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

gt; Subject: RE: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License proposal > > William A Rowe Jr [Caution-mailto:wr...@rowe-clan.net]: > > Unsure how this news might apply but it sounds like changes in overall > > policy migh

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

; Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com>; > license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: RE: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License proposal > > All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the > identity of the send

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

> Could you describe what the impact would be to contractors under DFARS > clauses 252.227-7013/7014 and ARL OSL? In particular where software was > developed at private expense or mixed funding and the government has less > than unlimited rights. Under 252.227-7014, if the software was not

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

s-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 12:46 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License proposal > > All active links c

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

gt;Thanks, >Cem Karan > >> -Original Message- >> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of Kevin Fleming >> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 3:48 PM >> To: license-discuss@opensource.org >> Subject: Re: [License-

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

age- > From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > [Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil] > Sent: Friday, August 5, 2016 1:00 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License p

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

g > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License proposal > > All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the > identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links > contained wi

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

karan@mail.mil] Sent: Friday, August 5, 2016 1:00 PM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research Laboratory Open Source License proposal If by 'restrict' you mean 'comply with the terms of the ARL OSL', then I agree with you. Rememb

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

ense-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org > <license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org>] On Behalf Of Maarten Zeinstra > Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 4:36 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Cc: lro...@rosenlaw.com > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re:

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

hin the US. >> >> Thanks, >> Cem Karan >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org >>> <mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org>] On Behalf Of Maarten >>> Zeinstra &

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

ss > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org < > Caution-mailto:license-discuss- > boun...@opensource.org > ] On Behalf Of Maarten Zeinstra > Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 4:36 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org < > Caution

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

se-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On >> Behalf Of Maarten Zeinstra >> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 4:36 AM >> To: license-discuss@opensource.org >> Cc: lro...@rosenlaw.com >> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research >> Laboratory Op

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

2016 2:02 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License proposal > > All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the > identity of the sender, and confirm

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

cuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On >> Behalf Of John Cowan >> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 11:39 AM >> To: license-discuss@opensource.org >> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research >> Laboratory Open Source License p

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

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of John Cowan > Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 11:39 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research

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

Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) scripsit: > A copyright-based license may work outside of the US because the USG > would (probably) have copyright protections there? Depending solely on local law, so there is no uniform answer. > As far as I know, this hasn't been litigated anywhere, so

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

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of John Cowan > Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 9:57 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research

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

Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) scripsit: > She told me that the Berne convention does not change laws in individual > countries, it just removes certain formalities. As such, if the foreign > government permits the USG to hold copyright in the foreign country, > then the USG is

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

Hi all, Karl Fogel on the mil-oss (http://www.mil-oss.org/) mailing list made a suggestion that might be the solution. Would the Apache foundation be willing to work on Apache 2.1, or maybe 3.0, incorporating changes as needed to cover works that don't have copyright attached to them? If that

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

ng > Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 9:07 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License proposal > > All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the > ident

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

iscuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Maarten Zeinstra > Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 4:21 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Cc: lro...@rosenlaw.com > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research > Laboratory Open Source L

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

I did some further investigating into this. The sources that I and John refer to are from 1976, which is pre-Berne (US in force: March 1, 1989). So this would further cast doubts on the claims of copyright abroad of the US government. Regards, Maarten -- Kennisland | www.kl.nl

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

Hi Cem, I believe this was already answered John Cowan, I was proven wrong. US does assert copyright for government works in other jurisdictions. Wikipedia provides these sources: “The prohibition on copyright protection for United States Government works is not intended to have any effect on

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

I'm sorry for getting back late to this, the lawyer I'm working with was called away for a bit and couldn't reply. I asked specifically about this case; in our lawyer's opinion, the US Government does have copyright in foreign (to the US) countries. He says that there is case law where the US

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

iscuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Richard Eckart de Castilho > Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 1:56 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License pr

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

Hi Cem, > On 25.07.2016, at 18:41, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > wrote: > > OK at this point I want to start another discussion about the license > (attached once again, with the minor correction of stripping out the word > 'Apache', which I'd left in

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

Hi Cem, > On 25.07.2016, at 18:41, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > wrote: > > OK at this point I want to start another discussion about the license > (attached once again, with the minor correction of stripping out the word > 'Apache', which I'd left in

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

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Gervase Markham > Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 12:49 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research

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

On 25/07/16 17:33, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: > OK, I see where you're coming from, I'm just not comfortable with it. I'm > much more comfortable with a single license that covers everything. I also > know that our lawyers would be more comfortable with a single document

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

OK at this point I want to start another discussion about the license (attached once again, with the minor correction of stripping out the word 'Apache', which I'd left in earlier). Is the license compatible with Apache 2.0 and the licenses that Apache 2.0 is compatible with? If not, why not?

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

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Gervase Markham > Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 11:20 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research

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

Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) scripsit: > I honestly don't know. The ARL lawyer I'm working with thinks that > the USG may have foreign copyright, but he says that until it has been > litigated and settled in court (and I don't know which country's courts > that will be in), there's no

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

On 25/07/16 16:12, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: > Protections from liability from anyone that uses our code, for one thing. I > am not a lawyer, but as I understand it putting stuff in the public domain > does not release you from liability, so without some kind of notice the

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

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Gervase Markham > Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 10:36 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research

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

On 25/07/16 15:12, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: > Even though it will be headache to do so, we still need to. USG works that > don't have copyright attached must still have a license/contract that offers > the same protections as one would expect from the Apache 2.0 license.

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

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Gervase Markham > Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 9:24 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research

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

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Philippe Ombredanne > Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 2:27 AM > To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] US Army

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

On 25/07/16 13:46, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: > 1) Put out a notice to the world that the code covered under the license is > 'AS-IS'; the whole 'no warranty' part in the Apache 2.0 license. This needs > to cover not only the USG, but also any contributors. The USG is (in

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

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Maarten Zeinstra > Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2016 3:51 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] US Army Research Laboratory > Open

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

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen > Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 5:23 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

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Philippe Ombredanne > Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 5:12 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] US Army Research Laboratory > Open

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

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Gervase Markham > Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2016 5:09 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] US Army Research Laboratory > Open