date:20170301

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

2017-03-01 Thread Lawrence Rosen

Jim Wright wrote:

> Something is certainly better than nothing, I agree, but ...

Jim, I'm on your side on this. :-)  I'm hoping that a U.S. government open 
source policy, someday published in the Federal Register and bearing the force 
of law, will also include an express patent pledge that we can all rely on. 
Copyright isn't enough. Maybe even UPL?

Such a pledge could become a model for other large patent-holding institutions, 
such as universities, to give open source users reassurance that they are not 
patent infringers.

That's a bigger topic than for here. It is largely up to that public Federal 
Register process that eventually may ensue. It has nothing to do with OSI's 
approval of CC0. This WE can do now on our own on behalf of government open 
source. 

/Larry

From: Jim Wright [mailto:jim.wri...@oracle.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 2:59 PM
To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research 
Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

Something is certainly better than nothing, I agree, but I think many of us 
would rather have an express and broad license from all participants in a 
project, including the government, than to have to rely on less than well 
understood public domain dedications and waivers of patent rights that do not 
apply to all participants.  Something closer to symmetry and broad coverage 
should be achievable here IMHO - the perfect may sometimes be the enemy of the 
good, but in this case, we can, I think, do better than CC0.  YMMV of course.

 Best,

  Jim

On Mar 1, 2017, at 2:01 PM, Lawrence Rosen  > wrote:

Jim Wright wrote:

> it seems odd to me to require a dedication to the public domain in any event 
> - stuff is either in the public domain by law or isn’t, and to whatever 
> extent it isn’t, we should have a copyright license, full stop.  Similarly as 
> to patents, I don’t want to have to look at some ostensible policy on waiving 
> patent rights, we should all have a clearly scoped patent license for the 
> project, government and private contributors alike, and there is an easy 
> vehicle to achieve this, use an OSI approved license.  

Jim, regardless of which OSI-approved license(s) the U.S. government chooses 
for its distributed software, neither the "public domain" question nor the 
"patent license" question will EVER be fully answered for any particular 
software simply by reading those licenses. You have to look at the software 
itself. Of course, we could all sue each other and let the courts decide

I'll be grateful for a published government policy – perhaps posted in the 
Federal Register someday – that reassures us of a commitment by government 
agencies to open source using any OSI-approved license.

Including CC0.

/Larry

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org  
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

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)

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] 
> On Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 5:01 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen 
> 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
> 
> Jim Wright wrote:
> 
> > it seems odd to me to require a dedication to the public domain in 
> > any event - stuff is either in the public domain by law or isn’t, 
> > and to
> whatever extent it isn’t, we should have a copyright license, full 
> stop.  Similarly as to patents, I don’t want to have to look at some 
> ostensible policy on waiving patent rights, we should all have a clearly 
> scoped patent license for the project, government and private contributors 
> alike, and there is an easy vehicle to achieve this, use an OSI approved 
> license.
> 
> 
> 
> Jim, regardless of which OSI-approved license(s) the U.S. government chooses 
> for its distributed software, neither the "public domain"
> question nor the "patent license" question will EVER be fully answered 
> for any particular software simply by reading those licenses. You have to 
> look at the software itself. Of course, we could all sue each other and let 
> the courts decide
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be grateful for a published government policy – perhaps posted in 
> the Federal Register someday – that reassures us of a commitment by 
> government agencies to open source using any OSI-approved license.
> 
> 
> 
> Including CC0.

What would you want to see in such a policy that is different from what is on 
code.gov, or different from ARL's published policy?  I can bring this up at the 
Federal Source Code Policy meetings.  Note that if the Government takes that 
route, it will likely have to take the full Federal Register route, including 
comments, etc.  That means that any suggestions you make right now are only for 
me to gather preliminary information; nothing more.

Thanks,
Cem Karan
 



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [somewhat OT provocation] justifying the commercial no-discrimination clause

2017-03-01 Thread Rick Moen

Quoting Luis Villa (l...@lu.is):

> So... if someone asked you to justify OSD #6, what's the best rationale
> you've seen (or could provide yourself)? I'd love links or answers.

OSD #6 draws a line preventing resumed use of the oldest and most
persistent abridgements of open source of all:  Commencing the process
of proprietising a codebase by withholding/encumbering the right of
commercial use.

I would remind OSI readers of the state of publicly redistributable
software in the 1980s, and specifically the software emerging from
academia.  Out here on the Left Coast of the USA, we had Computer
Science Research Group, producing BSD.  On the other coast, a group at
MIT was producing X Window System and Kerberos.  But those were the two
great exceptions.

The standard model at universities was that the source code would be
made available to the public for non-commercial use in order to make it
useful and ubiquitous, but the university regents would retain copyright
title and monetise the commercial rights by selling separate
commercial-usage licences.

At the beginning of the 1990s, you could see this situation if you did a
survey of security software.  

(I won't be getting to my main point until I discuss the history of PGP 
and SSH, but first, some security-scanning and IDS packages.)

o  COPS (Computer Oracle and Password System) vulnerability scanner:
   Written by Dan Farmer and Gene Spafford when they were at Purdue
   University.  Now obsolete.   Purdue sold commercial-usage rights
   separately.

o  SATAN (Security Administrator Tool for Analyzing Networks).  Dan
   Farmer and Wietse Venema's follow-on to COPS, a similar tool,
   likewise now obsolete.  Used same licence model.

o  SARA (Security Auditor's Research Assistant), competitor, also 
   obsolete, same licence model.

o  SAINT (Security Administrator’s Integrated Network Too), same story.

o  Tripwire, a Gene Kim and Gene Spafford production at Purdue,
   initially using the standard univerity reservation-of-commercial-rights
   with the same model (IIRC).  In the late 90s, Gene Kim bought the 
   copyright from Purdue and (IIRC) stopped releasing source code at all.  
   (The history is more complex than this.  I have notes with the full
   course of events on my Web server, but think they're not that
   interesting, here.)  Some years later, he and Tripwire, Inc. executives 
   approached my employer VA Linux Systems in some concern (2000), 
   aware that they were massively losing mindshare to open source 
   competitors such as AIDE, Samhain, Integrit, and Prelude-IDS.
   Tripwire, Inc. at this point started maintaining 'Tripwire 
   Academic Source Release' under GPLv2, functionally equivalent
   to the binary-only product but without some extras, with help from
   my firm making the codebase ready for public release again.

   The likes of COPS, SATAN, SAINT, and SARA have all been unable to 
   compete with open source Nessus, nmap, and the above-cited Tripwire
   competitors, among others.



o  PGP.  Originally open source, but the first thing that changed after
   Phil Zimmerman sold the rights was very gradually clamp down on rights,
   starting with reserving rights for commercial use, then various other
   restrictions culminating with stopping the release of source code
   entirely starting in the year 2000.

o  SSH.  Tatu Ylönen's (SSH Communications Security's) original version 
   was open source (permissive licence), but around 1995 SSH Communications 
   Security signed a commercial distribution 
   agreement with Data Fellows, Ltd. (now F-Secure Corporation).  
   Ylönen's 1.2.13 came out 1996-02-10 (increments ssh version to 1.3).
   1.2.12 came out 1995-12. SSH 1.0 issued 1995-07-12. Right around the
   issuance of 1.2.13, the files for 1.2.1 through 1.2.12 were removed from
   the main SSH ftp site and its mirrors.  Some restrictive licensing
   wording was added to version 1.2.13.  The licence was changed again
   starting with 1.2.28, requiring payment for any use in a commercial
   setting.  Eventually, source code availability was removed
   completely.

How we ended up with a thriving market for open source SSH
implementations is, I think, instructive:  Someone named Björn Grönvall
in Sweden found a third-party-hosted tarball of source code for 
Ylönen's SSH v. 1.2.12, the final open source version (i.e., the 
removal of 1.2.1 through 1.2.12 tarballs hadn't found them all).  He
updated the code and maintained it as a fork he called ossh.  OpenBSD
Foundation noticed Grönvall's worked, and forked his fork to create
OpenSSH and Portable OpenSSH, developing ssh protocol v. 2.0 modules for
it.

Newer open source workalikes such as Dropbear, LSH, FreSSH, Erlang SSH,
Twisted.Conch, Paramiko, and PuTTY have been able to build on, study,
and borrow from Grönvall's and OpenBSD Foundation's work.
   
I would maintain that the history of SSH shows that the _first_, most
obvious, and most remunerative move taken in

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

2017-03-01 Thread Diane Peters

Hi everyone,

As regards CC0 and its use by the USG, you may find this comment we posted
previously of possible interest and relevance.

https://github.com/WhiteHouse/source-code-policy/issues/149

Diane

Diane M. Peters
General Counsel, Creative Commons
Portland, Oregon
http://creativecommons.org/staff#dianepeters
13:00-21:00 UTC


On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Lawrence Rosen  wrote:

> Jim Wright wrote:
>
> > Something is certainly better than nothing, I agree, but ...
>
>
>
> Jim, I'm on your side on this. :-)  I'm hoping that a U.S. government open
> source policy, someday published in the Federal Register and bearing the
> force of law, will also include an express patent pledge that we can all
> rely on. Copyright isn't enough. Maybe even UPL?
>
>
>
> Such a pledge could become a model for other large patent-holding
> institutions, such as universities, to give open source users reassurance
> that they are not patent infringers.
>
>
>
> That's a bigger topic than for here. It is largely up to that public
> Federal Register process that eventually may ensue. It has nothing to do
> with OSI's approval of CC0. This WE can do now on our own on behalf of
> government open source.
>
>
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Jim Wright [mailto:jim.wri...@oracle.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 1, 2017 2:59 PM
> *To:* lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
> *Subject:* Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army
> Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
>
>
>
> Something is certainly better than nothing, I agree, but I think many of
> us would rather have an express and broad license from all participants in
> a project, including the government, than to have to rely on less than well
> understood public domain dedications and waivers of patent rights that do
> not apply to all participants.  Something closer to symmetry and broad
> coverage should be achievable here IMHO - the perfect may sometimes be the
> enemy of the good, but in this case, we can, I think, do better than CC0.
> YMMV of course.
>
>
>
>  Best,
>
>   Jim
>
>
>
> On Mar 1, 2017, at 2:01 PM, Lawrence Rosen  wrote:
>
> Jim Wright wrote:
>
> > it seems odd to me to require a dedication to the public domain in any
> event - stuff is either in the public domain by law or isn’t, and to
> whatever extent it isn’t, we should have a copyright license, full stop.
> Similarly as to patents, I don’t want to have to look at some ostensible
> policy on waiving patent rights, we should all have a clearly scoped patent
> license for the project, government and private contributors alike, and
> there is an easy vehicle to achieve this, use an OSI approved license.
>
>
>
> Jim, regardless of which OSI-approved license(s) the U.S. government
> chooses for its distributed software, neither the "public domain" question
> nor the "patent license" question will EVER be fully answered for any
> particular software simply by reading those licenses. You have to look at
> the software itself. Of course, we could all sue each other and let the
> courts decide
>
>
>
> I'll be grateful for a published government policy – perhaps posted in the
> Federal Register someday – that reassures us of a commitment by government
> agencies to open source using *any* OSI-approved license.
>
>
>
> Including CC0.
>
>
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>
>
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>
>
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

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

2017-03-01 Thread Lawrence Rosen

Jim Wright wrote:

> in the absence of action on CC0 that would not be unanimously supported to 
> say the least

I know that is true but I don't know what it means for this license-discuss@ 
list. I haven't personally voted on a license in years.

According to several government folks here, government departments and others 
are already using CC0 for software. Profusely. Please don't blame me; neither 
Creative Commons nor I ever recommended CC0 for software. But that happened, 
because of those damned software patents that interfered with normal open 
source licensing by government departments and universities.

TO ANYONE AT OSI WHO ACTUALLY VOTES: Please vote to list CC0 as an OSI-approved 
open source license. Even Jim Wright said, and he's right, "Something is 
certainly better than nothing, I agree" Deal with patents separately.

/Larry

From: Jim Wright [mailto:jim.wri...@oracle.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 4:19 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Cc: Larry Rosen ; cem.f.karan@mail.mil
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research 
Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

We do agree for the most part, but not entirely here.  I was more looking back 
to Cem’s original question about whether CC0 would ensure their projects are 
Open Source today, which it would not, in the absence of action on CC0 that 
would not be unanimously supported to say the least.  My take is that they 
could better attend to this problem right now by choosing any existing OSI 
license, preferably one with a clear patent license, and if Cem is looking to 
ensure that their projects are Open Source in the immediate term, this is a 
path that requires nothing of the rest of us and little to nothing of them 
either IMHO.  

Of course my view is obviously colored by my take that CC0 is *not* a good 
model for open source and that it would have been a bad thing for it to have 
been approved - a license that specifically reserves rights of the author to 
pursue infringement claims against users is not a license we want to encourage 
the use of, by the government or anyone else...

 Best,

  Jim

On Mar 1, 2017, at 3:34 PM, Lawrence Rosen  > wrote:

Jim Wright wrote:

> Something is certainly better than nothing, I agree, but ...

Jim, I'm on your side on this. :-)  I'm hoping that a U.S. government open 
source policy, someday published in the Federal Register and bearing the force 
of law, will also include an express patent pledge that we can all rely on. 
Copyright isn't enough. Maybe even UPL?

Such a pledge could become a model for other large patent-holding institutions, 
such as universities, to give open source users reassurance that they are not 
patent infringers.

That's a bigger topic than for here. It is largely up to that public Federal 
Register process that eventually may ensue. It has nothing to do with OSI's 
approval of CC0. This WE can do now on our own on behalf of government open 
source. 

/Larry

From: Jim Wright [mailto:jim.wri...@oracle.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 2:59 PM
To: lro...@rosenlaw.com  ; 
license-discuss@opensource.org  
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research 
Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

Something is certainly better than nothing, I agree, but I think many of us 
would rather have an express and broad license from all participants in a 
project, including the government, than to have to rely on less than well 
understood public domain dedications and waivers of patent rights that do not 
apply to all participants.  Something closer to symmetry and broad coverage 
should be achievable here IMHO - the perfect may sometimes be the enemy of the 
good, but in this case, we can, I think, do better than CC0.  YMMV of course.

 Best,

  Jim

On Mar 1, 2017, at 2:01 PM, Lawrence Rosen  > wrote:

Jim Wright wrote:

> it seems odd to me to require a dedication to the public domain in any event 
> - stuff is either in the public domain by law or isn’t, and to whatever 
> extent it isn’t, we should have a copyright license, full stop.  Similarly as 
> to patents, I don’t want to have to look at some ostensible policy on waiving 
> patent rights, we should all have a clearly scoped patent license for the 
> project, government and private contributors alike, and there is an easy 
> vehicle to achieve this, use an OSI approved license.  

Jim, regardless of which OSI-approved license(s) the U.S. government chooses 
for its distributed software, neither the "public domain" question nor the 
"patent license" question will EVER be fully answered for any particular 
software simply by reading those licenses. You have to

Re: [License-discuss] 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)

Hi all, I want to keep this question at the forefront of discussion; the next 
Federal Source Code Policy group meeting is this Thursday, and if this 
solution is acceptable to OSI, then this can become a part of the Federal 
policy going forwards.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 11:23 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open 
> Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
>
> All, the folks at code.mil came up with what may be a really, really good
> idea; see
> https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md.
>
> The basic idea is simple; when the Government releases code, it's in the
> public domain (likely CC0).  The project owners select an OSI-approved
> license, and will only accept contributions to the project under their 
> chosen
> license[1].  Over time the code base becomes a mixture, some of which is 
> under
> CC0, and some of which is under the OSI-approved license.  I've talked with
> ARL's lawyers, and they are satisfied with this solution.  Would OSI be 
> happy
> with this solution?  That is, would OSI recognize the projects as being 
> truly
> Open Source, right from the start?  The caveat is that some projects will be
> 100% CC0 at the start, and can only use the chosen Open Source license on
> those contributions that have copyright attached.  Note that Government
> projects that wish to make this claim would have to choose their license and
> announce it on the project site so that everyone knows what they are 
> licensing
> their contributions under, which is the way that OSI can validate that the
> project is keeping its end of the bargain at the start.
>
> If this will satisfy OSI, then I will gladly withdraw the ARL OSL from
> consideration.  If there are NASA or other Government folks on here, would
> this solution satisfy your needs as well?
>
> Thanks,
> Cem Karan
>
> [1] There is also a form certifying that the contributor has the right to do
> so, etc.  The Army Research Laboratory's is at
> https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions/blob/master/ARL%20Form%20-%20266.pdf,
> and is, unfortunately, only able to be opened in Adobe Acrobat.  We're 
> working
> to fix that, but there are other requirements that will take some time.


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

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

2017-03-01 Thread Richard Fontana

I really like the approach as it currently exists. But why is use of
CC0 necessary? If some work of the US government is in the public
domain by virtue of the Copyright Act, there is no need to use
CC0. Indeed, I would think use of CC0 by the Government is just as
problematic, or non-problematic, as the use of any open source
license, such as the Apache License 2.0. Strictly speaking, the use of
CC0 assumes that you have copyright ownership. 

Only noting this because the fact that OSI has not approved CC0 makes
this more complicated than the case where CC0 is not used at all. 

The code.mil folks discussed an earlier version of this approach with
the OSI. But this is the first I've heard of using CC0.

Richard




On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 04:23:12PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL 
(US) wrote:
> All, the folks at code.mil came up with what may be a really, really good 
> idea; see 
> https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md.
> 
> The basic idea is simple; when the Government releases code, it's in the 
> public domain (likely CC0).  The project owners select an OSI-approved 
> license, and will only accept contributions to the project under their chosen 
> license[1].  Over time the code base becomes a mixture, some of which is 
> under 
> CC0, and some of which is under the OSI-approved license.  I've talked with 
> ARL's lawyers, and they are satisfied with this solution.  Would OSI be happy 
> with this solution?  That is, would OSI recognize the projects as being truly 
> Open Source, right from the start?  The caveat is that some projects will be 
> 100% CC0 at the start, and can only use the chosen Open Source license on 
> those contributions that have copyright attached.  Note that Government 
> projects that wish to make this claim would have to choose their license and 
> announce it on the project site so that everyone knows what they are 
> licensing 
> their contributions under, which is the way that OSI can validate that the 
> project is keeping its end of the bargain at the start.
> 
> If this will satisfy OSI, then I will gladly withdraw the ARL OSL from 
> consideration.  If there are NASA or other Government folks on here, would 
> this solution satisfy your needs as well?
> 
> Thanks,
> Cem Karan
> 
> [1] There is also a form certifying that the contributor has the right to do 
> so, etc.  The Army Research Laboratory's is at 
> https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions/blob/master/ARL%20Form%20-%20266.pdf,
>  
> and is, unfortunately, only able to be opened in Adobe Acrobat.  We're 
> working 
> to fix that, but there are other requirements that will take some time.



> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

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

2017-03-01 Thread Simon Phipps

Hi Richard,

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Richard Fontana 
wrote:

> I really like the approach as it currently exists. But why is use of
> CC0 necessary? If some work of the US government is in the public
> domain by virtue of the Copyright Act, there is no need to use
> CC0. Indeed, I would think use of CC0 by the Government is just as
> problematic, or non-problematic, as the use of any open source
> license, such as the Apache License 2.0. Strictly speaking, the use of
> CC0 assumes that you have copyright ownership.
>

I may be misunderstanding, but I had understood that the effect of the
Copyright Act only affected the USA and that outside the USA the status of
government works is not reliably determined. As such I would expect a
license like CC0 to be necessary to give people outside the USA certainty
as to their rights regarding government works.

>
> Only noting this because the fact that OSI has not approved CC0 makes
> this more complicated than the case where CC0 is not used at all.
>

I realise CC has resource constraints but I would love to see this
revisited.

Regards

Simon
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

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

2017-03-01 Thread Richard Fontana

On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 09:37:13AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
> Strictly speaking, the use of
> CC0 assumes that you have copyright ownership. 

I guess that's a bit of an overstatement, but still given the nature
of the angst I've heard from US government people over the years
concerning the use of nominal copyright licenses, I'd find it
surprising if CC0 was treated differently.

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] 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.

Richard,

It is very hard for me to take a complaint that CC0 not being OSI approved as a 
significant issue vs continued feet dragging when the OSI won’t provide 
guidance on license asymmetry, won’t vote on NOSA v2.0 and had the opportunity 
to pass CC0 years ago.

CC0 is accepted as open source by the FSF and by the GSA (see Federal Source 
Code Policy examples).  The fact that the OSI has not approved CC0 is a 
“complication” of its own making.  One easily solved with an email from the OSI 
to CC requesting that CC resubmit CC0 and then the OSI board approving it.  

Nigel

On 3/1/17, 9:37 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Richard Fontana" 

wrote:

I really like the approach as it currently exists. But why is use of
CC0 necessary? If some work of the US government is in the public
domain by virtue of the Copyright Act, there is no need to use
CC0. Indeed, I would think use of CC0 by the Government is just as
problematic, or non-problematic, as the use of any open source
license, such as the Apache License 2.0. Strictly speaking, the use of
CC0 assumes that you have copyright ownership. 

Only noting this because the fact that OSI has not approved CC0 makes
this more complicated than the case where CC0 is not used at all. 

The code.mil folks discussed an earlier version of this approach with
the OSI. But this is the first I've heard of using CC0.

Richard

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 04:23:12PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM 
ARL (US) wrote:
> All, the folks at code.mil came up with what may be a really, really good 
> idea; see 
> 
https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md.
> 
> The basic idea is simple; when the Government releases code, it's in the 
> public domain (likely CC0).  The project owners select an OSI-approved 
> license, and will only accept contributions to the project under their 
chosen 
> license[1].  Over time the code base becomes a mixture, some of which is 
under 
> CC0, and some of which is under the OSI-approved license.  I've talked 
with 
> ARL's lawyers, and they are satisfied with this solution.  Would OSI be 
happy 
> with this solution?  That is, would OSI recognize the projects as being 
truly 
> Open Source, right from the start?  The caveat is that some projects will 
be 
> 100% CC0 at the start, and can only use the chosen Open Source license on 
> those contributions that have copyright attached.  Note that Government 
> projects that wish to make this claim would have to choose their license 
and 
> announce it on the project site so that everyone knows what they are 
licensing 
> their contributions under, which is the way that OSI can validate that 
the 
> project is keeping its end of the bargain at the start.
> 
> If this will satisfy OSI, then I will gladly withdraw the ARL OSL from 
> consideration.  If there are NASA or other Government folks on here, 
would 
> this solution satisfy your needs as well?
> 
> Thanks,
> Cem Karan
> 
> [1] There is also a form certifying that the contributor has the right to 
do 
> so, etc.  The Army Research Laboratory's is at 
> 
https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions/blob/master/ARL%20Form%20-%20266.pdf,

> and is, unfortunately, only able to be opened in Adobe Acrobat.  We're 
working 
> to fix that, but there are other requirements that will take some time.

> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

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)

Two reasons.  First is for the disclaimer of liability and warranty.  We can 
write our own notice, but that would be much less recognizable than CC0, which 
is why we'd prefer to use it.

Second, it solves the question of copyright in foreign jurisdictions; as far 
as is possible, the work is in the public domain everywhere, which means that 
someone in (for example) Canada can treat it the same way as someone in the US 
would.   If you're wondering how this could be a problem, the issue is that 
copyright is a grant by the State at the time of creation, but each State has 
different rules about this.  As an example, works that I create as a civil 
servant do not have copyright within the US, but may have copyright 
protections in Canada unless specifically disclaimed.  This could lead to 
questions about whether or not the code could be merged into a project if the 
project is being used world-wide, because the license for the US Government 
furnished code is unclear.  CC0 settles the question as far as possible across 
all jurisdictions, and as long as all external contributions are under the 
chosen OSI-approved license, all material in a project will be covered by one 
or the other, and decisions can be made by the courts in any jurisdiction on 
the project as a whole.

Note that I am not a lawyer, and none of this should be construed as legal 
advice.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-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 0.4.1
>
> 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 message prior to copying and pasting the address to a 
> Web browser.
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> I really like the approach as it currently exists. But why is use of
> CC0 necessary? If some work of the US government is in the public domain by 
> virtue of the Copyright Act, there is no need to use CC0.
> Indeed, I would think use of CC0 by the Government is just as problematic, 
> or non-problematic, as the use of any open source license, such
> as the Apache License 2.0. Strictly speaking, the use of
> CC0 assumes that you have copyright ownership.
>
> Only noting this because the fact that OSI has not approved CC0 makes this 
> more complicated than the case where CC0 is not used at all.
>
> The code.mil folks discussed an earlier version of this approach with the 
> OSI. But this is the first I've heard of using CC0.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 04:23:12PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL 
> (US) wrote:
> > All, the folks at code.mil came up with what may be a really, really
> > good idea; see
> > Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md.
> >
> > The basic idea is simple; when the Government releases code, it's in
> > the public domain (likely CC0).  The project owners select an
> > OSI-approved license, and will only accept contributions to the
> > project under their chosen license[1].  Over time the code base
> > becomes a mixture, some of which is under CC0, and some of which is
> > under the OSI-approved license.  I've talked with ARL's lawyers, and
> > they are satisfied with this solution.  Would OSI be happy with this
> > solution?  That is, would OSI recognize the projects as being truly
> > Open Source, right from the start?  The caveat is that some projects
> > will be 100% CC0 at the start, and can only use the chosen Open Source
> > license on those contributions that have copyright attached.  Note
> > that Government projects that wish to make this claim would have to
> > choose their license and announce it on the project site so that
> > everyone knows what they are licensing their contributions under, which is 
> > the way that OSI can validate that the project is keeping its
> end of the bargain at the start.
> >
> > If this will satisfy OSI, then I will gladly withdraw the ARL OSL from
> > consideration.  If there are NASA or other Government folks on here,
> > would this solution satisfy your needs as well?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Cem Karan
> >
> > [1] There is also a form certifying that the contributor has the right
> > to do so, etc.  The Army Research Laboratory's is at
> > Caution-https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-
> > and-Instructions/blob/master/ARL%20Form%20-%20266.pdf,
> > and is, unfortunately, only able to be opened in Adobe Acrobat.  We're
> > working to fix that, but there are other requirements that will take some 
> > time.
>
>
>
> > ___
> > License-discuss mailing list
> > License-discuss@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

2017-03-01 Thread Richard Fontana

On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 03:45:06PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL 
(US) wrote:
> Two reasons.  First is for the disclaimer of liability and warranty.  We can 
> write our own notice, but that would be much less recognizable than CC0, 
> which 
> is why we'd prefer to use it.

But my point is that it is arguably inconsistent to say you can't use
the Apache License 2.0 but can use CC0, which, for example, contains a
waiver and fallback copyright license. To put it another way, the
public domain that CC0 attempts to achieve is not the same thing as
the public domain of US government civil servant works. 

Anyway looking at some of the closed issues for code.mil it seems they
have the same concerns about CC0 that you have about the Apache
License. 

> Second, it solves the question of copyright in foreign jurisdictions; as far 
> as is possible, the work is in the public domain everywhere, which means that 
> someone in (for example) Canada can treat it the same way as someone in the 
> US 
> would.   If you're wondering how this could be a problem, the issue is that 
> copyright is a grant by the State at the time of creation, but each State has 
> different rules about this.  As an example, works that I create as a civil 
> servant do not have copyright within the US, but may have copyright 
> protections in Canada unless specifically disclaimed.  This could lead to 
> questions about whether or not the code could be merged into a project if the 
> project is being used world-wide, because the license for the US Government 
> furnished code is unclear.  CC0 settles the question as far as possible 
> across 
> all jurisdictions, and as long as all external contributions are under the 
> chosen OSI-approved license, all material in a project will be covered by one 
> or the other, and decisions can be made by the courts in any jurisdiction on 
> the project as a whole.

The approach I understand code.mil to be taking is that a given
project will have an open source license and that license will cover
anything that isn't statutory public domain, including both
contributions coming in through the DCO and code released by the US
government that may be public domain in the US but not elsewhere.

See: 
https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md#1-license









> 
> Note that I am not a lawyer, and none of this should be construed as legal 
> advice.
> 
> Thanks,
> Cem Karan
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-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 0.4.1
> >
> > 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 message prior to copying and pasting the address to a 
> > Web browser.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> > I really like the approach as it currently exists. But why is use of
> > CC0 necessary? If some work of the US government is in the public domain by 
> > virtue of the Copyright Act, there is no need to use CC0.
> > Indeed, I would think use of CC0 by the Government is just as problematic, 
> > or non-problematic, as the use of any open source license, such
> > as the Apache License 2.0. Strictly speaking, the use of
> > CC0 assumes that you have copyright ownership.
> >
> > Only noting this because the fact that OSI has not approved CC0 makes this 
> > more complicated than the case where CC0 is not used at all.
> >
> > The code.mil folks discussed an earlier version of this approach with the 
> > OSI. But this is the first I've heard of using CC0.
> >
> > Richard
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 04:23:12PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM 
> > ARL 
> > (US) wrote:
> > > All, the folks at code.mil came up with what may be a really, really
> > > good idea; see
> > > Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md.
> > >
> > > The basic idea is simple; when the Government releases code, it's in
> > > the public domain (likely CC0).  The project owners select an
> > > OSI-approved license, and will only accept contributions to the
> > > project under their chosen license[1].  Over time the code base
> > > becomes a mixture, some of which is under CC0, and some of which is
> > > under the OSI-approved license.  I've talked with ARL's lawyers, and
> > > they are satisfied with this solution.  Would OSI be happy with this
> > > solution?  That is, would OSI recognize the projects as being truly
> > > Open Source, right from the start?  The caveat is that some projects
> > > will be 100% CC0 at the start, and can only use the chosen Open Source
> > > license on those contributions that

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

2017-03-01 Thread Richard Fontana

Well the complication is mainly a response to Cem wanting the OSI to
bless his proposed approach. I think however that code.mil has already
rejected this sort of idea.

I think the code.mil approach is much more elegant without introducing
the use of CC0. 



On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 03:08:22PM +, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> Richard,
> 
> It is very hard for me to take a complaint that CC0 not being OSI approved as 
> a significant issue vs continued feet dragging when the OSI won’t provide 
> guidance on license asymmetry, won’t vote on NOSA v2.0 and had the 
> opportunity to pass CC0 years ago.
> 
> CC0 is accepted as open source by the FSF and by the GSA (see Federal Source 
> Code Policy examples).  The fact that the OSI has not approved CC0 is a 
> “complication” of its own making.  One easily solved with an email from the 
> OSI to CC requesting that CC resubmit CC0 and then the OSI board approving 
> it.  
> 
> Nigel
> 
> On 3/1/17, 9:37 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Richard Fontana" 
>  
> wrote:
> 
> I really like the approach as it currently exists. But why is use of
> CC0 necessary? If some work of the US government is in the public
> domain by virtue of the Copyright Act, there is no need to use
> CC0. Indeed, I would think use of CC0 by the Government is just as
> problematic, or non-problematic, as the use of any open source
> license, such as the Apache License 2.0. Strictly speaking, the use of
> CC0 assumes that you have copyright ownership. 
> 
> Only noting this because the fact that OSI has not approved CC0 makes
> this more complicated than the case where CC0 is not used at all. 
> 
> The code.mil folks discussed an earlier version of this approach with
> the OSI. But this is the first I've heard of using CC0.
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 04:23:12PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM 
> ARL (US) wrote:
> > All, the folks at code.mil came up with what may be a really, really 
> good 
> > idea; see 
> > 
> https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md.
> > 
> > The basic idea is simple; when the Government releases code, it's in 
> the 
> > public domain (likely CC0).  The project owners select an OSI-approved 
> > license, and will only accept contributions to the project under their 
> chosen 
> > license[1].  Over time the code base becomes a mixture, some of which 
> is under 
> > CC0, and some of which is under the OSI-approved license.  I've talked 
> with 
> > ARL's lawyers, and they are satisfied with this solution.  Would OSI be 
> happy 
> > with this solution?  That is, would OSI recognize the projects as being 
> truly 
> > Open Source, right from the start?  The caveat is that some projects 
> will be 
> > 100% CC0 at the start, and can only use the chosen Open Source license 
> on 
> > those contributions that have copyright attached.  Note that Government 
> > projects that wish to make this claim would have to choose their 
> license and 
> > announce it on the project site so that everyone knows what they are 
> licensing 
> > their contributions under, which is the way that OSI can validate that 
> the 
> > project is keeping its end of the bargain at the start.
> > 
> > If this will satisfy OSI, then I will gladly withdraw the ARL OSL from 
> > consideration.  If there are NASA or other Government folks on here, 
> would 
> > this solution satisfy your needs as well?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Cem Karan
> > 
> > [1] There is also a form certifying that the contributor has the right 
> to do 
> > so, etc.  The Army Research Laboratory's is at 
> > 
> https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions/blob/master/ARL%20Form%20-%20266.pdf,
>  
> > and is, unfortunately, only able to be opened in Adobe Acrobat.  We're 
> working 
> > to fix that, but there are other requirements that will take some time.
> 
> 
> 
> > ___
> > License-discuss mailing list
> > License-discuss@opensource.org
> > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
> 
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
> 
> 
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

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

2017-03-01 Thread Lawrence Rosen

Richard Fontana wrote:

> I think the code.mil approach is much more elegant without introducing the 
> use of CC0. 

 

Richard, I'm not as concerned with elegance as you are. Most FOSS licenses 
aren't elegant. Whatever code.mil is recommending has nothing to do with the 
elegance of its approach.

 

The question remains from many years of discussion here: What is wrong with CC0 
being approved by OSI as a license for components in other open source 
software? Including for U.S. government works that may (or may not) be public 
domain?

 

The absence of an explicit patent provision applies equally to the BSD and MIT 
licenses. By also licensing U.S. government works under (e.g.) the Apache 
license, that problem is resolved, but not elegantly.

 

/Larry

 

-Original Message-
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf 
Of Richard Fontana
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 8:30 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research 
Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

 

Well the complication is mainly a response to Cem wanting the OSI to bless his 
proposed approach. I think however that code.mil has already rejected this sort 
of idea.

 

I think the code.mil approach is much more elegant without introducing the use 
of CC0. 

 

 

 

On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 03:08:22PM +, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:

> Richard,

> 

> It is very hard for me to take a complaint that CC0 not being OSI approved as 
> a significant issue vs continued feet dragging when the OSI won’t provide 
> guidance on license asymmetry, won’t vote on NOSA v2.0 and had the 
> opportunity to pass CC0 years ago.

> 

> CC0 is accepted as open source by the FSF and by the GSA (see Federal Source 
> Code Policy examples).  The fact that the OSI has not approved CC0 is a 
> “complication” of its own making.  One easily solved with an email from the 
> OSI to CC requesting that CC resubmit CC0 and then the OSI board approving 
> it.  

> 

> Nigel

> 

> On 3/1/17, 9:37 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Richard Fontana" < 
> 
>  license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org on behalf of font...@sharpeleven.org> 
> wrote:

> 

> I really like the approach as it currently exists. But why is use of

> CC0 necessary? If some work of the US government is in the public

> domain by virtue of the Copyright Act, there is no need to use

> CC0. Indeed, I would think use of CC0 by the Government is just as

> problematic, or non-problematic, as the use of any open source

> license, such as the Apache License 2.0. Strictly speaking, the use of

> CC0 assumes that you have copyright ownership. 

> 

> Only noting this because the fact that OSI has not approved CC0 makes

> this more complicated than the case where CC0 is not used at all. 

> 

> The code.mil folks discussed an earlier version of this approach with

> the OSI. But this is the first I've heard of using CC0.

> 

> Richard

> 

> 

> 

> 

> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 04:23:12PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM 
> ARL (US) wrote:

> > All, the folks at code.mil came up with what may be a really, really 
> good 

> > idea; see 

> >  
> 
>  
> https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md.

> > 

> > The basic idea is simple; when the Government releases code, it's in 
> the 

> > public domain (likely CC0).  The project owners select an OSI-approved 

> > license, and will only accept contributions to the project under their 
> chosen 

> > license[1].  Over time the code base becomes a mixture, some of which 
> is under 

> > CC0, and some of which is under the OSI-approved license.  I've talked 
> with 

> > ARL's lawyers, and they are satisfied with this solution.  Would OSI be 
> happy 

> > with this solution?  That is, would OSI recognize the projects as being 
> truly 

> > Open Source, right from the start?  The caveat is that some projects 
> will be 

> > 100% CC0 at the start, and can only use the chosen Open Source license 
> on 

> > those contributions that have copyright attached.  Note that Government 

> > projects that wish to make this claim would have to choose their 
> license and 

> > announce it on the project site so that everyone knows what they are 
> licensing 

> > their contributions under, which is the way that OSI can validate that 
> the 

> > project is keeping its end of the bargain at the start.

> > 

> > If this will satisfy OSI, then I will gladly withdraw the ARL OSL from 

> > consideration.  If there are NASA or other Government folks on here, 
> would 

> >

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)

I've forwarded the link to our lawyers, I'll ping them on Friday when I get 
back in the office to see what they say.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Wright [mailto:jim.wri...@oracle.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 11:27 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Cc: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) ; 
> Richard Fontana 
> 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 the 
> identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links
> contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a 
> Web browser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, as Richard pointed out earlier, this would also be true as to the 
> ASL, etc., except to the extent that the government choosing to
> effectively “waive" patent rights as Cem has said is not the same thing as a 
> terminable patent license in the ASL - the UPL thus arguably
> putting the government on the most equal footing possible with everyone else 
> given the expressed intent re: license scope… maybe the
> grant of “any and all copyright rights” would make them feel better about the 
> copyright grant by virtue of not suggesting there necessarily
> are any?  Obviously tooting the horn here but it seems odd to me to require a 
> dedication to the public domain in any event - stuff is either
> in the public domain by law or isn’t, and to whatever extent it isn’t, we 
> should have a copyright license, full stop.  Similarly as to patents, I
> don’t want to have to look at some ostensible policy on waiving patent 
> rights, we should all have a clearly scoped patent license for the
> project, government and private contributors alike, and there is an easy 
> vehicle to achieve this, use an OSI approved license.
> 
> 
> > On Mar 1, 2017, at 7:49 AM, Jim Wright  wrote:
> >
> > Indeed, if there’s no copyright in the US, there may be no need of a 
> > copyright license from the government here, but in any event there
> *is* an OSI approved permissive license that licenses both any applicable 
> copyright rights (without actually requiring that the government
> have any) and patent rights applicable to the project - the UPL.
> >
> > If the government releases code under the UPL, and accepts contributions 
> > under the UPL, they are using an OSI approved license, full
> stop, no need of extra terms or to treat other contributors any differently 
> than the government itself, no need of an express public domain
> dedication which is any different than what is already true by law, everyone 
> is simply licensing whatever copyright rights they possess as
> well as whatever patent rights they possess covering the project as they 
> contributed to or provided it, and it seems to me at first glance
> like nothing else need be done…?
> >
> > Regards,
> >  Jim
> >
> >
> >> On Mar 1, 2017, at 6:49 AM, Richard Fontana  
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 09:37:13AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
> >>> Strictly speaking, the use of
> >>> CC0 assumes that you have copyright ownership.
> >>
> >> I guess that's a bit of an overstatement, but still given the nature
> >> of the angst I've heard from US government people over the years
> >> concerning the use of nominal copyright licenses, I'd find it
> >> surprising if CC0 was treated differently.
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> License-discuss mailing list
> >> License-discuss@opensource.org
> >> Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license
> >> -discuss
> >



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

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)

Then there would still need to be a disclaimer of warranty and liability, and 
there would still need be a way of settling the problems of foreign 
jurisdictions.  The Government could write its own terms, but those terms would 
like not be widely recognized.  CC0 is well-known, and acceptable to our 
lawyers.  Public domain release without disclaimers of warranty and liability 
is not acceptable.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Richard Fontana
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 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 the 
> identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links
> contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a 
> Web browser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the complication is mainly a response to Cem wanting the OSI to bless 
> his proposed approach. I think however that code.mil has
> already rejected this sort of idea.
> 
> I think the code.mil approach is much more elegant without introducing the 
> use of CC0.
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 03:08:22PM +, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> > Richard,
> >
> > It is very hard for me to take a complaint that CC0 not being OSI approved 
> > as a significant issue vs continued feet dragging when the OSI
> won’t provide guidance on license asymmetry, won’t vote on NOSA v2.0 and had 
> the opportunity to pass CC0 years ago.
> >
> > CC0 is accepted as open source by the FSF and by the GSA (see Federal 
> > Source Code Policy examples).  The fact that the OSI has not
> approved CC0 is a “complication” of its own making.  One easily solved with 
> an email from the OSI to CC requesting that CC resubmit CC0
> and then the OSI board approving it.
> >
> > Nigel
> >
> > On 3/1/17, 9:37 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Richard Fontana" 
> >  font...@sharpeleven.org> wrote:
> >
> > I really like the approach as it currently exists. But why is use of
> > CC0 necessary? If some work of the US government is in the public
> > domain by virtue of the Copyright Act, there is no need to use
> > CC0. Indeed, I would think use of CC0 by the Government is just as
> > problematic, or non-problematic, as the use of any open source
> > license, such as the Apache License 2.0. Strictly speaking, the use of
> > CC0 assumes that you have copyright ownership.
> >
> > Only noting this because the fact that OSI has not approved CC0 makes
> > this more complicated than the case where CC0 is not used at all.
> >
> > The code.mil folks discussed an earlier version of this approach with
> > the OSI. But this is the first I've heard of using CC0.
> >
> > Richard
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 04:23:12PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY 
> > RDECOM ARL (US) wrote:
> > > All, the folks at code.mil came up with what may be a really, really 
> > good
> > > idea; see
> > > 
> > Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md.
> > >
> > > The basic idea is simple; when the Government releases code, it's in 
> > the
> > > public domain (likely CC0).  The project owners select an OSI-approved
> > > license, and will only accept contributions to the project under 
> > their chosen
> > > license[1].  Over time the code base becomes a mixture, some of which 
> > is under
> > > CC0, and some of which is under the OSI-approved license.  I've 
> > talked with
> > > ARL's lawyers, and they are satisfied with this solution.  Would OSI 
> > be happy
> > > with this solution?  That is, would OSI recognize the projects as 
> > being truly
> > > Open Source, right from the start?  The caveat is that some projects 
> > will be
> > > 100% CC0 at the start, and can only use the chosen Open Source 
> > license on
> > > those contributions that have copyright attached.  Note that 
> > Government
> > > projects that wish to make this claim would have to choose their 
> > license and
> > > announce it on the project site so that everyone knows what they are 
> > licensing
> > > their contributions under, which is the way that OSI can validate 
> > that the
> > > project is keeping its end of the bargain at the start.
> > >
> > > If this will satisfy OSI, then I will gladly withdraw the ARL OSL from
> > > consideration.  If there are NASA or other Government folks on here, 
> > would
> > > this solution satisfy your needs as well?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Cem Karan
> > >
> > > [1] There is also a form certifying that the contributor has the 
> > right to do
> > >

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

2017-03-01 Thread Jim Wright

Certainly the approach code.mil spells out to contributions seems ok without 
having to address the license issue at all, but these questions seem orthogonal 
to me.  Cem seems to be trying to ensure that all open source projects 
operating using this process are under an OSI approved license, which appears 
to require them to pick one (or several) FOSS licenses to actually apply.  CC0 
doesn’t work for that purpose because it’s not OSI approved anyway and also 
doesn’t have a patent license, but observing this doesn’t solve Cem’s problem 
of how to license this stuff in a way that *is* OSI approved, which I think is 
what he’s getting at.  (Feel free to correct me…)

> On Mar 1, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Richard Fontana  wrote:
> 
> Well the complication is mainly a response to Cem wanting the OSI to
> bless his proposed approach. I think however that code.mil has already
> rejected this sort of idea.
> 
> I think the code.mil approach is much more elegant without introducing
> the use of CC0. 
> 
> 

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

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)

I see your points about the Apache license vs. CC0, but the reason CC0 is more 
palatable is because we're not trying to make any restrictions based on 
copyright.  We're trying to meet the spirit of US law, and our lawyers believe 
that CC0 has the best chance of doing that.

As to your second point, that is PRECISELY what I'm proposing.  The material 
that has copyright attached will be accepted under the OSI-approved license 
that the project controllers wish to use, and all other material will be 
distributed under CC0.  This way the US Government is not claiming copyright 
where none exists.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Richard Fontana
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 11:25 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) 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 message prior to copying and pasting the address to a 
> Web browser.
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 03:45:06PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL 
> (US) wrote:
> > Two reasons.  First is for the disclaimer of liability and warranty.
> > We can write our own notice, but that would be much less recognizable
> > than CC0, which is why we'd prefer to use it.
>
> But my point is that it is arguably inconsistent to say you can't use the 
> Apache License 2.0 but can use CC0, which, for example, contains a
> waiver and fallback copyright license. To put it another way, the public 
> domain that CC0 attempts to achieve is not the same thing as the
> public domain of US government civil servant works.
>
> Anyway looking at some of the closed issues for code.mil it seems they have 
> the same concerns about CC0 that you have about the
> Apache License.
>
> > Second, it solves the question of copyright in foreign jurisdictions;
> > as far as is possible, the work is in the public domain everywhere,
> > which means that someone in (for example) Canada can treat it the same way 
> > as someone in the US
> > would.   If you're wondering how this could be a problem, the issue is 
> > that
> > copyright is a grant by the State at the time of creation, but each
> > State has different rules about this.  As an example, works that I
> > create as a civil servant do not have copyright within the US, but may
> > have copyright protections in Canada unless specifically disclaimed.
> > This could lead to questions about whether or not the code could be
> > merged into a project if the project is being used world-wide, because
> > the license for the US Government furnished code is unclear.  CC0
> > settles the question as far as possible across all jurisdictions, and
> > as long as all external contributions are under the chosen
> > OSI-approved license, all material in a project will be covered by one
> > or the other, and decisions can be made by the courts in any jurisdiction 
> > on the project as a whole.
>
> The approach I understand code.mil to be taking is that a given project will 
> have an open source license and that license will cover
> anything that isn't statutory public domain, including both contributions 
> coming in through the DCO and code released by the US
> government that may be public domain in the US but not elsewhere.
>
> See: 
> Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md#1-license
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Note that I am not a lawyer, and none of this should be construed as
> > legal advice.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Cem Karan
> >
> > > -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: 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 the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of
> > > all links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting
> > > the address to a Web browser.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > I really like the approach as it currently exists. But why is use of
> > > CC0 necessary? If some work of the US government is in the public
> > > domain by virtue of the Copyright Act, there is no need to use CC0.
> > > Indeed, I would think use of CC0 by the Government is just as
> > > problematic, or non-problematic, as the use of any open source
> > > license, such as the Apache License 2.0. Strictly speaking, the use
> > > of
> > > CC0 assumes that

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)

You've hit the nail on the head!  I personally want Government works to be Open 
Source, not open source.  That was the whole point of the ARL OSL being put 
forwards.  There are statutory and regulatory limits on what the Government can 
and cannot do; the lawyers I've talked with say that this is something we can 
do, which also protects Government interests (IP licensing, not getting sued 
for warranty/liability, etc.).

Is the concern that the **Government** is not licensing its patent rights?  
ARL's internal process includes waiving any potential IP rights (including 
patent rights) in the software that is being released, so that should cover 
anyone downstream.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Wright [mailto:jwri...@commsoft.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 11:53 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Cc: Richard Fontana ; Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM 
> ARL (US) 
> 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 approach code.mil spells out to contributions seems ok without 
> having to address the license issue at all, but these questions
> seem orthogonal to me.  Cem seems to be trying to ensure that all open source 
> projects operating using this process are under an OSI
> approved license, which appears to require them to pick one (or several) FOSS 
> licenses to actually apply.  CC0 doesn’t work for that
> purpose because it’s not OSI approved anyway and also doesn’t have a patent 
> license, but observing this doesn’t solve Cem’s problem of
> how to license this stuff in a way that *is* OSI approved, which I think is 
> what he’s getting at.  (Feel free to correct me…)
> 
> 
> > On Mar 1, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Richard Fontana  wrote:
> >
> > Well the complication is mainly a response to Cem wanting the OSI to
> > bless his proposed approach. I think however that code.mil has already
> > rejected this sort of idea.
> >
> > I think the code.mil approach is much more elegant without introducing
> > the use of CC0.
> >
> >



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

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)

No.  The material can always be separated into two piles; stuff that has 
copyright attached, and stuff that does not have copyright attached.  The 
stuff that has copyright attached is always released under the chosen 
OSI-approved license; everything else is released under CC0.  Within the US, 
that means that material that has no copyright attached is in the public 
domain.  CC0 makes this the same for jurisdictions outside of the US.

In general, if a contribution has copyright attached, then the contributor 
will retain copyright (unless they choose to assign it to the US Government 
for some reason).  To contribute, the contributor must agree to license the 
contribution to the USG under that project's chosen OSI-approved license (e.g. 
Apache 2.0).  From then on, when the USG redistributes **that particular 
contribution**, it will be under that license (e.g. Apache 2.0).  However, 
material that does not have copyright will be redistributed under CC0.  This 
will result in a mosaic of material in each project, where some portions are 
under CC0, and others are under the OSI-approved license.  You will need to 
use the version control system to determine which is which.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On 
> Behalf 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
> 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 message prior to copying and pasting the address to a 
> Web browser.
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:39:01PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL 
> (US) wrote:
> > I see your points about the Apache license vs. CC0, but the reason CC0
> > is more palatable is because we're not trying to make any restrictions
> > based on copyright.  We're trying to meet the spirit of US law, and
> > our lawyers believe that CC0 has the best chance of doing that.
> >
> > As to your second point, that is PRECISELY what I'm proposing.  The
> > material that has copyright attached will be accepted under the
> > OSI-approved license that the project controllers wish to use, and all
> > other material will be distributed under CC0.  This way the US
> > Government is not claiming copyright where none exists.
>
> So your proposal is: US government releases simultaneously under CC0 (for 
> the US case) and some designated open source license (for the
> non-US case)?
>
> I like the code.mil approach better. (This doesn't have much to do with the 
> fact that CC0 is not OSI-approved - I would have a similar
> reaction to, say, use of the Free Public License (aka Zero Clause
> BSD).)
>
> BTW, CC0 does not have a limitation of liability provision as far as I can 
> tell (not counting the prefatory one that applies only to Creative
> Commons Corp.).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > The approach I understand code.mil to be taking is that a given
> > > project will have an open source license and that license will cover
> > > anything that isn't statutory public domain, including both
> > > contributions coming in through the DCO and code released by the US
> > > government that may be public domain in the US but not elsewhere.
> > >
> > > See:
> > > Caution-Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/maste
> > > r/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md#1-license
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Note that I am not a lawyer, and none of this should be construed
> > > > as legal advice.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Cem Karan
> > > >
> > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > From: License-discuss
> > > > > [Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss-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 0.4.1
> > > > >
> > > > > 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 message prior to copying and
> > > > > pasting the address to a Web browser.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > >
> > > > > I really like the approach as it currently exists. But why is
> > > > > use of
> > > > > CC0 necessary? If some work of the US government is in the
> > > > > public domain by virtue of the Copyright Act, there is no need to 
> > > > > use CC0.
> > > > > Indeed, I would think use of CC0 by the Government is just as
> > > >

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.

For government owned patents and software that would be fine but research 
organizations often bring existing IP to the table funded through internal 
research and development funding. Some of which has limited government use 
rights rather than full rights.

A blanket waiver of patent right by ARL may work for ARL because of the way ARL 
contracts are negotiated but may not work for all DoD stakeholders working 
under DFARS.

From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
>
Date: Wednesday, Mar 01, 2017, 12:21 PM
To: Jim Wright >, 
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

You've hit the nail on the head!  I personally want Government works to be Open 
Source, not open source.  That was the whole point of the ARL OSL being put 
forwards.  There are statutory and regulatory limits on what the Government can 
and cannot do; the lawyers I've talked with say that this is something we can 
do, which also protects Government interests (IP licensing, not getting sued 
for warranty/liability, etc.).

Is the concern that the **Government** is not licensing its patent rights?  
ARL's internal process includes waiving any potential IP rights (including 
patent rights) in the software that is being released, so that should cover 
anyone downstream.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Wright [mailto:jwri...@commsoft.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 11:53 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Cc: Richard Fontana ; Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM 
> ARL (US) 
> 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 approach code.mil spells out to contributions seems ok without 
> having to address the license issue at all, but these questions
> seem orthogonal to me.  Cem seems to be trying to ensure that all open source 
> projects operating using this process are under an OSI
> approved license, which appears to require them to pick one (or several) FOSS 
> licenses to actually apply.  CC0 doesn’t work for that
> purpose because it’s not OSI approved anyway and also doesn’t have a patent 
> license, but observing this doesn’t solve Cem’s problem of
> how to license this stuff in a way that *is* OSI approved, which I think is 
> what he’s getting at.  (Feel free to correct me…)
>
>
> > On Mar 1, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Richard Fontana  wrote:
> >
> > Well the complication is mainly a response to Cem wanting the OSI to
> > bless his proposed approach. I think however that code.mil has already
> > rejected this sort of idea.
> >
> > I think the code.mil approach is much more elegant without introducing
> > the use of CC0.
> >
> >

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

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

I see (I think). So you want to approximately harmonize the treatment
of US government works outside the US with the treatment inside the
US, but not harmonize the treatment of US government works with the
treatment of non-US-government works. 


On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 05:33:57PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL 
(US) wrote:
> No.  The material can always be separated into two piles; stuff that has 
> copyright attached, and stuff that does not have copyright attached.  The 
> stuff that has copyright attached is always released under the chosen 
> OSI-approved license; everything else is released under CC0.  Within the US, 
> that means that material that has no copyright attached is in the public 
> domain.  CC0 makes this the same for jurisdictions outside of the US.
> 
> In general, if a contribution has copyright attached, then the contributor 
> will retain copyright (unless they choose to assign it to the US Government 
> for some reason).  To contribute, the contributor must agree to license the 
> contribution to the USG under that project's chosen OSI-approved license 
> (e.g. 
> Apache 2.0).  From then on, when the USG redistributes **that particular 
> contribution**, it will be under that license (e.g. Apache 2.0).  However, 
> material that does not have copyright will be redistributed under CC0.  This 
> will result in a mosaic of material in each project, where some portions are 
> under CC0, and others are under the OSI-approved license.  You will need to 
> use the version control system to determine which is which.
> 
> Thanks,
> Cem Karan
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On 
> > Behalf 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
> > 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 message prior to copying and pasting the address to a 
> > Web browser.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:39:01PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM 
> > ARL 
> > (US) wrote:
> > > I see your points about the Apache license vs. CC0, but the reason CC0
> > > is more palatable is because we're not trying to make any restrictions
> > > based on copyright.  We're trying to meet the spirit of US law, and
> > > our lawyers believe that CC0 has the best chance of doing that.
> > >
> > > As to your second point, that is PRECISELY what I'm proposing.  The
> > > material that has copyright attached will be accepted under the
> > > OSI-approved license that the project controllers wish to use, and all
> > > other material will be distributed under CC0.  This way the US
> > > Government is not claiming copyright where none exists.
> >
> > So your proposal is: US government releases simultaneously under CC0 (for 
> > the US case) and some designated open source license (for the
> > non-US case)?
> >
> > I like the code.mil approach better. (This doesn't have much to do with the 
> > fact that CC0 is not OSI-approved - I would have a similar
> > reaction to, say, use of the Free Public License (aka Zero Clause
> > BSD).)
> >
> > BTW, CC0 does not have a limitation of liability provision as far as I can 
> > tell (not counting the prefatory one that applies only to Creative
> > Commons Corp.).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > The approach I understand code.mil to be taking is that a given
> > > > project will have an open source license and that license will cover
> > > > anything that isn't statutory public domain, including both
> > > > contributions coming in through the DCO and code released by the US
> > > > government that may be public domain in the US but not elsewhere.
> > > >
> > > > See:
> > > > Caution-Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/maste
> > > > r/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md#1-license
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Note that I am not a lawyer, and none of this should be construed
> > > > > as legal advice.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Cem Karan
> > > > >
> > > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > > From: License-discuss
> > > > > > [Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss-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 0.4.1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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 Richard Fontana

On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:39:01PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL 
(US) wrote:
> I see your points about the Apache license vs. CC0, but the reason CC0 is 
> more 
> palatable is because we're not trying to make any restrictions based on 
> copyright.  We're trying to meet the spirit of US law, and our lawyers 
> believe 
> that CC0 has the best chance of doing that.
> 
> As to your second point, that is PRECISELY what I'm proposing.  The material 
> that has copyright attached will be accepted under the OSI-approved license 
> that the project controllers wish to use, and all other material will be 
> distributed under CC0.  This way the US Government is not claiming copyright 
> where none exists.

So your proposal is: US government releases simultaneously under CC0
(for the US case) and some designated open source license (for the
non-US case)? 

I like the code.mil approach better. (This doesn't have much to do
with the fact that CC0 is not OSI-approved - I would have a similar
reaction to, say, use of the Free Public License (aka Zero Clause
BSD).)

BTW, CC0 does not have a limitation of liability provision as far as I
can tell (not counting the prefatory one that applies only to Creative
Commons Corp.).







> > The approach I understand code.mil to be taking is that a given project 
> > will 
> > have an open source license and that license will cover
> > anything that isn't statutory public domain, including both contributions 
> > coming in through the DCO and code released by the US
> > government that may be public domain in the US but not elsewhere.
> >
> > See: 
> > Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md#1-license
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Note that I am not a lawyer, and none of this should be construed as
> > > legal advice.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Cem Karan
> > >
> > > > -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: 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 the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of
> > > > all links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting
> > > > the address to a Web browser.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > I really like the approach as it currently exists. But why is use of
> > > > CC0 necessary? If some work of the US government is in the public
> > > > domain by virtue of the Copyright Act, there is no need to use CC0.
> > > > Indeed, I would think use of CC0 by the Government is just as
> > > > problematic, or non-problematic, as the use of any open source
> > > > license, such as the Apache License 2.0. Strictly speaking, the use
> > > > of
> > > > CC0 assumes that you have copyright ownership.
> > > >
> > > > Only noting this because the fact that OSI has not approved CC0
> > > > makes this more complicated than the case where CC0 is not used at all.
> > > >
> > > > The code.mil folks discussed an earlier version of this approach
> > > > with the OSI. But this is the first I've heard of using CC0.
> > > >
> > > > Richard
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 04:23:12PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY
> > > > RDECOM ARL
> > > > (US) wrote:
> > > > > All, the folks at code.mil came up with what may be a really,
> > > > > really good idea; see
> > > > > Caution-Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md.
> > > > >
> > > > > The basic idea is simple; when the Government releases code, it's
> > > > > in the public domain (likely CC0).  The project owners select an
> > > > > OSI-approved license, and will only accept contributions to the
> > > > > project under their chosen license[1].  Over time the code base
> > > > > becomes a mixture, some of which is under CC0, and some of which
> > > > > is under the OSI-approved license.  I've talked with ARL's
> > > > > lawyers, and they are satisfied with this solution.  Would OSI be
> > > > > happy with this solution?  That is, would OSI recognize the
> > > > > projects as being truly Open Source, right from the start?  The
> > > > > caveat is that some projects will be 100% CC0 at the start, and
> > > > > can only use the chosen Open Source license on those contributions
> > > > > that have copyright attached.  Note that Government projects that
> > > > > wish to make this claim would have to choose their license and
> > > > > announce it on the project site so that everyone knows what they
> > > > > are licensing their contributions under, which is the way that OSI
> > > > > can

Re: [License-discuss] 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.

OSI approval is not explicitly required under DOSA. It just says open source 
license.

If DOSA explicitly defines the licensing authority I would prefer it be stated 
as any DOD approved open source license.

That would insure that any projects we develop for sponsors and released as 
open source will be under a license that has been reviewed and accepted by DOD 
legal from both from a security as well as compliance standpoint.
From: Jim Wright >
Date: Wednesday, Mar 01, 2017, 11:53 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org 
>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research 
Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

Certainly the approach code.mil spells out to contributions seems ok without 
having to address the license issue at all, but these questions seem orthogonal 
to me.  Cem seems to be trying to ensure that all open source projects 
operating using this process are under an OSI approved license, which appears 
to require them to pick one (or several) FOSS licenses to actually apply.  CC0 
doesn’t work for that purpose because it’s not OSI approved anyway and also 
doesn’t have a patent license, but observing this doesn’t solve Cem’s problem 
of how to license this stuff in a way that *is* OSI approved, which I think is 
what he’s getting at.  (Feel free to correct me…)

> On Mar 1, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Richard Fontana  wrote:
>
> Well the complication is mainly a response to Cem wanting the OSI to
> bless his proposed approach. I think however that code.mil has already
> rejected this sort of idea.
>
> I think the code.mil approach is much more elegant without introducing
> the use of CC0.
>
>

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

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)

That is actually a part of ARL's policy.  If you haven't looked at the policy 
yet, go to 
https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions 
and take a look.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-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) 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 message prior to copying and pasting the address to a 
> Web browser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OSI approval is not explicitly required under DOSA. It just says open source 
> license.
> 
> If DOSA explicitly defines the licensing authority I would prefer it be 
> stated as any DOD approved open source license.
> 
> That would insure that any projects we develop for sponsors and released as 
> open source will be under a license that has been reviewed
> and accepted by DOD legal from both from a security as well as compliance 
> standpoint.
> From: Jim Wright  > >
> Date: Wednesday, Mar 01, 2017, 11:53 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org  Caution-mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org > >
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army 
> Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
> 
> Certainly the approach code.mil spells out to contributions seems ok without 
> having to address the license issue at all, but these questions
> seem orthogonal to me.  Cem seems to be trying to ensure that all open source 
> projects operating using this process are under an OSI
> approved license, which appears to require them to pick one (or several) FOSS 
> licenses to actually apply.  CC0 doesn’t work for that
> purpose because it’s not OSI approved anyway and also doesn’t have a patent 
> license, but observing this doesn’t solve Cem’s problem of
> how to license this stuff in a way that *is* OSI approved, which I think is 
> what he’s getting at.  (Feel free to correct me…)
> 
> 
> > On Mar 1, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Richard Fontana  wrote:
> >
> > Well the complication is mainly a response to Cem wanting the OSI to
> > bless his proposed approach. I think however that code.mil has already
> > rejected this sort of idea.
> >
> > I think the code.mil approach is much more elegant without introducing
> > the use of CC0.
> >
> >
> 
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss 
> < Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-
> bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss >



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

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

2017-03-01 Thread Lawrence Rosen

Nigel Tzeng wrote:

> If DOSA explicitly defines the licensing authority I would prefer it be
stated as any DOD approved open source license.

Isn't that already true for every software distributor, including the U.S.
government? Every distributor controls its own licensing strategies. Even
Google asserts that authority for itself, refusing AGPL software. I have no
problem with that level of independence. That is (perhaps unfortunately) why
there are so many FOSS licenses.

But the concern is yet another FOSS license for the U.S. Army Research
Laboratory.

A proposed solution, however, is that the U.S. government will distribute
software under CC0. I don't care if that is sensible. I don't care if that
is odd. I do care that CC0 be an OSI-approved license, regardless of its
flaws.

That will reaffirm the authority in our community of the OSI-approved open
source license list, regardless of the elegance of that solution for DOSA.

/Larry

From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 9:23 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army
Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

OSI approval is not explicitly required under DOSA. It just says open source
license. 

If DOSA explicitly defines the licensing authority I would prefer it be
stated as any DOD approved open source license.

That would insure that any projects we develop for sponsors and released as
open source will be under a license that has been reviewed and accepted by
DOD legal from both from a security as well as compliance standpoint.

From: Jim Wright  >

Date: Wednesday, Mar 01, 2017, 11:53 AM

To: license-discuss@opensource.org 
 >

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

Certainly the approach code.mil spells out to contributions seems ok without
having to address the license issue at all, but these questions seem
orthogonal to me.  Cem seems to be trying to ensure that all open source
projects operating using this process are under an OSI approved license,
which appears to require them to pick one (or several) FOSS licenses to
actually apply.  CC0 doesn't work for that purpose because it's not OSI
approved anyway and also doesn't have a patent license, but observing this
doesn't solve Cem's problem of how to license this stuff in a way that *is*
OSI approved, which I think is what he's getting at.  (Feel free to correct
me.)

> On Mar 1, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Richard Fontana  > wrote:
> 
> Well the complication is mainly a response to Cem wanting the OSI to
> bless his proposed approach. I think however that code.mil has already
> rejected this sort of idea.
> 
> I think the code.mil approach is much more elegant without introducing
> the use of CC0. 
> 
> 

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org  
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

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

2017-03-01 Thread Richard Fontana

On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 01:50:42PM -0500, Christopher Sean Morrison wrote:

> If I recall correctly, there were no objections to CC0 when it was
> submitted for OSI approval.  It was withdrawn by the steward after
> prolonged patent clause commentary.  considering what the
> implications of explicitly denying patent rights may have on the
> liberal licenses.  That commentary was not grounds for disapproval
> and not a fault of CC0, it was primarily a social and license impact
> discussion, but it was withdrawn regardless.  So …

I think it was withdrawn before the discussion was complete. I believe
there were some who felt it was inappropriate for an OSI-approved
license to explicitly deny patent rights. 

> The only question I have is whether the license steward is the only
> one eligible to formally submit CC0 for reconsideration?  If not, I
> will formally submit it myself as there is ample evidence of
> prolific use, niche utility that differentiates it from other
> licenses, and no known clauses that conflict with the OSD.

https://opensource.org/approval implies that it's supposed to be the
license steward. The *GPLv3 cases suggest that there's an implied
exception to this where there's no likelihood that the license steward
will submit a license that is nonetheless likely to be of significant
interest to many in the OSI community.

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

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.

Cem,

Thanks. I missed that when skimming before. :). I think your materials are 
ahead of what I've seen in the DOSA repo.

One of the concerns I have (not speaking for my organization) are the same ones 
that prompted the patent changes to Apache for ECL V2.0.

Copyright is easy, I and my team wrote our code. Patent are harder because we 
as developers or even program managers are not always aware of all patents 
owned or in progress by the far flung parts of a large research organization. 
As I've stated before, I don't mind giving away my work. I don't want to 
accidentally give away someone else's work (patent).

ECL is my natural conservative inclination over Apache. Most of what you see 
under my name approved for open sourcerelease is actually under NOSA.

Nigel

From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
>
Date: Wednesday, Mar 01, 2017, 12:40 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

That is actually a part of ARL's policy.  If you haven't looked at the policy 
yet, go to 
https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions 
and take a look.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-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) 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 message prior to copying and pasting the address to a 
> Web browser.
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> OSI approval is not explicitly required under DOSA. It just says open source 
> license.
>
> If DOSA explicitly defines the licensing authority I would prefer it be 
> stated as any DOD approved open source license.
>
> That would insure that any projects we develop for sponsors and released as 
> open source will be under a license that has been reviewed
> and accepted by DOD legal from both from a security as well as compliance 
> standpoint.
> From: Jim Wright  > >
> Date: Wednesday, Mar 01, 2017, 11:53 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org  Caution-mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org > >
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army 
> Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
>
> Certainly the approach code.mil spells out to contributions seems ok without 
> having to address the license issue at all, but these questions
> seem orthogonal to me.  Cem seems to be trying to ensure that all open source 
> projects operating using this process are under an OSI
> approved license, which appears to require them to pick one (or several) FOSS 
> licenses to actually apply.  CC0 doesn’t work for that
> purpose because it’s not OSI approved anyway and also doesn’t have a patent 
> license, but observing this doesn’t solve Cem’s problem of
> how to license this stuff in a way that *is* OSI approved, which I think is 
> what he’s getting at.  (Feel free to correct me…)
>
>
> > On Mar 1, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Richard Fontana  wrote:
> >
> > Well the complication is mainly a response to Cem wanting the OSI to
> > bless his proposed approach. I think however that code.mil has already
> > rejected this sort of idea.
> >
> > I think the code.mil approach is much more elegant without introducing
> > the use of CC0.
> >
> >
>
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss 
> < Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-
> bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss >

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

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

2017-03-01 Thread Christopher Sean Morrison


> A proposed solution, however, is that the U.S. government will distribute 
> software under CC0. I don't care if that is sensible. I don't care if that is 
> odd. I do care that CC0 be an OSI-approved license, regardless of its flaws.
>  
> That will reaffirm the authority in our community of the OSI-approved open 
> source license list, regardless of the elegance of that solution for DOSA.

I don’t think you’ll find any disagreement, even amongst USG developers and 
lawyers.  OSI is the established authority and many programs (e.g., Google 
Summer of Code) require that projects utilize an OSI-approved license.

If I recall correctly, there were no objections to CC0 when it was submitted 
for OSI approval.  It was withdrawn by the steward after prolonged patent 
clause commentary.  considering what the implications of explicitly denying 
patent rights may have on the liberal licenses.  That commentary was not 
grounds for disapproval and not a fault of CC0, it was primarily a social and 
license impact discussion, but it was withdrawn regardless.  So … 

The only question I have is whether the license steward is the only one 
eligible to formally submit CC0 for reconsideration?  If not, I will formally 
submit it myself as there is ample evidence of prolific use, niche utility that 
differentiates it from other licenses, and no known clauses that conflict with 
the OSD.

That way, we can all get past the distracting “it’s not OSI-approved” rote.

Cheers!
Sean

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

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)

Part of the internal process is that there is a scrub by legal to ensure that 
the ARL has the necessary rights to do the release.  If we can't procure the 
rights, then it isn't released.  My expectation is that other agencies would do 
something similar.  Note that I can't speak for other agencies, I'm only 
stating my personal opinion on this.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 12:37 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org; Jim Wright 
> 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 confirm the authenticity of all links
> contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a 
> Web browser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For government owned patents and software that would be fine but research 
> organizations often bring existing IP to the table funded
> through internal research and development funding. Some of which has limited 
> government use rights rather than full rights.
> 
> A blanket waiver of patent right by ARL may work for ARL because of the way 
> ARL contracts are negotiated but may not work for all DoD
> stakeholders working under DFARS.
> 
> 
> From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)  Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil > >
> Date: Wednesday, Mar 01, 2017, 12:21 PM
> To: Jim Wright  
> >, license-discuss@opensource.org  disc...@opensource.org < Caution-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 (ARL
> OSL) Version 0.4.1
> 
> You've hit the nail on the head!  I personally want Government works to be 
> Open Source, not open source.  That was the whole point of
> the ARL OSL being put forwards.  There are statutory and regulatory limits on 
> what the Government can and cannot do; the lawyers I've
> talked with say that this is something we can do, which also protects 
> Government interests (IP licensing, not getting sued for
> warranty/liability, etc.).
> 
> Is the concern that the **Government** is not licensing its patent rights?  
> ARL's internal process includes waiving any potential IP rights
> (including patent rights) in the software that is being released, so that 
> should cover anyone downstream.
> 
> Thanks,
> Cem Karan
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jim Wright [Caution-mailto:jwri...@commsoft.com <
> > Caution-mailto:jwri...@commsoft.com > ]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 11:53 AM
> > To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> > Cc: Richard Fontana ; Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY
> > RDECOM ARL (US) 
> > 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 approach code.mil spells out to contributions seems ok
> > without having to address the license issue at all, but these
> > questions seem orthogonal to me.  Cem seems to be trying to ensure
> > that all open source projects operating using this process are under
> > an OSI approved license, which appears to require them to pick one (or
> > several) FOSS licenses to actually apply.  CC0 doesn’t work for that
> > purpose because it’s not OSI approved anyway and also doesn’t have a
> > patent license, but observing this doesn’t solve Cem’s problem of how
> > to license this stuff in a way that *is* OSI approved, which I think
> > is what he’s getting at.  (Feel free to correct me…)
> >
> >
> > > On Mar 1, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Richard Fontana  
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Well the complication is mainly a response to Cem wanting the OSI to
> > > bless his proposed approach. I think however that code.mil has
> > > already rejected this sort of idea.
> > >
> > > I think the code.mil approach is much more elegant without
> > > introducing the use of CC0.
> > >
> > >
> 



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

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)

I understand; ARL's policy is LONG, and skimming is just about the only way to 
not have your brain fry. :)  That said, does it address your concerns about the 
patent issues?

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.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 0.4.1
> 
> 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 message prior to copying and pasting the address to a 
> Web browser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cem,
> 
> Thanks. I missed that when skimming before. :). I think your materials are 
> ahead of what I've seen in the DOSA repo.
> 
> One of the concerns I have (not speaking for my organization) are the same 
> ones that prompted the patent changes to Apache for ECL
> V2.0.
> 
> Copyright is easy, I and my team wrote our code. Patent are harder because we 
> as developers or even program managers are not always
> aware of all patents owned or in progress by the far flung parts of a large 
> research organization. As I've stated before, I don't mind giving
> away my work. I don't want to accidentally give away someone else's work 
> (patent).
> 
> ECL is my natural conservative inclination over Apache. Most of what you see 
> under my name approved for open sourcerelease is actually
> under NOSA.
> 
> Nigel
> 
> From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)  Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil > >
> Date: Wednesday, Mar 01, 2017, 12:40 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org  Caution-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 (ARL
> OSL) Version 0.4.1
> 
> That is actually a part of ARL's policy.  If you haven't looked at the policy 
> yet, go toCaution-https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-
> Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions < 
> Caution-https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions
>  >
> and take a look.
> 
> Thanks,
> Cem Karan
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: License-discuss 
> > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org < 
> > Caution-mailto:license-discuss-
> 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) 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 message prior to copying and pasting the
> address to a Web browser.
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> > OSI approval is not explicitly required under DOSA. It just says open 
> > source license.
> >
> > If DOSA explicitly defines the licensing authority I would prefer it be 
> > stated as any DOD approved open source license.
> >
> > That would insure that any projects we develop for sponsors and
> > released as open source will be under a license that has been reviewed and 
> > accepted by DOD legal from both from a security as well as
> compliance standpoint.
> > From: Jim Wright  > Caution-Caution-mailto:jwri...@commsoft.com > >
> > Date: Wednesday, Mar 01, 2017, 11:53 AM
> > To: license-discuss@opensource.org  > Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org > >
> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army
> > Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
> >
> > Certainly the approach code.mil spells out to contributions seems ok
> > without having to address the license issue at all, but these
> > questions seem orthogonal to me.  Cem seems to be trying to ensure
> > that all open source projects operating using this process are under
> > an OSI approved license, which appears to require them to pick one (or
> > several) FOSS licenses to actually apply.  CC0 doesn’t work for that
> > purpose because it’s not OSI approved anyway and also doesn’t have a
> > patent license, but observing this doesn’t solve Cem’s problem of how
> > to license this stuff in a way that *is* OSI approved, which I think
> > is what he’s getting at.  (Feel free to correct me…)
> >
> >
> > > On Mar 1, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Richard Fontana  
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Well the complication is mainly a response to Cem

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)

THANK YOU!

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 1:51 PM
> To: License Discussion Mailing List 
> 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 under CC0. I don't care if that is sensible. I
> don't care if that is odd. I do care that CC0 be an OSI-approved license, 
> regardless of its flaws.
> 
>   That will reaffirm the authority in our community of the OSI-approved 
> open source license list, regardless of the elegance of that
> solution for DOSA.
> 
> 
> I don’t think you’ll find any disagreement, even amongst USG developers and 
> lawyers.  OSI is the established authority and many programs
> (e.g., Google Summer of Code) require that projects utilize an OSI-approved 
> license.
> 
> If I recall correctly, there were no objections to CC0 when it was submitted 
> for OSI approval.  It was withdrawn by the steward after
> prolonged patent clause commentary.  considering what the implications of 
> explicitly denying patent rights may have on the liberal
> licenses.  That commentary was not grounds for disapproval and not a fault of 
> CC0, it was primarily a social and license impact discussion,
> but it was withdrawn regardless.  So …
> 
> The only question I have is whether the license steward is the only one 
> eligible to formally submit CC0 for reconsideration?  If not, I will
> formally submit it myself as there is ample evidence of prolific use, niche 
> utility that differentiates it from other licenses, and no known
> clauses that conflict with the OSD.
> 
> That way, we can all get past the distracting “it’s not OSI-approved” rote.
> 
> Cheers!
> Sean



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

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

2017-03-01 Thread Rick Moen

Quoting Lawrence Rosen (lro...@rosenlaw.com):

> The question remains from many years of discussion here: What is wrong
> with CC0 being approved by OSI as a license for components in other
> open source software? Including for U.S. government works that may (or
> may not) be public domain?

For whatever it's worth, I said at the time it was under review that CC0
was very clearly open source, and thus approving it makes sense despite
its unfortunate explicit waiver of patent rights.
 
> The absence of an explicit patent provision applies equally to the BSD
> and MIT licenses. 

I will quibble that these are not the as an explicit denial of even an
_implicit_ patent license, which is the situation that applies with CC0.
I continue to say, CC0 would be made a better permissive licence were
that clause removed.  But I would not wish the ideal to become the enemy
of the good.

-- 
Cheers,  299792458 meters per second.  Not
Rick Moenjust a good idea.  It's the law.
r...@linuxmafia.com
McQ! (4x80
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

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

2017-03-01 Thread Christopher Sean Morrison

> On Mar 1, 2017, at 4:17 PM, Rick Moen  wrote:
> 
> Quoting Lawrence Rosen (lro...@rosenlaw.com):
> 
>> The question remains from many years of discussion here: What is wrong
>> with CC0 being approved by OSI as a license for components in other
>> open source software? Including for U.S. government works that may (or
>> may not) be public domain?
> 
> For whatever it's worth, I said at the time it was under review that CC0
> was very clearly open source, and thus approving it makes sense despite
> its unfortunate explicit waiver of patent rights.
> 
>> The absence of an explicit patent provision applies equally to the BSD
>> and MIT licenses. 
> 
> I will quibble that these are not the as an explicit denial of even an
> _implicit_ patent license, which is the situation that applies with CC0.
> I continue to say, CC0 would be made a better permissive licence were
> that clause removed.  But I would not wish the ideal to become the enemy
> of the good.

Ditto, I think CC0 would be a far better license if it included an explicit 
patent grant or at least had an author option to include one.  I can raise that 
point with them to see if their perspective is any different now X years later 
or if any development is in the works.

From what Richard said, it sounds like a CC0 submission “should” be the steward 
so I’ll contact them to see if they’re willing to submit it again given recent 
developments.  However, if they decline, I’ll write up and submit the request 
myself as a Gov’t proponent.  If anything, it will let the patent right denial 
discussion be hashed out and a decision can be made here or by the OSI board.

Cheers!
Sean

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

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

2017-03-01 Thread Jim Wright

Indeed, if there’s no copyright in the US, there may be no need of a copyright 
license from the government here, but in any event there *is* an OSI approved 
permissive license that licenses both any applicable copyright rights (without 
actually requiring that the government have any) and patent rights applicable 
to the project - the UPL.  

If the government releases code under the UPL, and accepts contributions under 
the UPL, they are using an OSI approved license, full stop, no need of extra 
terms or to treat other contributors any differently than the government 
itself, no need of an express public domain dedication which is any different 
than what is already true by law, everyone is simply licensing whatever 
copyright rights they possess as well as whatever patent rights they possess 
covering the project as they contributed to or provided it, and it seems to me 
at first glance like nothing else need be done…?

 Regards,
  Jim

> On Mar 1, 2017, at 6:49 AM, Richard Fontana  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 09:37:13AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
>> Strictly speaking, the use of
>> CC0 assumes that you have copyright ownership. 
> 
> I guess that's a bit of an overstatement, but still given the nature
> of the angst I've heard from US government people over the years
> concerning the use of nominal copyright licenses, I'd find it
> surprising if CC0 was treated differently.
> 
> 
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

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

2017-03-01 Thread Jim Wright

Of course, as Richard pointed out earlier, this would also be true as to the 
ASL, etc., except to the extent that the government choosing to effectively 
“waive" patent rights as Cem has said is not the same thing as a terminable 
patent license in the ASL - the UPL thus arguably putting the government on the 
most equal footing possible with everyone else given the expressed intent re: 
license scope… maybe the grant of “any and all copyright rights” would make 
them feel better about the copyright grant by virtue of not suggesting there 
necessarily are any?  Obviously tooting the horn here but it seems odd to me to 
require a dedication to the public domain in any event - stuff is either in the 
public domain by law or isn’t, and to whatever extent it isn’t, we should have 
a copyright license, full stop.  Similarly as to patents, I don’t want to have 
to look at some ostensible policy on waiving patent rights, we should all have 
a clearly scoped patent license for the project, government and private 
contributors alike, and there is an easy vehicle to achieve this, use an OSI 
approved license.  

> On Mar 1, 2017, at 7:49 AM, Jim Wright  wrote:
> 
> Indeed, if there’s no copyright in the US, there may be no need of a 
> copyright license from the government here, but in any event there *is* an 
> OSI approved permissive license that licenses both any applicable copyright 
> rights (without actually requiring that the government have any) and patent 
> rights applicable to the project - the UPL.  
> 
> If the government releases code under the UPL, and accepts contributions 
> under the UPL, they are using an OSI approved license, full stop, no need of 
> extra terms or to treat other contributors any differently than the 
> government itself, no need of an express public domain dedication which is 
> any different than what is already true by law, everyone is simply licensing 
> whatever copyright rights they possess as well as whatever patent rights they 
> possess covering the project as they contributed to or provided it, and it 
> seems to me at first glance like nothing else need be done…?
> 
> Regards,
>  Jim
> 
> 
>> On Mar 1, 2017, at 6:49 AM, Richard Fontana  wrote:
>> 
>> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 09:37:13AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
>>> Strictly speaking, the use of
>>> CC0 assumes that you have copyright ownership. 
>> 
>> I guess that's a bit of an overstatement, but still given the nature
>> of the angst I've heard from US government people over the years
>> concerning the use of nominal copyright licenses, I'd find it
>> surprising if CC0 was treated differently.
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> License-discuss mailing list
>> License-discuss@opensource.org
>> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
> 

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

[License-discuss] [somewhat OT provocation] justifying the commercial no-discrimination clause

2017-03-01 Thread Luis Villa

So... if someone asked you to justify OSD #6, what's the best rationale
you've seen (or could provide yourself)? I'd love links or answers.

An ideal answer would address the perceived ongoing challenge of building
sustainable models for maintainers/projects (possibly including the
challenge of bringing the less economically privileged into our
communities).

I'm writing/thinking about this topic right now and want to make sure I'm
not arguing with strawmen, so the best/most serious answers will be deeply
appreciated.

Thanks-
Luis
-- 

*Luis Villa: Open Law and Strategy *
*+1-415-938-4552*
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

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

2017-03-01 Thread Lawrence Rosen

Jim Wright wrote:

> it seems odd to me to require a dedication to the public domain in any event 
> - stuff is either in the public domain by law or isn’t, and to whatever 
> extent it isn’t, we should have a copyright license, full stop.  Similarly as 
> to patents, I don’t want to have to look at some ostensible policy on waiving 
> patent rights, we should all have a clearly scoped patent license for the 
> project, government and private contributors alike, and there is an easy 
> vehicle to achieve this, use an OSI approved license.  

Jim, regardless of which OSI-approved license(s) the U.S. government chooses 
for its distributed software, neither the "public domain" question nor the 
"patent license" question will EVER be fully answered for any particular 
software simply by reading those licenses. You have to look at the software 
itself. Of course, we could all sue each other and let the courts decide

I'll be grateful for a published government policy – perhaps posted in the 
Federal Register someday – that reassures us of a commitment by government 
agencies to open source using any OSI-approved license.

Including CC0.

/Larry

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

38 matches

Mail list logo