Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

2016-08-17 Thread Brian Behlendorf
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016, Smith, McCoy wrote: I hope you're getting a sense that there are several lawyers on this mailing list -- lawyers who have years of experience looking at, debating, and giving advice on the issues you identify in this submission -- who think that your proposed license is a

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

2016-08-17 Thread Engel Nyst
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:17:07PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US) wrote: >> >> Once again, liability isn't the only issue; there are also copyright issues >> (for contributors), and IP issues.

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

2016-08-17 Thread Smith, McCoy
Or to put a finer point on it, the other issues you identify appear to be ones that are explicitly addressed in many already-approved OSI licenses, including Apache 2.0, the one you are modeling your license upon. I hope you're getting a sense that there are several lawyers on this mailing

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

2016-08-17 Thread Richard Fontana
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:17:07PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: > > Once again, liability isn't the only issue; there are also copyright issues > (for contributors), and IP issues. If we could solve the problem via a > simple > disclaimer of liability, we would. We

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

2016-08-17 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Smith, McCoy > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:34 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. > Army

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

2016-08-17 Thread Smith, McCoy
I find it odd that your lawyers are making you argue the legal issues here even though you aren't a lawyer, and won't themselves join in to the conversation. Further on my point, the US DOJ (i.e., the top government lawyers in the USA) website states that most of the material on their website

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

2016-08-17 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Smith, McCoy > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 4:51 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > Laboratory