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

2016-08-20 Thread Richard Fontana
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 02:24:53AM +, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: > My understanding then and now was that it had become clear to them that > Richard and Bruce was going to stall approval for a long time/forever > unless they took out the patent clause that the open data folks wanted. So > they

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

2016-08-20 Thread Rick Moen
Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu): > He said that CC would consider when they had more timeŠback in 2012Šso I > guess either Creative Commons has been insanely busy the last four years > or that was a very polite way of saying ³yah whatever, the FSF already > recommends CC0 even