP rights (including 
patent rights) in the software that is being released, so that should cover 
anyone downstream.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Wright [mailto:jwri...@commsoft.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 11:53 AM
> To: license-discuss@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 (ARL
> OSL) Version 0.4.1
> 
> Certainly the approach code.mil spells out to contributions seems ok without 
> having to address the license issue at all, but these questions
> seem orthogonal to me.  Cem seems to be trying to ensure that all open source 
> projects operating using this process are under an OSI
> approved license, which appears to require them to pick one (or several) FOSS 
> licenses to actually apply.  CC0 doesn’t work for that
> purpose because it’s not OSI approved anyway and also doesn’t have a patent 
> license, but observing this doesn’t solve Cem’s problem of
> how to license this stuff in a way that *is* OSI approved, which I think is 
> what he’s getting at.  (Feel free to correct me…)
> 
> 
> > On Mar 1, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Richard Fontana <font...@sharpeleven.org> wrote:
> >
> > Well the complication is mainly a response to Cem wanting the OSI to
> > bless his proposed approach. I think however that code.mil has already
> > rejected this sort of idea.
> >
> > I think the code.mil approach is much more elegant without introducing
> > the use of CC0.
> >
> >



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: Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

[Richard Fontana]

On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:39:01PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL 
(US) wrote:
> I see your points about the Apache license vs. CC0, but the reason CC0 is 
> more 
> palatable is because we're not trying to make any restrictions based on 
> copyright.  We're trying to meet the spirit of US law, and our lawyers 
> believe 
> that CC0 has the best chance of doing that.
> 
> As to your second point, that is PRECISELY what I'm proposing.  The material 
> that has copyright attached will be accepted under the OSI-approved license 
> that the project controllers wish to use, and all other material will be 
> distributed under CC0.  This way the US Government is not claiming copyright 
> where none exists.

So your proposal is: US government releases simultaneously under CC0
(for the US case) and some designated open source license (for the
non-US case)? 

I like the code.mil approach better. (This doesn't have much to do
with the fact that CC0 is not OSI-approved - I would have a similar
reaction to, say, use of the Free Public License (aka Zero Clause
BSD).)

BTW, CC0 does not have a limitation of liability provision as far as I
can tell (not counting the prefatory one that applies only to Creative
Commons Corp.).







> > The approach I understand code.mil to be taking is that a given project 
> > will 
> > have an open source license and that license will cover
> > anything that isn't statutory public domain, including both contributions 
> > coming in through the DCO and code released by the US
> > government that may be public domain in the US but not elsewhere.
> >
> > See: 
> > Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md#1-license
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Note that I am not a lawyer, and none of this should be construed as
> > > legal advice.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Cem Karan
> > >
> > > > -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: 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 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 really like the approach as it currently exists. But why is use of
> > > > CC0 necessary? If some work of the US government is in the public
> > > > domain by virtue of the Copyright Act, there is no need to use CC0.
> > > > Indeed, I would think use of CC0 by the Government is just as
> > > > problematic, or non-problematic, as the use of any open source
> > > > license, such as the Apache License 2.0. Strictly speaking, the use
> > > > of
> > > > CC0 assumes that you have copyright ownership.
> > > >
> > > > Only noting this because the fact that OSI has not approved CC0
> > > > makes this more complicated than the case where CC0 is not used at all.
> > > >
> > > > The code.mil folks discussed an earlier version of this approach
> > > > with the OSI. But this is the first I've heard of using CC0.
> > > >
> > > > Richard
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 04:23:12PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY
> > > > RDECOM ARL
> > > > (US) wrote:
> > > > > All, the folks at code.mil came up with what may be a really,
> > > > > really good idea; see
> > > > > Caution-Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md.
> > > > >
> > > > > The basic idea is simple; when the Government releases code, it's
> > > > > in the public domain (likely CC0).  The project owners select an
> > > > > OSI-approved license, and will only accept contributions to the
> > > > > project under their chosen license[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

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

Then there would still need to be a disclaimer of warranty and liability, and 
there would still need be a way of settling the problems of foreign 
jurisdictions.  The Government could write its own terms, but those terms would 
like not be widely recognized.  CC0 is well-known, and acceptable to our 
lawyers.  Public domain release without disclaimers of warranty and liability 
is not acceptable.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Richard Fontana
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 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 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the complication is mainly a response to Cem wanting the OSI to bless 
> his proposed approach. I think however that code.mil has
> already rejected this sort of idea.
> 
> I think the code.mil approach is much more elegant without introducing the 
> use of CC0.
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 03:08:22PM +, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> > Richard,
> >
> > It is very hard for me to take a complaint that CC0 not being OSI approved 
> > as a significant issue vs continued feet dragging when the OSI
> won’t provide guidance on license asymmetry, won’t vote on NOSA v2.0 and had 
> the opportunity to pass CC0 years ago.
> >
> > CC0 is accepted as open source by the FSF and by the GSA (see Federal 
> > Source Code Policy examples).  The fact that the OSI has not
> approved CC0 is a “complication” of its own making.  One easily solved with 
> an email from the OSI to CC requesting that CC resubmit CC0
> and then the OSI board approving it.
> >
> > Nigel
> >
> > On 3/1/17, 9:37 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Richard Fontana" 
> > <license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org on behalf of
> font...@sharpeleven.org> wrote:
> >
> > I really like the approach as it currently exists. But why is use of
> > CC0 necessary? If some work of the US government is in the public
> > domain by virtue of the Copyright Act, there is no need to use
> > CC0. Indeed, I would think use of CC0 by the Government is just as
> > problematic, or non-problematic, as the use of any open source
> > license, such as the Apache License 2.0. Strictly speaking, the use of
> > CC0 assumes that you have copyright ownership.
> >
> > Only noting this because the fact that OSI has not approved CC0 makes
> > this more complicated than the case where CC0 is not used at all.
> >
> > The code.mil folks discussed an earlier version of this approach with
> > the OSI. But this is the first I've heard of using CC0.
> >
> > Richard
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 04:23:12PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY 
> > RDECOM ARL (US) wrote:
> > > All, the folks at code.mil came up with what may be a really, really 
> > good
> > > idea; see
> > > 
> > Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md.
> > >
> > > The basic idea is simple; when the Government releases code, it's in 
> > the
> > > public domain (likely CC0).  The project owners select an OSI-approved
> > > license, and will only accept contributions to the project under 
> > their chosen
> > > license[1].  Over time the code base becomes a mixture, some of which 
> > is under
> > > CC0, and some of which is under the OSI-approved license.  I've 
> > talked with
> > > ARL's lawyers, and they are satisfied with this solution.  Would OSI 
> > be happy
> > > with this solution?  That is, would OSI recognize the projects as 
> > being truly
> > > Open Source, right from the start?  The caveat is that some projects 
> > will be
> > > 100% CC0 at the start, and can only use the chosen Open Source 
> > license on
> > > those contributions that have copyright attached.  Note that 
> > Government
> > > projects that wish to make this claim would have to choose their 
> > license and
> > > announce it on the project site so that everyone knows what they are 
> > l

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

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

I see your points about the Apache license vs. CC0, but the reason CC0 is more 
palatable is because we're not trying to make any restrictions based on 
copyright.  We're trying to meet the spirit of US law, and our lawyers believe 
that CC0 has the best chance of doing that.

As to your second point, that is PRECISELY what I'm proposing.  The material 
that has copyright attached will be accepted under the OSI-approved license 
that the project controllers wish to use, and all other material will be 
distributed under CC0.  This way the US Government is not claiming copyright 
where none exists.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Richard Fontana
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 11:25 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.
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 03:45:06PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL 
> (US) wrote:
> > Two reasons.  First is for the disclaimer of liability and warranty.
> > We can write our own notice, but that would be much less recognizable
> > than CC0, which is why we'd prefer to use it.
>
> But my point is that it is arguably inconsistent to say you can't use the 
> Apache License 2.0 but can use CC0, which, for example, contains a
> waiver and fallback copyright license. To put it another way, the public 
> domain that CC0 attempts to achieve is not the same thing as the
> public domain of US government civil servant works.
>
> Anyway looking at some of the closed issues for code.mil it seems they have 
> the same concerns about CC0 that you have about the
> Apache License.
>
> > Second, it solves the question of copyright in foreign jurisdictions;
> > as far as is possible, the work is in the public domain everywhere,
> > which means that someone in (for example) Canada can treat it the same way 
> > as someone in the US
> > would.   If you're wondering how this could be a problem, the issue is 
> > that
> > copyright is a grant by the State at the time of creation, but each
> > State has different rules about this.  As an example, works that I
> > create as a civil servant do not have copyright within the US, but may
> > have copyright protections in Canada unless specifically disclaimed.
> > This could lead to questions about whether or not the code could be
> > merged into a project if the project is being used world-wide, because
> > the license for the US Government furnished code is unclear.  CC0
> > settles the question as far as possible across all jurisdictions, and
> > as long as all external contributions are under the chosen
> > OSI-approved license, all material in a project will be covered by one
> > or the other, and decisions can be made by the courts in any jurisdiction 
> > on the project as a whole.
>
> The approach I understand code.mil to be taking is that a given project will 
> have an open source license and that license will cover
> anything that isn't statutory public domain, including both contributions 
> coming in through the DCO and code released by the US
> government that may be public domain in the US but not elsewhere.
>
> See: 
> Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md#1-license
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Note that I am not a lawyer, and none of this should be construed as
> > legal advice.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Cem Karan
> >
> > > -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: 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 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
&

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

[Richard Fontana]

On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 03:45:06PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL 
(US) wrote:
> Two reasons.  First is for the disclaimer of liability and warranty.  We can 
> write our own notice, but that would be much less recognizable than CC0, 
> which 
> is why we'd prefer to use it.

But my point is that it is arguably inconsistent to say you can't use
the Apache License 2.0 but can use CC0, which, for example, contains a
waiver and fallback copyright license. To put it another way, the
public domain that CC0 attempts to achieve is not the same thing as
the public domain of US government civil servant works. 

Anyway looking at some of the closed issues for code.mil it seems they
have the same concerns about CC0 that you have about the Apache
License. 

> Second, it solves the question of copyright in foreign jurisdictions; as far 
> as is possible, the work is in the public domain everywhere, which means that 
> someone in (for example) Canada can treat it the same way as someone in the 
> US 
> would.   If you're wondering how this could be a problem, the issue is that 
> copyright is a grant by the State at the time of creation, but each State has 
> different rules about this.  As an example, works that I create as a civil 
> servant do not have copyright within the US, but may have copyright 
> protections in Canada unless specifically disclaimed.  This could lead to 
> questions about whether or not the code could be merged into a project if the 
> project is being used world-wide, because the license for the US Government 
> furnished code is unclear.  CC0 settles the question as far as possible 
> across 
> all jurisdictions, and as long as all external contributions are under the 
> chosen OSI-approved license, all material in a project will be covered by one 
> or the other, and decisions can be made by the courts in any jurisdiction on 
> the project as a whole.

The approach I understand code.mil to be taking is that a given
project will have an open source license and that license will cover
anything that isn't statutory public domain, including both
contributions coming in through the DCO and code released by the US
government that may be public domain in the US but not elsewhere.

See: 
https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md#1-license









> 
> Note that I am not a lawyer, and none of this should be construed as legal 
> advice.
> 
> Thanks,
> Cem Karan
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-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 0.4.1
> >
> > 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 really like the approach as it currently exists. But why is use of
> > CC0 necessary? If some work of the US government is in the public domain by 
> > virtue of the Copyright Act, there is no need to use CC0.
> > Indeed, I would think use of CC0 by the Government is just as problematic, 
> > or non-problematic, as the use of any open source license, such
> > as the Apache License 2.0. Strictly speaking, the use of
> > CC0 assumes that you have copyright ownership.
> >
> > Only noting this because the fact that OSI has not approved CC0 makes this 
> > more complicated than the case where CC0 is not used at all.
> >
> > The code.mil folks discussed an earlier version of this approach with the 
> > OSI. But this is the first I've heard of using CC0.
> >
> > Richard
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 04:23:12PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM 
> > ARL 
> > (US) wrote:
> > > All, the folks at code.mil came up with what may be a really, really
> > > good idea; see
> > > Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md.
> > >
> > > The basic idea is simple; when the Government releases code, it's in
> > > the public domain (likely CC0).  The project owners select an
> > > OSI-approved license, and will only accept contributions to the
> > > project under their chosen license[1].  Over time the code base
> > > becomes a mixture, some of which is under CC0, and some of which is
&

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

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

Two reasons.  First is for the disclaimer of liability and warranty.  We can 
write our own notice, but that would be much less recognizable than CC0, which 
is why we'd prefer to use it.

Second, it solves the question of copyright in foreign jurisdictions; as far 
as is possible, the work is in the public domain everywhere, which means that 
someone in (for example) Canada can treat it the same way as someone in the US 
would.   If you're wondering how this could be a problem, the issue is that 
copyright is a grant by the State at the time of creation, but each State has 
different rules about this.  As an example, works that I create as a civil 
servant do not have copyright within the US, but may have copyright 
protections in Canada unless specifically disclaimed.  This could lead to 
questions about whether or not the code could be merged into a project if the 
project is being used world-wide, because the license for the US Government 
furnished code is unclear.  CC0 settles the question as far as possible across 
all jurisdictions, and as long as all external contributions are under the 
chosen OSI-approved license, all material in a project will be covered by one 
or the other, and decisions can be made by the courts in any jurisdiction on 
the project as a whole.

Note that I am not a lawyer, and none of this should be construed as legal 
advice.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-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 0.4.1
>
> 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 really like the approach as it currently exists. But why is use of
> CC0 necessary? If some work of the US government is in the public domain by 
> virtue of the Copyright Act, there is no need to use CC0.
> Indeed, I would think use of CC0 by the Government is just as problematic, 
> or non-problematic, as the use of any open source license, such
> as the Apache License 2.0. Strictly speaking, the use of
> CC0 assumes that you have copyright ownership.
>
> Only noting this because the fact that OSI has not approved CC0 makes this 
> more complicated than the case where CC0 is not used at all.
>
> The code.mil folks discussed an earlier version of this approach with the 
> OSI. But this is the first I've heard of using CC0.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 04:23:12PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL 
> (US) wrote:
> > All, the folks at code.mil came up with what may be a really, really
> > good idea; see
> > Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md.
> >
> > The basic idea is simple; when the Government releases code, it's in
> > the public domain (likely CC0).  The project owners select an
> > OSI-approved license, and will only accept contributions to the
> > project under their chosen license[1].  Over time the code base
> > becomes a mixture, some of which is under CC0, and some of which is
> > under the OSI-approved license.  I've talked with ARL's lawyers, and
> > they are satisfied with this solution.  Would OSI be happy with this
> > solution?  That is, would OSI recognize the projects as being truly
> > Open Source, right from the start?  The caveat is that some projects
> > will be 100% CC0 at the start, and can only use the chosen Open Source
> > license on those contributions that have copyright attached.  Note
> > that Government projects that wish to make this claim would have to
> > choose their license and announce it on the project site so that
> > everyone knows what they are licensing their contributions under, which is 
> > the way that OSI can validate that the project is keeping its
> end of the bargain at the start.
> >
> > If this will satisfy OSI, then I will gladly withdraw the ARL OSL from
> > consideration.  If there are NASA or other Government folks on here,
> > would this solution satisfy your needs as well?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Cem Karan
> >
> > [1] There is also a form certifying that the contributor has the right
> > to do so, etc.  The Army Research Laboratory's is at
> > Caution-https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-
> > and-Instructions/blob/master/ARL%20Form%20-%20266.pdf

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

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

ARL's policy (see 
https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions#433214A2C17C11E6952E003EE1B763F8)
 
cover this.  External contributions would be covered by the OSI-approved 
license, so the patent/IP terms in that license will cover those patent 
rights.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Gervase Markham
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 12:17 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) 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.
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> On 28/02/17 17:09, Smith, McCoy wrote:
> > You should consider the fact that CC0 has an express disclaimer of
> > patent licenses (in Section 4.a).  That may mean that it doesn't
> > address one of the concerns that I think you had (i.e., that there
> > might be USG patents covering the non-US copyrightable USG work
> > distributed by the USG).
> >
> > The CC licenses are also not on the OSI list (although there has been
> > some discussion in the past of whether they should be added, IIRC).
>
> Any objections to CC-0 also seemed to be patent-related; if the scheme had a 
> patent grant accompanying the CC-0 license, that might
> solve both of these issues in one go and lead to something very, very good.
>
> Gerv
>
> ___
> 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] Re: Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

As a part of ARL's internal release process, the Lab waives all patent/IP 
rights (except for the ARL trademarks).  That only leaves the external 
contributions, which would be done under one of the OSI-approved licenses.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [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 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.
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> You should consider the fact that CC0 has an express disclaimer of patent 
> licenses (in Section 4.a).  That may mean that it doesn't address
> one of the concerns that I think you had (i.e., that there might be USG 
> patents covering the non-US copyrightable USG work distributed by
> the USG).
>
> The CC licenses are also not on the OSI list (although there has been some 
> discussion in the past of whether they should be added, IIRC).
>
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss 
> [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Karan, 
> Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL
> (US)
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 8:23 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research 
> Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
>
> All, the folks at code.mil came up with what may be a really, really good 
> idea; see Caution-
> https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md.
>
> The basic idea is simple; when the Government releases code, it's in the 
> public domain (likely CC0).  The project owners select an OSI-
> approved license, and will only accept contributions to the project under 
> their chosen license[1].  Over time the code base becomes a
> mixture, some of which is under CC0, and some of which is under the 
> OSI-approved license.  I've talked with ARL's lawyers, and they are
> satisfied with this solution.  Would OSI be happy with this solution?  That 
> is, would OSI recognize the projects as being truly Open Source,
> right from the start?  The caveat is that some projects will be 100% CC0 at 
> the start, and can only use the chosen Open Source license on
> those contributions that have copyright attached.  Note that Government 
> projects that wish to make this claim would have to choose
> their license and announce it on the project site so that everyone knows 
> what they are licensing their contributions under, which is the
> way that OSI can validate that the project is keeping its end of the bargain 
> at the start.
>
> If this will satisfy OSI, then I will gladly withdraw the ARL OSL from 
> consideration.  If there are NASA or other Government folks on here,
> would this solution satisfy your needs as well?
>
> Thanks,
> Cem Karan
>
> [1] There is also a form certifying that the contributor has the right to do 
> so, etc.  The Army Research Laboratory's is at Caution-
> https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions/blob/master/ARL%20Form%20-%20266.pdf,
> and is, unfortunately, only able to be opened in Adobe Acrobat.  We're 
> working to fix that, but there are other requirements that will take
> some time.
> ___
> 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