Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] The Federal Register Process

Thank you for your understanding; I know that the process isn't fun, but if we can make it happen, then maybe, JUST MAYBE, we can also join Open Source, and not just open source. Thank you all for your patience. Thanks, Cem Karan > -Original Message- > From: Lawrence Rosen

[License-discuss] The Federal Register Process

Cem, my previous email about the Federal Register process wasn't clear. It certainly starts as a proposal from your department's lawyers for a formal legal policy of some sort. THEN it becomes a public process. THEN there are public hearings and specific written feedback. THEN the arguments

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

OK, I've pushed it forward to the guys in charge of code.gov and the Federal Source Code policy; I'll bring it up with them on Thursday as well. I don't know if they'll support it, nor do I know if I'm allowed to point the list to where the comments are[1], but if I am, I'll aim everyone

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

Cem Karan wrote: > The Federal Register process may be the best way forwards. I'll bring it up > in the next Federal Source Code policy meeting. That may be a good solution. The Federal Register process requires public notice; public hearings; public feedback; written proposals based on

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

The problem is that I do get around a lot and have done work for a surprising number of people over the past couple of years. I do kinda get lost remembering whose hat I'm wearing. On occasion I meddle in tax law at work having to help taxpayers figure things out. Disclaimers like that are

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

What you just said (the paragraph about the FOIA exemption) seems to be spot on. Our legal counsel **will not** comment on this list. Full stop. The Federal Register process may be the best way forwards. I'll bring it up in the next Federal Source Code policy meeting. Thanks, Cem Karan >

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

I've already gotten in contact with her, and I'm hoping to have a face to face with either her or someone else from DDS (the people behind code.mil) on Thursday at the next Federal Source Code Policy meeting. Thank you for looking her up though! As for punting it upstairs, I've been pushing

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

Stephen Michael Kellat referred to his standard disclaimer at http://skellat.freeshell.org/blog/pages/about-this-blog.html: About this blog This site does not reflect the opinions, views, or official actions of any of the

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

> One main exemption to FOIA is that internal pre-decisional work product of > lawyers is exempt from disclosure. Any contribution on this list could be > considered privileged communication by those lawyers. I doubt there would be > enough caveats and disclaimers to keep any communication

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

I am off-duty from my job over at Treasury today so I guess I can say something. Standard disclaimer incorporated by reference from presentation here: http://skellat.freeshell.org/blog/pages/about-this-blog.html One main exemption to FOIA is that internal pre-decisional work product of

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

I've forwarded your frustrations onwards; I don't know what the response will be. Thanks, Cem Karan > -Original Message- > From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com] > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 1:43 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org; Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

Cem, Sharon Woods is the counsel on the DDS. That’s probably not her email address above…it’s just a shot in the dark. But maybe feedb...@dds.mil will get you the right email or she might join this discussion. ☺ I still say ARL should punt the problem upstairs and let OSD, DISA or Department

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

Cem Karan wrote: > As for our legal counsel posting to this list directly, they've told me in > the past that they won't do that because it violates some statute or contract > clause[1]. [1] I'm not sure what exactly, they've explained it to me, but I keep forgetting the finer details.

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

I've read it. I've gotten in contact with the code.mil folks, and we'll be discussing it in person shortly. Thanks, Cem Karan > -Original Message- > From: Smith, McCoy [mailto:mccoy.sm...@intel.com] > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 1:01 PM > To: lro...@rosenlaw.com;

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

I've forwarded your question to our internal counsel, and I'm hoping to get a message back in a day or two. I'll post it when they get back to me. As for our legal counsel posting to this list directly, they've told me in the past that they won't do that because it violates some statute or

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

For what it’s worth (I think it is generally pretty relevant), the DoD published a draft “Agreement” that is intended to address the issue of there being no US copyright in works authored by the US Government:

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

Cem Karan wrote: > I'm not a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer, I don't pretend to be one on TV or > anywhere else, and nothing I say should be construed as legal advice. In that situation, it would be unfair to ask you my question directly, so please forward my email directly to your lawyer(s).

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

There may be a difference between projects that had copyright initially and later on added in public domain components, and projects that never had copyright to begin with. That said, I don't know if there is or isn't[1]. I don't want to find out that there **is** a difference, and have it

Re: [License-discuss] U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

Cem Karan wrote: . . . the truly serious issue is severability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability). The concern is that if the USG uses a license that depends on copyright (e.g., Apache 2.0), and those clauses are declared unenforceable

[License-discuss] U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

All, I've been asked to republish the U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) once again so that others can read it. This is the most current copy. It is based off of the Apache 2.0 license that can be found at http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt, and is