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

Of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 7:03 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > -Original Message- > From: License-d

Re: [License-discuss] [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: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 4:51 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Rese

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

> The issue is the one that the Apache 2.0 license solves, and that the ARL OSL > is attempting to solve for works that don't have copyright attached. > Basically, clause 3 in each of the licenses means that you can't contribute > software that has patents on it, and then sue everyone for using

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

Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] > > On Behalf Of Engel Nyst > > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 11:34 AM > > To: license-discuss <license-discuss@opensource.org> > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > > Labo

Re: [License-discuss] [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 Scott K Peterson > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 4:35 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Rese

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

ource.org > Cc: lro...@rosenlaw.com > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 08:03:18PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY > RDECOM ARL (US > > > As for 'licen

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

n-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 08:03:18PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US > > > As for 'license vs. contract', was that something discussed in > > relation to the ARL OSL? >

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

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 9:43 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: > OK, I see where you're coming from now. I had to have the ARL Legal team > explain this to me as well, but the ARL OSL is actually a contract, and the > contract can apply even if there is

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

nsource.org> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US) <cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote: > > O

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

> 2) Liability is only one part of the puzzle; as I mentioned in an earlier > email, there are IP issues that need to be solved (e.g. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambus#Lawsuits). That makes CC0 unattractive. Rambus and free software? What about the Rambus patent litigation informs

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

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 08:03:18PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US > As for 'license vs. contract', was that something discussed in > relation to the ARL OSL? No, that's a much older topic of debate in open source. It's safe to say from your previous remarks that ARL assumes that

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

ard Fontana [Caution-mailto:font...@sharpeleven.org] > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 9:42 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 a

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

CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US) > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 8:13 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > OK, but wouldn't those changes mean that the licens

Re: [License-discuss] [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 Engel Nyst > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 11:34 AM > To: license-discuss <license-discuss@opensource.org> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source

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

The point here though is the assumption ARL is apparently making, that an effective warranty or liability disclaimer must be tied to a (seemingly) contractual instrument. CC0 is evidence that some lawyers have thought otherwise. They have acknowledged as much.  However, lacking precedent

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

Lawrence Rosen scripsit: > Is this a resurrection of the old "license vs. contract" dispute that > we buried long ago? That is not dead which can eternal lie (see .sig). -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org La mayyitan ma qadirun yatabaqqa sarmadi Fa idha

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

"license vs. contract" dispute that we buried long ago? /Larry -Original Message- From: Richard Fontana [mailto:font...@sharpeleven.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 9:42 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Arm

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

[mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 9:20 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 On Aug 16, 2016

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

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 04:19:31PM +, Christopher Sean Morrison wrote: > > > > On Aug 16, 2016, at 11:43 AM, "Smith, McCoy" wrote: > > > CC0 gives a complete (to the extent permissible by law) waiver of copyright > rights, as well as a disclaimer of liability for

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

software guy (even an Army researcher) out of jail. /Larry -Original Message- From: Smith, McCoy [mailto:mccoy.sm...@intel.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 8:41 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory

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

On Aug 16, 2016, at 11:43 AM, "Smith, McCoy" wrote: CC0 gives a complete (to the extent permissible by law) waiver of copyright rights, as well as a disclaimer of liability for the "Work" (which is that which copyright has been waived). I believe that to be an

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

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: > OK, but wouldn't those changes mean that the license no longer applies to the > uncopyrightable portions? That would mean that downstream users would no > longer have any protection from

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

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: >> >4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the >> > Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without >> > modifications, and in Source

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

Comments inline below. > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Engel Nyst > Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 4:56 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] U.S. Army Research

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

I've talked with the lawyer in the ARL legal office. He says he is in contact with people up and down the chain of command, so that should be taken care of. Thanks, Cem Karan > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of

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

@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [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

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

Awesome. You may wish to ask your tech transfer office if any of your army UARCs care about apache vs ECL v2. The patent grants are slightly different and ECL v2 is geared toward the odd needs of research universities. I'm guessing not because very few projects actually use ECL v2. On the