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

2016-08-19 Thread Tzeng, Nigel H.
On 8/19/16, 6:55 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Rick Moen" wrote: >Speaking for Creative Commons, Christopher Allan Webber appears to have >correctly understood this feedback to be _not_ at all a rejection of 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

2016-08-19 Thread Rick Moen
Quoting Richard Fontana (font...@opensource.org): > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 08:55:54PM +, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: > > If the USG is using CC0 for their new OSS initiative > > is this something that should be revisited? > > Yes, I think so. > > > Of course, you know I¹m of the opinion 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

2016-08-19 Thread Richard Fontana
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 08:55:54PM +, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: > If the USG is using CC0 for their new OSS initiative > is this something that should be revisited? Yes, I think so. > Of course, you know I¹m of the opinion that is the OSI states a license is > open source if it passes the OSD

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

2016-08-19 Thread Scott K Peterson
> Ugh. I’m perfectly happy to give away my own code and patents when > I choose to do so but I would be very unhappy if I accidentally gave > away someone else’s work and cost them thousands of dollars of lost > royalties. This is a well-know problem with no solution for which all parties are

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

2016-08-19 Thread Tzeng, Nigel H.
From: License-discuss > on behalf of "lro...@rosenlaw.com" > >There are other important reasons besides "aging out" why the claims

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

2016-08-19 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
Exactly. Anyone that gets something from the USG deserves to know that they won't be facing a patent lawsuit from any of the contributors. Thanks, Cem Karan > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Chris DiBona > Sent:

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

2016-08-19 Thread Lawrence Rosen
Nigel Tzeng correctly noted about U.S. public domain code: > There isn¹t a lot of code that has aged out. Only code written between > before 1963 and didn¹t get a renewal. There are other important reasons besides "aging out" why the claims of copyright on parts of functional works like

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

2016-08-19 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
We apply for and are granted patents on a regular basis at ARL. In fact, part of how scientists and engineers are evaluated on their performance can include the number of patents they get, all of which are owned by the USG. Thanks, Cem Karan > -Original Message- > From: