Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: I've been asked to license my open source project CC0

Yes, but that's because US Federal Government works generally don't have copyright attached within the US, so CC0 was the best option. That may not be the case here. Thanks, Cem Karan --- Other than quoted laws, regulations or officially published policies, the views expressed herein are not

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 12:00 PM > To: Richard Fontana <font...@sharpeleven.org> > Cc: license-discuss@open

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: (no subject)

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 12:10 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: (no subject) > > Cem, > >

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: (no subject)

gt; > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > <cem.f.karan@mail.mil < Caution- > mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil > > wrote: > > > > The issue is that > 'voluntary' doesn't mean the same thing as 'g

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: (no subject)

pace. > > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > <cem.f.karan@mail.mil < Caution- > mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil > > wrote: > > > > I'm now encountering a slightly different situation in go

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

raud and > the US Government > > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > <cem.f.karan@mail.mil < Caution- > mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil > > wrote: > > > Wait... what??? You mean the copyright goes on u

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: (no subject)

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tom Bereknyei > Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 9:48 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] (no subject) > > Cem, > > Yes, only

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

OSA 2.0, Copyfraud and > the US Government > > Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) dixit: > > >Does the EU define copyright and other IP rights for all member > > Only guidelines that have to be implemented in national law. > The various countries still differ, even

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Thorsten Glaser > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 3:50 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and > the

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

OSI approved license, as DDS is asserting. And 2) CC0 is considered > "free software" by FSF. (Caution- > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CC0 < > Caution-https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CC0 > ) > > Not sure if reframing the issue in those te

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 2:32 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and > the US

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 11:03 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source]

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

raud and > the US Government > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US) <cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote: > >> -Original Message- > >> From: License-discuss > >> [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@open

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

lic Domain > in several countries of the world, so this is futile at best, > worse hamful. > > > Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) dixit: > > >> So, in the end, “we” need a copyright licence “period”. > > > >Not exactly. This is where CC0 comes into pl

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

age- > From: Stephen Michael Kellat [mailto:smkel...@yahoo.com] > Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 12:35 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org; Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > <cem.f.karan@mail.mil>; Richard Fontana > <font...@sharpeleven.org> > Cc: license-dis

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

> -Original Message- > From: Richard Fontana [mailto:font...@sharpeleven.org] > Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 11:39 AM > To: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan@mail.mil> > Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source]

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

raud and the > US Government > > Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) dixit: > > >Hi all, as you know I've been pushing the position that the US > >Government may have problems using copyright-based licenses on works > >that do not have copyright attached. One of t

[License-discuss] NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

Hi all, as you know I've been pushing the position that the US Government may have problems using copyright-based licenses on works that do not have copyright attached. One of the lawyers I've been working on this with has been kind enough to dig up the exact statutes and give some clearer

[License-discuss] NOSA 2.0?

ping And to Richard Fontana... **PING** 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

[License-discuss] NOSA 2.0?

What is the current progress on the NOSA 2.0 license? I just got out of a meeting with some NASA lawyers, and they want to know where it's going, and if it's stuck, why it's stuck. Thanks, Cem Karan smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] patents & interoperability

concerning patent rights. Thanks, Cem Karan > -Original Message- > From: Rajneesh N. Shetty [mailto:shettyrajne...@aol.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 9:46 AM > To: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan@mail.mil> > Cc: lro...@rosenlaw.com; T

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD

L V2 patent language and the reasons > they didn't feel that vanilla Apache 2.0 was suitable for them > when you (and the ARL lawyers and your OTT) are helping evolve the ARL open > source policy. > > Nigel > > Obligatory Disclaimer: speaking as an individual, the opinions expres

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD

you (and the ARL lawyers and your OTT) are helping evolve the ARL open > source policy. > > Nigel > > Obligatory Disclaimer: speaking as an individual, the opinions expressed here > are my own and no one else's, etc. > > From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL

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

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

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

w.debian.org/legal/licenses/ > > > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 3:32 PM Tom Callaway <tcall...@redhat.com < > Caution-mailto:tcall...@redhat.com > > wrote: > > > Can't speak for Debian, but Fedora will happily take software licensed > as you describe. &

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

recommending the enlightened > approach being taken by your colleagues at > github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil, which would be more consistent with the > ARL lawyers' apparent belief that some horrible disaster > will occur if they put US published code under a copyright license. :) > >

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

er than JOSS I still don’t see how it makes a big difference for the > Government. And the ability to publish in JOSS seems like a rather > secondary consideration…and I say that as a software developer in an academic > environment… > > On 3/17/17, 8:32 AM, "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

> > > I don't see how you could convince OSI of this in any way that would not > involve submission and approval of CC0. > > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 12:32:26PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US) wrote: > > OK, so different groups have different opinions.

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

r to copying and pasting the address to a > Web browser. > > > > > > > I'd think the only ones who get to apply the "Open Source" label to licenses > would be the OSI. Fedora's opinion is that CC-0 meets the >

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

d confirm the authenticity of all links > contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a > Web browser. > > > > > > > Can't speak for Debian, but Fedora will happily take software licensed as you > describe

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

ense steward. It is up to CC to resubmit CC0 for approval. > > Regards, > > Nigel > > On 3/16/17, 8:56 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY > RDECOM ARL (US)" boun...@opensource.org on behalf of cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote: > >

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

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

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] code.mil update

> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:03 AM Christopher Sean Morrison <brl...@mac.com < > Caution-mailto:brl...@mac.com > > wrote: > > > On Mar 8, 2017, at 9:32 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > <cem.f.karan@mail.mil < Caution- > mailto:cem.f.kara

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] code.mil update

e] code.mil update > > > On Mar 8, 2017, at 9:32 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > > <cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote: > > > > You might want to re-read what they posted; the license applies only > > to those portions of the code that have copyrig

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD

I can pass it through ARL's lawyers, as well as pass it to the code.gov people. Thanks, Cem Karan > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Stephen Kellat > Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 10:41 PM > To:

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] code.mil update

You might want to re-read what they posted; the license applies only to those portions of the code that have copyright attached, otherwise it's public domain. The trick is that while US Government (USG) works are ineligible for copyright within the US, they may be eligible for copyright

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD

icit grant as BSD and there is no issue > with approval and no new composite license structure that will just confuse > people even more. > From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan@mail.mil < > Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil > > > Date: T

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] patent rights and the OSD

Just to be clear, if you're talking about the US Army Research Laboratory (ARL) policy (https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions), that policy only applies to personnel at the US Army Research Laboratory. Other agencies are free to adopt and adapt that

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD

That is true, but OSI can make it clear that when software is licensed, then the licensor is expected to license any necessary patents that the licensor owns along with licensing the copyright. If there are patents that the licensor is unaware of, then the licensor can't do anything about that

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] patent rights and the OSD

rights and the OSD > > > On Mar 07, 2017, at 09:07 AM, "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" > <cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote: > > > > I personally think that software that is distributed without a patent > license or a waiver of patent claims i

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] patent rights and the OSD

I personally think that software that is distributed without a patent license or a waiver of patent claims is not Open Source (this is my opinion, and not a Government position). It prevents people from freely modifying the code. That said, I don't have a problem with someone holding a

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

> -Original Message- > From: Jim Wright [mailto:jim.wri...@oracle.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 7:19 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Cc: Larry Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com>; Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US) <cem.f.karan@mail.mil> > Subje

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

> -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:

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

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:

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

efore, 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. >

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

e 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) <cem.f.karan@mail.mil < > Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil > > > Date: Wednesday, Mar 01, 2

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

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

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

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

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 >

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

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

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

ct 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. > > &

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

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. >

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

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 > (

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

age- > 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.m

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

ARL's policy (see https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions#433214A2C17C11E6952E003EE1B763F8) cover this. External contributions would be covered by the OSI-approved license, so the patent/IP terms in that license will cover those patent rights. Thanks,

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

able USG work distributed by > the USG). > > The CC licenses are also not on the OSI list (although there has been some > discussion in the past of whether they should be added, IIRC). > > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss > [Caution-mailto:license-dis

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] The Federal Register Process

to:lro...@rosenlaw.com] > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 4:28 PM > To: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan@mail.mil>; > license-discuss@opensource.org > Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com> > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] The Federal Register Process

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

OK, I've pushed it forward to the guys in charge of code.gov and the Federal Source Code policy; I'll bring it up with them on Thursday as well. I don't know if they'll support it, nor do I know if I'm allowed to point the list to where the comments are[1], but if I am, I'll aim everyone

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

t; file a FOIA request to force them to speak up publicly about their > > public legal issue that concerns all of us who use the Apache license > > with public domain components in our software. That's not the way the > > open source community works out such issues. > > >

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

gel.tz...@jhuapl.edu] > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 1:53 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org; Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > <cem.f.karan@mail.mil> > Cc: feedb...@dds.mil; sharon.wo...@dds.mil > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army

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

nity works out such issues. > > > > /Larry > > > > Lawrence Rosen > > Rosenlaw (Caution-www.rosenlaw.com) > > 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 > > Cell: 707-478-8932 > > > > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss > [Caution-mail

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

ense-discuss@opensource.org; Karan, Cem F CIV > USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan@mail.mil> > Subject: RE: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1 > > All active links contained in this e

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

to:lro...@rosenlaw.com] > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 12:50 PM > To: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan@mail.mil>; > license-discuss@opensource.org > Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com> > Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] U.S.

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

gt; > > The US government isn't special. > > > > /Larry > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Karan, > Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US) > Sent: Monday, Febru

[License-discuss] U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

All, I've been asked to republish the U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) once again so that others can read it. This is the most current copy. It is based off of the Apache 2.0 license that can be found at http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt, and is

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: OSI equivalent

e up or down vote > > on a license submission from NASA after 3 years or provide any > compatibility guidance on the licenses it managed to approve in the distant > past? > > > > Especially if the FSF has no problems in providing such guidance? > > > > From: David W

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: OSI equivalent

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison > Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 2:17 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: OSI equivalent > >

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: OSI equivalent

where it can be found instead. > > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > <cem.f.karan@mail.mil < Caution- > mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil > > wrote: > > > > -Original Message- > > Fr

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: OSI equivalent

ect: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] OSI equivalent > > On Feb 15, 2017, at 11:58 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > <cem.f.karan@mail.mil < Caution- > mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil > > wrote: > > Does OSI have a license co

[License-discuss] OSI equivalent

Does OSI have a license compatibility chart for the various approved licenses? Something similar to https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html ? Our researchers are pulling in code from all kinds of sources, and we want to keep them out of legal hot water, and a compatibility chart would

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] notes on a systematic approach to "popular" licenses

think less > (reserving the highest scrutiny for those proposed as significantly > innovative general-purpose licenses), but Richard may tend to think > more, and I've not thought it through very carefully. > > > Luis > > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:28 AM Karan, Cem F CI

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] notes on a systematic approach to "popular" licenses

I agree with the idea of this, but there will always be niche licenses that are needed and won't make it into the popular list. E.g., licenses that can be used on public domain software (like US Government works, which generally don't have copyright). These will need to be handled carefully,

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Groups/Communities

Hi Patrick, if you poke through the archives for the license-discuss mailing list, you'll find some discussion under ARL Open Source license. There is also some discussion at the very bottom of https://github.com/presidential-innovation-fellows/code-gov-web/issues/41, and

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Views on React licensing?

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 1:28 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing? > > On

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Views on React licensing?

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Henrik Ingo > Sent: Monday, December 05, 2016 6:55 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing? > > On Fri,

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] The License Talking-About List

thin the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a > Web browser. > > > > > > > [cross-post to license-review, snipped.] > > Quoting Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) (cem.f.karan@mail.mil): > > > What about GitHub? > > Using a p

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

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 5:02 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. > Army

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] The License Talking-About List

verything a > second time. It often permanently delays the decision (like the NASA and CC0 > licenses have been delayed here). That was also often my > email experience at Apache. > > > > Someone ought to invent a better solution than email lists to analyze > licenses and r

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

list plays no role in the OSI license approval > process, though it can be an appropriate place to discuss a license > that has not been submitted for OSI approval. > > Richard > > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 08:45:41PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL &g

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

opensource.org/approval. > > I haven't followed this thread too closely but it is clear that the ARL OSL > is very different from NOSA 2.0. The only way to see whether it > would merit OSI approval (if that's what you are seeking) would be to submit > it for review. > > Richar

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

OK, so assuming that the NOSA 2.0 license is dead in the water, what about the ARL OSL? Is it also, dead, and if so, why? Leave aside the license proliferation aspect, and focus on what needs to be changed with the ARL OSL to make it acceptable. Thanks, Cem Karan > -Original

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

Exactly. Anyone that gets something from the USG deserves to know that they won't be facing a patent lawsuit from any of the contributors. Thanks, Cem Karan > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Chris DiBona > Sent:

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

We apply for and are granted patents on a regular basis at ARL. In fact, part of how scientists and engineers are evaluated on their performance can include the number of patents they get, all of which are owned by the USG. Thanks, Cem Karan > -Original Message- > From:

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

ent after all) > but it would at least be useful if the lawyers that approved the > release of code.gov under CC0 could tell your lawyers why they thought it > was sufficient. Especially if these are the same set of lawyers > providing legal guidance to the White House OMB 20% OSS mandate. &g

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

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 4:26 PM > To: Lawrence Rosen ; license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD

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

to be > translators in that discussion, but listen in. And we attorneys should speak > candidly about copyright and contract law. Several of us are > specialists, and several here have already volunteered to have that legal > chat with your counsel. > > > > /Larry > &g

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research Laboratory Open Source License proposal

> -Original Message- > From: Wheeler, David A [mailto:dwhee...@ida.org] > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 2:52 PM > To: legal-disc...@apache.org > Cc: Karl Fogel ; Lawrence Rosen ; > license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: RE: [License-discuss]

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

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 2:35 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Cc: Lawrence Rosen > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re:

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research Laboratory Open Source License proposal

er, and confirm the authenticity of all links > contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a > Web browser. > > > ____________________ > > > > > On Aug 3, 2016 08:51, "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" > <

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

Source] Re: > U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > 0.4.0 > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 02:50:18PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US) wrote: > > > > > > Even if you were correct in the assertions you've made about ARL > > &

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

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Brian Behlendorf > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 4:25 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: > U.S.

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

; Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:33 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: > U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > 0.4.0 > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:17:07PM +, Kara

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

rce] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: > U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > 0.4.0 > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Richard Fontana <font...@sharpeleven.org> > wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:17:07PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM > &

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

Source] Re: > U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > 0.4.0 > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:17:07PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US) wrote: > > > > Once again, liability isn't the only issue; there are also copyright > > issues (f

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

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Smith, McCoy > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:34 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. > Army

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

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Smith, McCoy > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 4:51 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > Laboratory

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

contract provides > that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations > arising under it on any person or agent except the parties to it. > > > -Original Message- > From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > [Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil] > Sen

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

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Scott K Peterson > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 4:35 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > Laboratory

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

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

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

Here are the problems: 1) ARL doesn't know if it can use copyright-based licenses on public domain software. In particular, will the entire license be held invalid, including the disclaimers, if the copyright portions are held to be invalid? 2) Liability is only one part of the puzzle; as I

  1   2   >