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: Monday, August 22, 2016 5:02 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > 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

t; Behalf Of Richard Fontana > Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 5:04 PM > 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 > > Yes, that is mistaken. 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

cceptable. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Cem Karan > > > > > > > -----Original Message- > > > > From: License-discuss > > > > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of > > > > Richa

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

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

icense-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Richard Fontana > Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 2:53 PM > 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

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

: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: > > U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > > 0.4.0 > > > > All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the > > identity of the sender, and confirm the authentic

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

age- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Richard Fontana > Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 10:21 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. > Army Res

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 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

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

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 8/19/16, 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

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

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

ss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 From: License-discuss < license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org > on behalf of " lro...@rosenlaw.com " < lro...@rosenlaw.com > >There are other importa

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 "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

na > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 6:12 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. > Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > 0.4.

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

rg 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 On 8/18/16, 3:57 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Lawrence Rosen" < <mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org%20on%20behalf%2

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

ce] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. > Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > 0.4.0 > > All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the > identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links > contained within the mes

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

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: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

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 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

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: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

el H. Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 1:26 PM To: Lawrence Rosen; 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 >Cem Karan wrote: >> The only reason that th

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: [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

] [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" <license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org on behalf of font...@sharpeleven.org> wrote: >As a few h

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

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 > > &

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

up. IANAL. > > > -Original Message- > > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > > Behalf Of Smith, McCoy > > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:54 PM > > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > > Subject: Re: [License-disc

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

nce Rosen [mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com] Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 11:15 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com> Subject: RE: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (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

: 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 ma

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

Source] Re: > U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > 0.4.0 > > On Wed, 17 Aug 2016, Smith, McCoy wrote: > > I hope you're getting a sense that there are several lawyers on this > > mailing list -- lawyers who have years of experience looking at, > &g

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

g > 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 > > Or to put a finer point on it, the other issues you identify appear to be > ones that are explicitly addressed in many already-a

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

rce] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: > U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > 0.4.0 > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Richard Fontana <font...@sharpeleven.org> > wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:17:07PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM > &

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

8:53 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 Cem, I'd be happy to put you in touch with Alvand in the white house if you are not already chatting. Email me

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

Of Christopher Sean Morrison Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 1:27 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 There is exceptional evidence that the status quo is wholly

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

Source] Re: > U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > 0.4.0 > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:17:07PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US) wrote: > > > > Once again, liability isn't the only issue; there are also copyright > > issues (f

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 [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Smith, McCoy > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:54 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. > Army Research Labo

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 Wed, 17 Aug 2016, Smith, McCoy wrote: I hope you're getting a sense that there are several lawyers on this mailing list -- lawyers who have years of experience looking at, debating, and giving advice on the issues you identify in this submission -- who think that your proposed license is a

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 Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:17:07PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US) wrote: >> >> Once again, liability isn't the only issue; there are also copyright issues >> (for contributors), and IP issues.

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

scuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Richard Fontana Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:33 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 On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:17:07PM +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

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:17:07PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: > > Once again, liability isn't the only issue; there are also copyright issues > (for contributors), and IP issues. If we could solve the problem via a > simple > disclaimer of liability, we would. We

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 Smith, McCoy > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:34 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. > Army