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

2017-03-16 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
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] Re: Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

2017-03-16 Thread Tzeng, Nigel H.
Cem, The USG does not need OSI’s approval to release code as open source under CC0. It has done so already on code.gov. This includes the OPM, NASA, GSA, DOT, DOL, DOC and others. CC0 is compliant with the Federal Source Code Policy for open source release. It is unlikely that you can push

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

2017-03-16 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
I agree that the Government can release it as open source, but as I understand it, not as Open Source. The difference is whether or not the code will be accepted into various journals (Journal of Open Source Software is one). It also affects whether or not various distributions will accept

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

2017-03-16 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
Cool! Would Fedora/Red Hat consider it to be Open Source? Thanks, Cem Karan > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tom Callaway > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 3:31 PM > 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

2017-03-16 Thread Tom Callaway
Can't speak for Debian, but Fedora will happily take software licensed as you describe. On Mar 16, 2017 3:09 PM, "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" < cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote: > I agree that the Government can release it as open source, but as I > understand it, not 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

2017-03-16 Thread Marc Jones
I also can't speak for Debian. But it is my understanding that Debian does not rely on OSI for determining if a license is free. They use their own Debian Free Software Guidelines. (Although they are very similar.) Someone at Debian maintains a FAQ on the DFSG [1] Debian also has a Licensing page

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

2017-03-16 Thread Tom Callaway
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 OSD. On Mar 16, 2017 4:31 PM, "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" < cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote: > Cool! Would Fedora/Red Hat consider it to be Open

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

2017-03-16 Thread John Cowan
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 8:45 PM, Tom Callaway wrote: 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 OSD. > "Open source", whether upper or lower case, is not a protected mark of the