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

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

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

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:

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

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

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

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,

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

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-

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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'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 >

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

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

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,

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 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

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

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

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,

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

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

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 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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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]

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

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

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

> 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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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