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
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.
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
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
> -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
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
> -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
7 matches
Mail list logo