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

USG patents aren't public domain, and USG can and does license them for royalties. I believe there are a handful of examples of USG filing infringement suits as well. > On Aug 18, 2016, at 8:26 PM, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > > > Do those follow the same rules as

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

Do those follow the same rules as copyright? E.g., when done by a USG employee, it's public domain in the US? Seems like those should get covered by whatever folks come up with. Brian On Fri, 19 Aug 2016, Smith, McCoy wrote: Yes USG files patents all the time On Aug 18, 2016, at 5:51

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

Yes USG files patents all the time > On Aug 18, 2016, at 5:51 PM, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > > > Totally agree. But can the USG file patents? I suppose research > organizations can (MITRE, maybe even NASA?) so it's not that academic; but > presumably any place where

[License-discuss] Unsubscribe

0 may come around and bite it in the rear if a > significant FedGov OSS mandate starts off with CC0 as a default open source > license for the USG because that's what they did for code.gov and it's the > only one that fits the bill for public domain software. And I don't recall > tha

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

Totally agree. But can the USG file patents? I suppose research organizations can (MITRE, maybe even NASA?) so it's not that academic; but presumably any place where this public domain arises, it applies to patents too. Would be nice to get that sorted. Brian On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Chris

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

In military contracting , patent grants are key to the point where I wouldn't consider a non patent granting license from, say, lockheed as being open source at all. On Aug 18, 2016 3:05 PM, "Tzeng, Nigel H." wrote: > On 8/18/16, 3:57 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of

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

On 8/18/16, 3:57 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Lawrence Rosen" wrote: >Nigel Tzeng wrote: >> The issue here is for code that is potentially quite substantial. I >>would think that would be a different scenario. > >If

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

There likely will be some USG-only discussion beforehand, but since there are a lot of people to coordinate on this, the sooner I get started, the better. Thanks, Cem Karan > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of

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

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 4:26 PM > To: Lawrence Rosen ; license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD

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

Why not limit it to USG lawyers? That may be an easier sell for a first meeting. Especially if you can convince someone at the OMB to host the telcon because of the new policy and get the relevant DOJ lawyers to dial in. It is too much to expect clear guidance (this is the government after all)

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

On 8/18/16, 4:24 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Richard Fontana" wrote: >On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 07:15:52PM +, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: >> From: License-discuss

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

Larry, I agree with you completely about the need for all attorneys talking to one another, while us engineers sit back and listen. I'm going to try to talk the various attorneys in the USG that I've contacted into being part of a telecon. If I'm able to do so, are there any attorneys on this

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

"I don't believe that there is an OSD requirement that the lawyers on License-Review/License-Discuss agree that the legal concern being addressed by a new license submission is valid. *Especially when other lawyers disagree.*" The problem is, I think to many of us commenting here, is that

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

>Cem Karan wrote: >> The only reason that the ARL OSL was proposed AT ALL is because there is a >> strong concern that since USG code doesn't have copyright [1], any license >> that relies exclusively on copyright may be invalidated by the courts [2]. >We understand that strong concern. Most

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

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 07:15:52PM +, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: > From: License-discuss > > > on behalf of "Smith, McCoy" > > > > > Interestingly enough,

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

> -Original Message- > From: Wheeler, David A [mailto:dwhee...@ida.org] > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 2:52 PM > To: legal-disc...@apache.org > Cc: Karl Fogel ; Lawrence Rosen ; > license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: RE: [License-discuss]

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

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 2:35 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Cc: Lawrence Rosen > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re:

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

The real trick is the DoJ; they have to defend the USG in court, as well as deal with any other legal aspects. If they are willing to accept the licenses as-is, then I suspect that rest of the USG would go along (note that I can't speak for the USG on this, someone with authority to sign off

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

Diane Peters scripsit: > Given this, it remains unclear how a license to the worldwide public would > be invalidated by a court? Please say more. Because we don't know what law a foreign court would apply. It might apply the Berne Convention, and say "This work has a copyright term of zero

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

Nigel Tzeng wrote: > The issue here is for code that is potentially quite substantial. I would > think that would be a different scenario. If I include the works of Shakespeare in my software, it would of course be substantial and yet still be public domain almost everywhere (?). I license my

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

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Richard Fontana > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 11:04 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: > U.S.

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

On 8/18/16, 11:03 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Richard Fontana" wrote: >As a few have pointed out, all code that is nominally licensed under >open source licenses will contain noncopyrighted portions. While true,

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

Copyright is not available for US government works as a matter of US copyright law (section 105), but that does not mean those works may not be restricted by copyright laws of other countries. Congress contemplated that expressly. “The prohibition on copyright protection for United States

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

From: License-discuss > on behalf of "Smith, McCoy" > > Interestingly enough, the code of the code.gov site is licensed under CC0 > 1.0: >

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

Lawrence Rosen scripsit: > We attorneys here will try to convince your attorneys of that if > they consent to speak to us. You engineers should not volunteer to > be translators in that discussion, but listen in. And we attorneys > should speak candidly about copyright and contract law. Several

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

Cam Karan asked: > If you have case law where the USG won a lawsuit over material licensed under > one of the copyright-based OSI licenses where there was no claim of > copyright, please provide it. A copyright lawsuit requires copyright, so that's impossible. A contract lawsuit

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

I suggest using the Apache contribution license agreements rather than Apache itself. -Original Message- From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Richard Fontana Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 8:04 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject:

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

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Brian Behlendorf > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 4:25 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: > U.S.

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

The only reason that the ARL OSL was proposed AT ALL is because there is a strong concern that since USG code doesn't have copyright [1], any license that relies exclusively on copyright may be invalidated by the courts [2]. If the USG had copyright, then I could stop pushing the ARL OSL

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

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Engel Nyst > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:59 PM > To: license-discuss > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source]

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

Interestingly enough, the code of the code.gov site is licensed under CC0 1.0: https://github.com/presidential-innovation-fellows/code-gov-web/blob/master/LICENSE.md From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Chris DiBona Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016

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

Given that the White House just released a memorandum on encouraging the USG to make more use of open source, and specifically said that it will be releasing licensing guidance on code.gov, perhaps the issues around 17 USC 105 and existing open source licenses will be resolved (or at least, the

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

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 02:50:18PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: > > > > Even if you were correct in the assertions you've made about ARL code, why > > is a new license needed for contributors other than ARL? > > Are you suggesting a dual license scheme, where all

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

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Richard Fontana > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:33 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: > U.S.

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

There is exceptional evidence that the status quo is wholly inadequate. OSI fails to recognize challenges faced within the Federal Government, and it hurts open source adoption. Statistically speaking as the largest producer of source code on the planet, the U.S. Federal Government *should*