Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research Laboratory Open Source License proposal

> Could you describe what the impact would be to contractors under DFARS > clauses 252.227-7013/7014 and ARL OSL? In particular where software was > developed at private expense or mixed funding and the government has less > than unlimited rights. Under 252.227-7014, if the software was not

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research Laboratory Open Source License proposal

The ARL OSL does not change anything in the DFARS clauses; as I understand it (I am not a lawyer) the USG would have to have all the rights necessary to release the code before it could do so. Thanks, Cem Karan > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research Laboratory Open Source License proposal

Cam, Could you describe what the impact would be to contractors under DFARS clauses 252.227-7013/7014 and ARL OSL? In particular where software was developed at private expense or mixed funding and the government has less than unlimited rights. Regards, Nigel On 8/8/16, 8:32 AM,

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research Laboratory Open Source License proposal

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen > Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 4:37 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Cc: Lawrence Rosen > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research Laboratory Open Source License proposal

The problem is that while the original USG works don't have copyright, works produced by contributors may. E.g., any code supplied by contractors, anything provided by persons outside the USG, etc. We need to have a license that both protects those individuals, and ensures that they don't use