[License-discuss] The License Talking-About List

2016-08-22 Thread Lawrence Rosen
Cem Karan wrote: > I'm aware of the other list, but my understanding was that it had to be > submitted to this list for discussion first, and then submitted to > license-review once there was some consensus; am I wrong about this? Cem, please don't feel bad about your confusion. I've been

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

2016-08-22 Thread Richard Fontana
Yes, that is mistaken. This list plays no role in the OSI license approval process, though it can be an appropriate place to discuss a license that has not been submitted for OSI approval. Richard On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 08:45:41PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: > I'm

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

2016-08-22 Thread Tzeng, Nigel H.
https://opensource.org/approval Yep, you get to start this all over again. :) A lot of folks do read both lists so it¹s probably not a huge deal. On 8/22/16, 4:45 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)"

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

2016-08-22 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
I'm aware of the other list, but my understanding was that it had to be submitted to this list for discussion first, and then submitted to license-review once there was some consensus; am I wrong about this? Thanks, Cem Karan > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss

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

2016-08-22 Thread Richard Fontana
I'm not sure if you're already aware but for several years this mailing list has not been used for discussing licenses submitted for OSI approval -- that is done on the license-review mailing list. The license review process is described at https://opensource.org/approval. I haven't followed 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

2016-08-22 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
OK, so assuming that the NOSA 2.0 license is dead in the water, what about the ARL OSL? Is it also, dead, and if so, why? Leave aside the license proliferation aspect, and focus on what needs to be changed with the ARL OSL to make it acceptable. Thanks, Cem Karan > -Original