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

2016-08-18 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 5:00 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [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: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

2016-08-18 Thread Tzeng, Nigel H.
Why not limit it to USG lawyers? That may be an easier sell for a first meeting. Especially if you can convince someone at the OMB to host the telcon because of the new policy and get the relevant DOJ lawyers to dial in. It is too much to expect clear guidance (this is the government after all)

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

2016-08-18 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
Larry, I agree with you completely about the need for all attorneys talking to one another, while us engineers sit back and listen. I'm going to try to talk the various attorneys in the USG that I've contacted into being part of a telecon. If I'm able to do so, are there any attorneys on this

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

2016-08-18 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 2:35 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Cc: Lawrence Rosen > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: