@opensource.org
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] 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
&
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
nlaw.com)
>
> 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
>
> Cell: 707-478-8932
>
>
>
> This email is licensed under CC-BY-4.0. Please copy freely.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: Stephen Michael Kellat [mailto:smkel...@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Mo
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] 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
M
> To: "lro...@rosenlaw.com" <lro...@rosenlaw.com>, License Discuss
> <license-discuss@opensource.org>, "'Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY
> RDECOM ARL (US)'" <cem.f.karan@mail.mil>
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research
&
inal Message-
From: Stephen Michael Kellat [mailto:smkel...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 11:11 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Cc: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research
Laboratory Open Sourc
> 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
anch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
>
> Cell: 707-478-8932
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org]
> On Behalf Of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) Sent: Monday,
> February 27, 2017 10:10 AM To: lro...
Y RDECOM ARL (US)
> <cem.f.karan@mail.mil>
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
> Subject: RE: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research
> Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
>
> All active links contained in this email we
..@mail.mil>
Subject: 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
be
e-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
ense-discuss@opensource.org; Karan, Cem F CIV
> USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan@mail.mil>
> Subject: RE: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research
> Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
>
> All active links contained in this e
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
Rosen
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 9:50 AM
To: 'Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)'; license-discuss@opensource.org
Cc: Lawrence Rosen
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research
Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
Cem Karan wrote:
>
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).
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
