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

2017-03-20 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
ve > was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL > OSL) Version 0.4.1 > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > <cem.f.karan@mail.mil < Caution- > mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil > > wrote: > > >

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

2017-03-20 Thread John Cowan
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) < cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote: > OK, thank you, I'll contact them and see what they think. Note that the DFSG #1-#9 are verbatim the same as OSD #1-#9, but the interpretations may differ. (#10 is separate and

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

2017-03-20 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
g > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative was: > Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL > OSL) Version 0.4.1 > > All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the > identity of the sender, and conf

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

2017-03-17 Thread Lawrence Rosen
March 17, 2017 1:56 PM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1 I would just encourage you to consider instead recommending the enlightened

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

2017-03-17 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
riday, March 17, 2017 4:56 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative was: > Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL > OSL) Version 0.4.1 > > All active links contained in this email

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

2017-03-17 Thread Richard Fontana
gt; > Cem Karan > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: License-discuss > > > > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of > > > > Tom Callaway > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 8:46 P

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

2017-03-17 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
ce.org] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 1:16 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative was: > Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL > OSL) Version 0.4

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

2017-03-17 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
s-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Richard Fontana > Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 11:18 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative was: > Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL > OSL) Versi

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

2017-03-17 Thread Tzeng, Nigel H.
y > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 8:46 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL > OSL) Version 0.4.1 > > All a

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

2017-03-17 Thread Richard Fontana
; > > > > Thanks, > > > Cem Karan > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: License-discuss > > [Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org < >

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

2017-03-17 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
cuss- > boun...@opensource.org > < Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss- < > Caution-mailto:license-discuss- > > > boun...@opensource.org < Caution-mailto:boun...@opensource.org > > ] > On Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > > > Sent: Thursda

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

2017-03-16 Thread John Cowan
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 8:45 PM, Tom Callaway wrote: I'd think the only ones who get to apply the "Open Source" label to > licenses would be the OSI. Fedora's opinion is that CC-0 meets the OSD. > "Open source", whether upper or lower case, is not a protected mark of the

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

2017-03-16 Thread Tom Callaway
--- > > > From: License-discuss [Caution-mailto:license- > discuss-boun...@opensource.org < Caution-mailto:license-discuss- > > boun...@opensource.org > ] On Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > > > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 2:48 PM > > > To: license-d

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

2017-03-16 Thread Marc Jones
2017 2:48 PM > > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative > was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL > > OSL) Version 0.4.1 > > > > All active links contained in this email w

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

2017-03-16 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
e.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative was: > Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL > OSL) Version 0.4.1 > > All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the > identity of the sender, an

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

2017-03-16 Thread Tom Callaway
o: license-discuss@opensource.org > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative > was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL > > OSL) Version 0.4.1 > > > > All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please ve

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

2017-03-16 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
gt; To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative was: > Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL > OSL) Version 0.4.1 > > All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify

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

2017-03-16 Thread Tzeng, Nigel H.
Cem, The USG does not need OSI’s approval to release code as open source under CC0. It has done so already on code.gov. This includes the OPM, NASA, GSA, DOT, DOL, DOC and others. CC0 is compliant with the Federal Source Code Policy for open source release. It is unlikely that you can push

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

2017-03-16 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
All, I want to keep this alive as I haven't seen a conclusion yet. Earlier I asked if OSI would accept the US Government (USG) putting its non-copyrighted works out under CC0 as Open Source **provided** that the USG accepts and redistributes copyrighted contributions under an OSI-approved

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

2017-03-03 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
ct: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: > U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL > OSL) Version 0.4.1 > > All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the > identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity o

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

2017-03-01 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
on-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative > was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL > OSL) Version 0.4.1 > > Jim Wright wrote: > > > it seems odd to me to require a dedication to the public domain in > > any event

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

2017-03-01 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
rce.org> > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: > U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL > OSL) Version 0.4.1 > > > A proposed solution, however, is that the U.S. government will > distribute software unde

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

2017-03-01 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
ce.org] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 1:28 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative was: > Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL > OSL) Version 0.4

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

2017-03-01 Thread Tzeng, Nigel H.
gt;> Date: Wednesday, Mar 01, 2017, 12:40 PM To: license-discuss@opensource.org <license-discuss@opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org>> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License

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

2017-03-01 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
org; Jim Wright <jwri...@commsoft.com> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative was: > Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL > OSL) Version 0.4.1 > > All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the &

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

2017-03-01 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
s-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 12:23 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: > U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL > OSL) Versi

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

2017-03-01 Thread Richard Fontana
half Of Richard Fontana > > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 12:10 PM > > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative > > was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL > > O

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

2017-03-01 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
ensource.org > Cc: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan@mail.mil>; > Richard Fontana <font...@sharpeleven.org> > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: > U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL > O

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

2017-03-01 Thread Tzeng, Nigel H.
scuss@opensource.org > Cc: Richard Fontana <font...@sharpeleven.org>; Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM > ARL (US) <cem.f.karan....@mail.mil> > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: > U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License

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

2017-03-01 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
urce] Re: Possible alternative > was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL > OSL) Version 0.4.1 > > All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the > identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links > contained

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

2017-03-01 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
d Fontana <font...@sharpeleven.org>; Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM > ARL (US) <cem.f.karan....@mail.mil> > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: > U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL > OSL) Version 0.4.1 > > Certainly the

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

2017-03-01 Thread Richard Fontana
t; > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: License-discuss > > > > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of > > > > Richard Fontana > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 9:37 AM > > > > To

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

2017-03-01 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
017 11:30 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: > U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL > OSL) Version 0.4.1 > > All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify

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

2017-03-01 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative > was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL > OSL) Version 0.4.1 > > All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the > identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links > contained

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

2017-03-01 Thread Richard Fontana
Fontana > > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 9:37 AM > > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: > > Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL > > OSL) Version 0.4.1 > > >

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

2017-03-01 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
s-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Richard Fontana > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 9:37 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: > Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL > OSL) Version 0.

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

2017-02-28 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
ssible alternative was: > Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL > OSL) Version 0.4.1 > > 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

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

2017-02-28 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
iscuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Smith, McCoy > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 12:10 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: > Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Sour