Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
I am working with ARL Legal counsel on the license continuously. There are times when I'm slow in answering messages on this list because I have to run down to their office and get their opinions. I've been working with our Tech Transfer folks to make sure they are onboard with the proposed policy. I believe (but I'll double check) that our legal counsel is talking up the chain of command as well, so that should be taken care of as well. Thank you for pointing that out! Thanks, Cem Karan > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 2:50 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] U.S. Army Research Laboratory > Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > 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. > > > > > > > Has this been reviewed by the ARL Office of Chief Counsel? I know the army > has an intellectual property counsel as part of the > JAG/USALSA out at Ft. Belvoir. > > > You also have a tech transfer office at ARL that handles Patent License > Agreements for ARL under 15 USC 3710a who would probably > want to have input on any ARL open source agreement that includes patent > grants. > > There are likely a lot of regulations and policy (DoD and Army) you need to > be aware of before attempting to submit an ARL branded open > source license. ARL may or may not be able to do so without permission from > RDECOMŠwho may elect to punt the issue up to JALS-IP as > the IP issue you are trying to solve does not appear to be trivial and is a > USG/DoD/Army wide issue. > > ___ > 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: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
Awesome. You may wish to ask your tech transfer office if any of your army UARCs care about apache vs ECL v2. The patent grants are slightly different and ECL v2 is geared toward the odd needs of research universities. I'm guessing not because very few projects actually use ECL v2. On the other hand DoD OSS projects are somewhat special cases themselves and UARCs have to deal with a variety of research grant sources and are typically smaller pieces of the larger university system. On 7/28/16, 4:38 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" wrote: >I am working with ARL Legal counsel on the license continuously. There >are times when I'm slow in answering messages on this list because I have >to run down to their office and get their opinions. I've been working >with our Tech Transfer folks to make sure they are onboard with the >proposed policy. I believe (but I'll double check) that our legal >counsel is talking up the chain of command as well, so that should be >taken care of as well. Thank you for pointing that out! > >Thanks, >Cem Karan > >> -Original Message- >> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. >> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 2:50 PM >> To: license-discuss@opensource.org >> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] U.S. Army Research >>Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Has this been reviewed by the ARL Office of Chief Counsel? I know the >>army has an intellectual property counsel as part of the >> JAG/USALSA out at Ft. Belvoir. >> >> >> You also have a tech transfer office at ARL that handles Patent License >>Agreements for ARL under 15 USC 3710a who would probably >> want to have input on any ARL open source agreement that includes >>patent grants. >> >> There are likely a lot of regulations and policy (DoD and Army) you >>need to be aware of before attempting to submit an ARL branded open >> source license. ARL may or may not be able to do so without permission >>from RDECOMŠwho may elect to punt the issue up to JALS-IP as >> the IP issue you are trying to solve does not appear to be trivial and >>is a USG/DoD/Army wide issue. >> >> ___ >> License-discuss mailing list >> License-discuss@opensource.org >> >>Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-dis >>cuss ___ 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: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
I've passed your question along, I'll answer as soon as I know. Thanks, Cem Karan > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 5:16 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > 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. > > > > > > > Awesome. You may wish to ask your tech transfer office if any of your army > UARCs care about apache vs ECL v2. The patent grants are > slightly different and ECL v2 is geared toward the odd needs of research > universities. I'm guessing not because very few projects actually > use ECL v2. On the other hand DoD OSS projects are somewhat special cases > themselves and UARCs have to deal with a variety of > research grant sources and are typically smaller pieces of the larger > university system. > > > On 7/28/16, 4:38 PM, "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: > > >I am working with ARL Legal counsel on the license continuously. There > >are times when I'm slow in answering messages on this list because I > >have to run down to their office and get their opinions. I've been > >working with our Tech Transfer folks to make sure they are onboard with > >the proposed policy. I believe (but I'll double check) that our legal > >counsel is talking up the chain of command as well, so that should be > >taken care of as well. Thank you for pointing that out! > > > >Thanks, > >Cem Karan > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: License-discuss > >>[Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] > >>On Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > >> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 2:50 PM > >> To: license-discuss@opensource.org > >> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] U.S. Army Research > >>Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > >> > >> 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. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Has this been reviewed by the ARL Office of Chief Counsel? I know > >>the army has an intellectual property counsel as part of the > >>JAG/USALSA out at Ft. Belvoir. > >> > >> > >> You also have a tech transfer office at ARL that handles Patent > >>License Agreements for ARL under 15 USC 3710a who would probably want > >>to have input on any ARL open source agreement that includes patent > >>grants. > >> > >> There are likely a lot of regulations and policy (DoD and Army) you > >>need to be aware of before attempting to submit an ARL branded open > >>source license. ARL may or may not be able to do so without > >>permission from RDECOMŠwho may elect to punt the issue up to JALS-IP > >>as the IP issue you are trying to solve does not appear to be trivial > >>and is a USG/DoD/Army wide issue. > >> > >> ___ > >> License-discuss mailing list > >> License-discuss@opensource.org > >> > >>Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ > >>license-dis > >>cuss > > ___ > 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: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
I've talked with the lawyer in the ARL legal office. He says he is in contact with people up and down the chain of command, so that should be taken care of. Thanks, Cem Karan > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 2:50 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] U.S. Army Research Laboratory > Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > 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. > > > > > > > Has this been reviewed by the ARL Office of Chief Counsel? I know the army > has an intellectual property counsel as part of the > JAG/USALSA out at Ft. Belvoir. > > > You also have a tech transfer office at ARL that handles Patent License > Agreements for ARL under 15 USC 3710a who would probably > want to have input on any ARL open source agreement that includes patent > grants. > > There are likely a lot of regulations and policy (DoD and Army) you need to > be aware of before attempting to submit an ARL branded open > source license. ARL may or may not be able to do so without permission from > RDECOMŠwho may elect to punt the issue up to JALS-IP as > the IP issue you are trying to solve does not appear to be trivial and is a > USG/DoD/Army wide issue. > > ___ > 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: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
Comments inline below. > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Engel Nyst > Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 4:56 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] U.S. Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US) wrote: > > "License" shall mean the terms and conditions for use, reproduction, > > and distribution as defined by Sections 1 through 9 of this > > document. > > You may want to update the sections count, they're 10 now. Fixed, thanks for the catch! > >4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the > > Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without > > modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You > > meet the following conditions: > > I'd suggest to add in clause 4, or in its obligations a)-d), an "if > copyright exists" or something similar. If copyright doesn't exist in the > Work, > can't put enforceable conditions on redistributions. What wording would you suggest? > Just wondering: you said that Apache License 2.0 doesn't have a severability > clause, and it would have helped your wishes. However you > didn't add one. Why not? I was trying to keep the license as close to the Apache 2.0 license as I could. The more I add, the more likely it is that our license will be incompatible with the Apache 2.0 license, and it is VERY important to us to be fully interchangeable with everyone else. We want our code to be used; it's why I'm going through the effort of getting the license OSI and Apache approved. Anything that jeopardizes that has to be considered very, very carefully. Thanks, Cem Karan U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1, August 2016 http://no/URL/as/yet TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE, REPRODUCTION, AND DISTRIBUTION 1. Definitions. "License" shall mean the terms and conditions for use, reproduction, and distribution as defined by Sections 1 through 10 of this document. "Licensor" shall mean the project originator or entity authorized by the project originator that is granting the License. "Legal Entity" shall mean the union of the acting entity and all other entities that control, are controlled by, or are under common control with that entity. For the purposes of this definition, "control" means (i) the power, direct or indirect, to cause the direction or management of such entity, whether by contract or otherwise, or (ii) ownership of fifty percent (50%) or more of the outstanding shares, or (iii) beneficial ownership of such entity. "You" (or "Your") shall mean an individual or Legal Entity exercising permissions granted by this License. "Source" form shall mean the preferred form for making modifications, including but not limited to software source code, documentation source, and configuration files. "Object" form shall mean any form resulting from mechanical transformation or translation of a Source form, including but not limited to compiled object code, generated documentation, and conversions to other media types. "Work" shall mean the work of authorship, whether in Source or Object form, made available under the License, as indicated by a notice that is included in or attached to the work (an example is provided in the Appendix below). "Derivative Works" shall mean any work, whether in Source or Object form, that is based on (or derived from) the Work and for which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship. For the purposes of this License, Derivative Works shall not include works that remain separable from, or merely link (or bind by name) to the interfaces of, the Work and Derivative Works thereof. "Contribution" shall mean any work of authorship, including the original version of the Work and any modifications or additions to that Work or Derivative Works thereof, that is intentionally submitted to Licensor for inclusion in the Work by the author or by an individual or Legal Entity authorized to submit on behalf of the author. For the purposes of this definition, "submitted" means any form of electronic, verbal, or written communication sent to the Licensor or its representatives, including but not limited to communication on electronic mailing lists, source code control systems, and issue tracking systems that are managed by, or on behalf of, the Licensor for the purpose of discussing and improving the Work, but e
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: >> >4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the >> > Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without >> > modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You >> > meet the following conditions: >> >> I'd suggest to add in clause 4, or in its obligations a)-d), an "if >> copyright exists" or something similar. If copyright doesn't exist in the >> Work, >> can't put enforceable conditions on redistributions. > > What wording would you suggest? "4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that for Works subject to copyright You meet the following conditions:" Or, "4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You meet the following conditions for the copyrightable parts of the Work or Derivative Works:" Or, "4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You meet the following conditions: (a) You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License, except when the Work or Derivative Work is not subject to copyright; and (b) You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files, excluding those files that contained no copyrightable part; and" In the latter, (c) and (d) seem to already have applicable exclusions. The first seems cleanest to me. ___ 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: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
OK, but wouldn't those changes mean that the license no longer applies to the uncopyrightable portions? That would mean that downstream users would no longer have any protection from being sued, etc., right? Thanks, Cem Karan > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Engel Nyst > Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 7:17 PM > To: license-discuss > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > 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 Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US) wrote: > >> >4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the > >> > Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without > >> > modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You > >> > meet the following conditions: > >> > >> I'd suggest to add in clause 4, or in its obligations a)-d), an "if > >> copyright exists" or something similar. If copyright doesn't exist in > >> the Work, can't put enforceable conditions on redistributions. > > > > What wording would you suggest? > > "4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the > Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without > modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that for > Works subject to copyright You meet the following conditions:" > Or, > "4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the > Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without > modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You > meet the following conditions for the copyrightable parts of the > Work or Derivative Works:" > Or, > "4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the > Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without > modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You > meet the following conditions: > > (a) You must give any other recipients of the Work or > Derivative Works a copy of this License, except when the Work > or Derivative Work is not subject to copyright; and > > (b) You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices > stating that You changed the files, excluding those files that > contained no copyrightable part; and" > > In the latter, (c) and (d) seem to already have applicable exclusions. > > The first seems cleanest to me. > ___ > 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: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: > OK, but wouldn't those changes mean that the license no longer applies to the > uncopyrightable portions? That would mean that downstream users would no > longer have any protection from being sued, etc., right? The obligations (a)-(d) would not apply to the uncopyrightable portions. That's not the whole license/contract, only those particular obligations that try to put "restrictions" on the rights to reproduce, prepare derivative works, and distribute them. For example, (a) says "[you can reproduce this work], provided that ... you give other recipients a copy of this license". In other words, "you can't reproduce this work if you don't add a copy of this license". This obligation doesn't apply to a public domain work, I can reproduce it without. But I'm not sure what you're worried about, sue for what? These (a)-(d) obligations have nothing to do with suing users, do they? ARL OSL has all the other clauses, which apply fine regardless of whether the underlying Work is copyrighted or not, like disclaimers of liability and clause 5. -- ~ "We like to think of our forums as a Free-Speech Zone. And freedom works best at the point of a bayonet." (Amazon, Inc.) ___ 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: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
I haven't been following all of this thread, but it seems a lot of the genesis of this license is the idea that there needs to be some sort of contract for, or license to, the non-copyrightable elements of the distributed code for the disclaimer of warranties and liability to be effective (at least, with respect to the non-copyrightable parts of the distributed code). I'm not sure that that premise is correct, legally, although I can't say that with certainty (and I don't have the inclination to do a research project). CC0 gives a complete (to the extent permissible by law) waiver of copyright rights, as well as a disclaimer of liability for the "Work" (which is that which copyright has been waived). I believe that to be an effective waiver of liability, despite the fact that there is not copyright rights being conveyed. Does anyone believe that that waiver is ineffective? -Original Message- From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 8:13 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 OK, but wouldn't those changes mean that the license no longer applies to the uncopyrightable portions? That would mean that downstream users would no longer have any protection from being sued, etc., right? Thanks, Cem Karan > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] > On Behalf Of Engel Nyst > Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 7:17 PM > To: license-discuss > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > 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 Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US) wrote: > >> >4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the > >> > Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without > >> > modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You > >> > meet the following conditions: > >> > >> I'd suggest to add in clause 4, or in its obligations a)-d), an "if > >> copyright exists" or something similar. If copyright doesn't exist > >> in the Work, can't put enforceable conditions on redistributions. > > > > What wording would you suggest? > > "4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the > Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without > modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that for > Works subject to copyright You meet the following conditions:" > Or, > "4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the > Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without > modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You > meet the following conditions for the copyrightable parts of the > Work or Derivative Works:" > Or, > "4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the > Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without > modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You > meet the following conditions: > > (a) You must give any other recipients of the Work or > Derivative Works a copy of this License, except when the Work > or Derivative Work is not subject to copyright; and > > (b) You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices > stating that You changed the files, excluding those files that > contained no copyrightable part; and" > > In the latter, (c) and (d) seem to already have applicable exclusions. > > The first seems cleanest to me. > ___ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > 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] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
On Aug 16, 2016, at 11:43 AM, "Smith, McCoy" wrote: CC0 gives a complete (to the extent permissible by law) waiver of copyright rights, as well as a disclaimer of liability for the "Work" (which is that which copyright has been waived). I believe that to be an effective waiver of liability, despite the fact that there is not copyright rights being conveyed. Does anyone believe that that waiver is ineffective? Gee, if only legal-review had approved CC0 as an open source license, it would be a potential option. ;) As it stands, the board's public position to not recommend using CC0 on software [1] due to its patent clause makes it problematic. Cheers! Sean [1] https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero ___ 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: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
McCoy Smith wrote: > I believe that to be an effective waiver of liability, despite the fact that > there is not copyright rights being conveyed. Does anyone believe that that > waiver is ineffective? Liability for commercial products (e.g., electronic devices and cars) cannot be entirely waived in many jurisdictions despite the warranty and liability language in the software license. And liability for intentional torts cannot be waived. You can't throw banana peels at the front of the parade and expect to be forgiven for injuries. Other than that, waiver of liability in CC0 is probably effective. That is what McCoy meant by "to the extent permissible by law." I still don't understand what the U.S. Army Research Laboratory expects beyond that. Such limitation of liability language is already in every FOSS license even though it won't keep a really evil software guy (even an Army researcher) out of jail. /Larry -Original Message- From: Smith, McCoy [mailto:mccoy.sm...@intel.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 8:41 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 I haven't been following all of this thread, but it seems a lot of the genesis of this license is the idea that there needs to be some sort of contract for, or license to, the non-copyrightable elements of the distributed code for the disclaimer of warranties and liability to be effective (at least, with respect to the non-copyrightable parts of the distributed code). I'm not sure that that premise is correct, legally, although I can't say that with certainty (and I don't have the inclination to do a research project). CC0 gives a complete (to the extent permissible by law) waiver of copyright rights, as well as a disclaimer of liability for the "Work" (which is that which copyright has been waived). I believe that to be an effective waiver of liability, despite the fact that there is not copyright rights being conveyed. Does anyone believe that that waiver is ineffective? -Original Message- From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 8:13 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 OK, but wouldn't those changes mean that the license no longer applies to the uncopyrightable portions? That would mean that downstream users would no longer have any protection from being sued, etc., right? Thanks, Cem Karan > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] > On Behalf Of Engel Nyst > Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 7:17 PM > To: license-discuss > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > 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 Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US) wrote: > >> >4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the > >> > Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without > >> > modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You > >> > meet the following conditions: > >> > >> I'd suggest to add in clause 4, or in its obligations a)-d), an "if > >> copyright exists" or something similar. If copyright doesn't exist > >> in the Work, can't put enforceable conditions on redistributions. > > > > What wording would you suggest? > > "4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the > Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without > modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that for > Works subject to copyright You meet the following conditions:" > Or, > "4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the > Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without > modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You > meet the following conditions for the copyrightable parts of the > Work or Derivative Works:" > Or, > "4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the > Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without > modifications, and in Sou
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 04:19:31PM +, Christopher Sean Morrison wrote: > > > > On Aug 16, 2016, at 11:43 AM, "Smith, McCoy" wrote: > > > CC0 gives a complete (to the extent permissible by law) waiver of copyright > rights, as well as a disclaimer of liability for the "Work" (which is that > which copyright has been waived). I believe that to be an effective waiver of > liability, despite the fact that there is not copyright rights being > conveyed. Does anyone believe that that waiver is ineffective? > > > Gee, if only legal-review had approved CC0 as an open source license, it > would be a potential option. ;) > > > > As it stands, the board's public position to not recommend using CC0 on > software [1] due to its patent clause makes it problematic. The point here though is the assumption ARL is apparently making, that an effective warranty or liability disclaimer must be tied to a (seemingly) contractual instrument. CC0 is evidence that some lawyers have thought otherwise. Based on this whole thread, I imagine that even if CC0 were OSI-approved, ARL would find fault with it given that it seems to assume that the copyright-waiving entity actually does own copyright. (I have actually found CC0 attractive in some situations where there is acknowledged uncertainty about copyright ownership.) Richard ___ 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: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
Maybe. But given that CC0 expressly does not convey patent rights, and I believe the intent here is to convey patent rights (via an express license, as in Apache 2.0), CC0 may not be an option the USG wants here. [although CC0 with a plug-in patent grant might work] From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 9:20 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 On Aug 16, 2016, at 11:43 AM, "Smith, McCoy" mailto:mccoy.sm...@intel.com>> wrote: CC0 gives a complete (to the extent permissible by law) waiver of copyright rights, as well as a disclaimer of liability for the "Work" (which is that which copyright has been waived). I believe that to be an effective waiver of liability, despite the fact that there is not copyright rights being conveyed. Does anyone believe that that waiver is ineffective? Gee, if only legal-review had approved CC0 as an open source license, it would be a potential option. ;) As it stands, the board's public position to not recommend using CC0 on software [1] due to its patent clause makes it problematic. Cheers! Sean [1] https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero ___ 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: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
Regardless of whether a licensor owns the copyright, distribution of that work is still a conveyance of a piece of software in commerce. Among other things, that is a contractual act. Even public domain software can cause harm. A disclaimer of warranty and liability -- even for the public domain portion of a work, within the limitations of the law -- can still be effective in a FOSS license. Why does the Army Research Laboratory confuse the distribution of a work under a waiver of liability with the ownership (or not) of its embedded copyrights? Is this a resurrection of the old "license vs. contract" dispute that we buried long ago? /Larry -Original Message- From: Richard Fontana [mailto:font...@sharpeleven.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 9:42 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 04:19:31PM +, Christopher Sean Morrison wrote: > > > > On Aug 16, 2016, at 11:43 AM, "Smith, McCoy" wrote: > > > CC0 gives a complete (to the extent permissible by law) waiver of copyright > rights, as well as a disclaimer of liability for the "Work" (which is that > which copyright has been waived). I believe that to be an effective waiver of > liability, despite the fact that there is not copyright rights being > conveyed. Does anyone believe that that waiver is ineffective? > > > Gee, if only legal-review had approved CC0 as an open source license, > it would be a potential option. ;) > > > > As it stands, the board's public position to not recommend using CC0 on > software [1] due to its patent clause makes it problematic. The point here though is the assumption ARL is apparently making, that an effective warranty or liability disclaimer must be tied to a (seemingly) contractual instrument. CC0 is evidence that some lawyers have thought otherwise. Based on this whole thread, I imagine that even if CC0 were OSI-approved, ARL would find fault with it given that it seems to assume that the copyright-waiving entity actually does own copyright. (I have actually found CC0 attractive in some situations where there is acknowledged uncertainty about copyright ownership.) Richard ___ 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: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
Lawrence Rosen scripsit: > Is this a resurrection of the old "license vs. contract" dispute that > we buried long ago? That is not dead which can eternal lie (see .sig). -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org La mayyitan ma qadirun yatabaqqa sarmadi Fa idha yaji' al-shudhdhadh fa-l-maut qad yantahi. --Abdullah al-Hazred, Al-`Azif ___ 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: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
The point here though is the assumption ARL is apparently making, that an effective warranty or liability disclaimer must be tied to a (seemingly) contractual instrument. CC0 is evidence that some lawyers have thought otherwise. They have acknowledged as much. However, lacking precedent evidence to the contrary, ARL's lawyer believes recipients can be held to the contractual terms and this would give the Gov't (or some downstream contributor) standing to stop a bad actor. It's also been opined that the warranty and liability disclaimer could be lost if they use a copyright-based license (presumably that the whole license would be found invalid due to no copyright, not just the copyright statement bits). I don't agree that would happen as DoJ makes a determination of liability under their own tort/negligence criteria, but also not tested except for cases of gross negligence. Can anyone cite precedence for someone trying to put restrictions via contract/EULA on a public domain work such it was either upheld or shot down in court? All the various NOSA codes that have been released would be apropos... Based on this whole thread, I imagine that even if CC0 were OSI-approved, ARL would find fault with it given that it seems to assume that the copyright-waiving entity actually does own copyright. (I have actually found CC0 attractive in some situations where there is acknowledged uncertainty about copyright ownership.) No disagreement. It just goes from being strictly off the table without OSI-certification to necessary-but-not-sufficient. 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: 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 Engel Nyst > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 11:34 AM > To: license-discuss > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US) wrote: > > OK, but wouldn't those changes mean that the license no longer applies > > to the uncopyrightable portions? That would mean that downstream > > users would no longer have any protection from being sued, etc., right? > > The obligations (a)-(d) would not apply to the uncopyrightable portions. > That's not the whole license/contract, only those particular > obligations that try to put "restrictions" on the rights to reproduce, > prepare derivative works, and distribute them. > > For example, (a) says "[you can reproduce this work], provided that ... you > give other recipients a copy of this license". In other words, > "you can't reproduce this work if you don't add a copy of this license". > This obligation doesn't apply to a public domain work, I can > reproduce it without. OK, I see where you're coming from now. I had to have the ARL Legal team explain this to me as well, but the ARL OSL is actually a contract, and the contract can apply even if there is no copyright. We release material to our collaborators on a regular basis under contract; we even do this with software, even though it is in the public domain. If they break the contract, we can sue them, but we can't sue anyone that they delivered the software to (it's in the public domain, so we don't have any copyright protections to sue over). The ARL OSL extends this as a chain; the USG releases the software to anyone that wants to download it, but by downloading it, they agree to the contract. That person in turn can hand off the software to another person, forming the chain. However, if the chain is broken, the USG only has the right to sue the first person that broke the chain; the others may be able to claim that they got the software in good faith. Since there is no copyright involved, and since they didn't break the contract, they are innocent; only the person that broke the chain originally is liable (note that I'm not a lawyer, and may have gotten some of this wrong; it's just my understanding from the ARL Legal team). This means that to sue, the USG will need to prove that the person was the first one in the chain to break the contract. Copyright is something entirely different from contract law. Copyright is a bundle of rights that an author gets by creating a work. The license allows a user to use the work without getting sued/stopped/etc. The trick is that since copyright attaches to a work AND since you can't copy/use/display/perform/etc. a work without permission from the copyright holders, you have to be able to point to the license that allows you to use the work without being sued. That means that a copyright holder doesn't need to follow a chain, it just needs to demonstrate that it has copyright on the work, and that its license is being violated. The closest analogy I can provide is that contract law is innocent until proven guilty, while copyright is guilty until proven innocent. > But I'm not sure what you're worried about, sue for what? These > (a)-(d) obligations have nothing to do with suing users, do they? ARL OSL > has all the other clauses, which apply fine regardless of whether > the underlying Work is copyrighted or not, like disclaimers of liability and > clause 5. No, the problem is that removing those terms suggests that you can strip out the ARL OSL from any part that is in the public domain. Once that happens, the material no longer has the ARL OSL protecting downstream users from predatory and unscrupulous individuals. That's all. 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] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
CC0 doesn't cover patent or other IP rights; if it did, it would be a way out. The concern is that an unscrupulous contributor would contribute software under CC0 that had patents covering it. Once the patented portions were rolled in and being used, the contributor would then sue everyone over patent violations. There are a few other, similar tricks that can be done that the Apache 2.0 license and the ARL OSL license attempt to avoid. If you think that this is a paranoid fear, read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambus#Lawsuits to see what we're trying to avoid. Thanks, Cem Karan > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Smith, McCoy > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 11:41 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > I haven't been following all of this thread, but it seems a lot of the > genesis of this license is the idea that there needs to be some sort of > contract for, or license to, the non-copyrightable elements of the > distributed code for the disclaimer of warranties and liability to be > effective (at least, with respect to the non-copyrightable parts of the > distributed code). I'm not sure that that premise is correct, legally, > although I can't say that with certainty (and I don't have the inclination > to do a research project). > > CC0 gives a complete (to the extent permissible by law) waiver of copyright > rights, as well as a disclaimer of liability for the "Work" (which > is that which copyright has been waived). I believe that to be an effective > waiver of liability, despite the fact that there is not copyright > rights being conveyed. Does anyone believe that that waiver is ineffective? > > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Karan, > Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US) > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 8:13 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > OK, but wouldn't those changes mean that the license no longer applies to > the uncopyrightable portions? That would mean that > downstream users would no longer have any protection from being sued, etc., > right? > > Thanks, > Cem Karan > > > -Original Message- > > From: License-discuss > > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] > > On Behalf Of Engel Nyst > > Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 7:17 PM > > To: license-discuss > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > > > 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 Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > > (US) wrote: > > >> >4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the > > >> > Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without > > >> > modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You > > >> > meet the following conditions: > > >> > > >> I'd suggest to add in clause 4, or in its obligations a)-d), an "if > > >> copyright exists" or something similar. If copyright doesn't exist > > >> in the Work, can't put enforceable conditions on redistributions. > > > > > > What wording would you suggest? > > > > "4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the > > Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without > > modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that for > > Works subject to copyright You meet the following conditions:" > > Or, > > "4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the > > Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without > > modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You > > meet the following conditions for the copyrightable parts of the > > Work or Derivative Works:" > > Or, > > "4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the
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 mentioned in an earlier email, there are IP issues that need to be solved (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambus#Lawsuits). That makes CC0 unattractive. If the entire license is held to be invalid, then contributors may have standing to sue both the USG and anyone that uses USG code for patent violations. We're trying to have a license that will withstand legal scrutiny, and protect not just the USG, but also all innocent contributors and users of USG-sponsored projects. As for 'license vs. contract', was that something discussed in relation to the ARL OSL? Thanks, Cem Karan > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 12:57 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Cc: Lawrence Rosen > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > 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. > > > > > > > Regardless of whether a licensor owns the copyright, distribution of that > work is still a conveyance of a piece of software in commerce. > Among other things, that is a contractual act. Even public domain software > can cause harm. A disclaimer of warranty and liability -- even > for the public domain portion of a work, within the limitations of the > law -- can still be effective in a FOSS license. > > Why does the Army Research Laboratory confuse the distribution of a work > under a waiver of liability with the ownership (or not) of its > embedded copyrights? > > Is this a resurrection of the old "license vs. contract" dispute that we > buried long ago? > > /Larry > > > -Original Message- > From: Richard Fontana [Caution-mailto:font...@sharpeleven.org] > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 9:42 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 04:19:31PM +, Christopher Sean Morrison wrote: > > > > > > > > On Aug 16, 2016, at 11:43 AM, "Smith, McCoy" > > wrote: > > > > > > CC0 gives a complete (to the extent permissible by law) waiver of > > copyright rights, as well as a disclaimer of liability for the "Work" > (which is that which copyright has been waived). I believe that to be an > effective waiver of liability, despite the fact that there is not > copyright rights being conveyed. Does anyone believe that that waiver is > ineffective? > > > > > > Gee, if only legal-review had approved CC0 as an open source license, > > it would be a potential option. ;) > > > > > > > > As it stands, the board's public position to not recommend using CC0 on > > software [1] due to its patent clause makes it problematic. > > The point here though is the assumption ARL is apparently making, that an > effective warranty or liability disclaimer must be tied to a > (seemingly) contractual instrument. CC0 is evidence that some lawyers have > thought otherwise. > > Based on this whole thread, I imagine that even if CC0 were OSI-approved, > ARL would find fault with it given that it seems to assume that > the copyright-waiving entity actually does own copyright. (I have actually > found CC0 attractive in some situations where there is > acknowledged uncertainty about copyright ownership.) > > > Richard > > > ___ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > ___ > 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: 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? No, that's a much older topic of debate in open source. It's safe to say from your previous remarks that ARL assumes that licenses are contracts. :) ___ 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: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
> 2) Liability is only one part of the puzzle; as I mentioned in an earlier > email, there are IP issues that need to be solved (e.g. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambus#Lawsuits). That makes CC0 unattractive. Rambus and free software? What about the Rambus patent litigation informs the software license choice issues being discussed in this thread? I'm sorry. I clearly have not been paying enough attention to this thread. I have been engaged in issues at the intersection of patents and standards since before patent enforcement by Rambus attracted the attention of the FTC. "Rambus". Now you have my attention. -- Scott ___ 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: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
Keran, your description of the "chain" is not usually correct for FOSS. The Apache and GPL and MPL licenses don't have to work that way through sublicensing. Each licensee receives his or her license directly from the licensor. There is no chain. The licensor (contractor) can directly enforce that license -- including its warranties and liability disclaimers -- against each of its licensees even if it is not a copyright owner. In law, that means that privity [1] is not an enforcement problem for most FOSS licenses because there are no contractual "third parties". > The closest analogy I can provide is that contract law is innocent > until proven guilty, while copyright is guilty until proven innocent. No. /Larry [1] Privity: The doctrine of privity in the common law of 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) [mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 12:44 PM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: 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 Engel Nyst > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 11:34 AM > To: license-discuss > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US) wrote: > > OK, but wouldn't those changes mean that the license no longer > > applies to the uncopyrightable portions? That would mean that > > downstream users would no longer have any protection from being sued, etc., > > right? > > The obligations (a)-(d) would not apply to the uncopyrightable portions. > That's not the whole license/contract, only those particular > obligations that try to put "restrictions" on the rights to reproduce, > prepare derivative works, and distribute them. > > For example, (a) says "[you can reproduce this work], provided that > ... you give other recipients a copy of this license". In other words, > "you can't reproduce this work if you don't add a copy of this license". > This obligation doesn't apply to a public domain work, I can reproduce > it without. OK, I see where you're coming from now. I had to have the ARL Legal team explain this to me as well, but the ARL OSL is actually a contract, and the contract can apply even if there is no copyright. We release material to our collaborators on a regular basis under contract; we even do this with software, even though it is in the public domain. If they break the contract, we can sue them, but we can't sue anyone that they delivered the software to (it's in the public domain, so we don't have any copyright protections to sue over). The ARL OSL extends this as a chain; the USG releases the software to anyone that wants to download it, but by downloading it, they agree to the contract. That person in turn can hand off the software to another person, forming the chain. However, if the chain is broken, the USG only has the right to sue the first person that broke the chain; the others may be able to claim that they got the software in good faith. Since there is no copyright involved, and since they didn't break the contract, they are innocent; only the person that broke the chain originally is liable (note that I'm not a lawyer, and may have gotten some of this wrong; it's just my understanding from the ARL Legal team). This means that to sue, the USG will need to prove that the person was the first one in the chain to break the contract. Copyright is something entirely different from contract law. Copyright is a bundle of rights that an author gets by creating a work. The license allows a user to use the work without getting sued/stopped/etc. The trick is that since copyright attaches to a work AND since you can't copy/use/display/perform/etc. a work without permission from the copyright holders, you have to be able to point to the license that allows you to use the work without being sued. That means that a copyright holder doesn't need to follow a chain, it just needs to demonstrate that it has copyright on the work, and that its license is being violated. The closest analogy I can provide is that contract law is innocent until proven guilty, while copyright is guilty until proven innocent. > But I'm not sure what you're worried about, sue for what? These > (a)-(d) obligations have nothing to do with suing users, do they? ARL > OSL
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 9:43 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: > OK, I see where you're coming from now. I had to have the ARL Legal team > explain this to me as well, but the ARL OSL is actually a contract, and the > contract can apply even if there is no copyright. We release material to our > collaborators on a regular basis under contract; we even do this with > software, even though it is in the public domain. If they break the contract, > we can sue them, but we can't sue anyone that they delivered the software to > (it's in the public domain, so we don't have any copyright protections to sue > over). The ARL OSL extends this as a chain; the USG releases the software to > anyone that wants to download it, but by downloading it, they agree to the > contract. That person in turn can hand off the software to another person, > forming the chain. However, if the chain is broken, the USG only has the > right to sue the first person that broke the chain; the others may be able to > claim that they got the software in good faith. Since there is no copyright > involved, and since they didn't break the contract, they are innocent; only > the person that broke the chain originally is liable (note that I'm not a > lawyer, and may have gotten some of this wrong; it's just my understanding > from the ARL Legal team). This means that to sue, the USG will need to prove > that the person was the first one in the chain to break the contract. > > Copyright is something entirely different from contract law. Copyright is a > bundle of rights that an author gets by creating a work. The license allows a > user to use the work without getting sued/stopped/etc. The trick is that > since copyright attaches to a work AND since you can't > copy/use/display/perform/etc. a work without permission from the copyright > holders, you have to be able to point to the license that allows you to use > the work without being sued. That means that a copyright holder doesn't need > to follow a chain, it just needs to demonstrate that it has copyright on the > work, and that its license is being violated. > > The closest analogy I can provide is that contract law is innocent until > proven guilty, while copyright is guilty until proven innocent. I understand the intention, and I know it seems tempting to work via contract, but here's the problem: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/301 "On and after January 1, 1978, all legal or equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright as specified by section 106 in works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression and come within the subject matter of copyright as specified by sections 102 and 103, whether created before or after that date and whether published or unpublished, are governed exclusively by this title. Thereafter, no person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any State." Some claims of breaches of contract will fall squarely into what this paragraph says: they would claim the same thing as the rights under copyright. In other words: if A tries to make a contract with B, where A says "you can't reproduce this work", that obligation lives or dies via copyright alone. (if nothing else is involved) From what you say, you intend here exactly that: to recreate the rights to reproduce, distribute, or make derivative works, or to put obligations as if you had them, through contract. It seems to me that copyright law already says USG can't do that. You can do a lot of contracts, to be sure; just not those who simulate copyright. Caselaw on this exact topic seems a mess. I don't know what would come of this; without getting into it, here's my suggestion, considering all I understand from your intentions: The interesting thing with your intended license/contract is that preemption doesn't matter for malevolent contributors: you can STILL make it so that contributors will provide their (presumably copyrightable) work under it, in your projects. Because only clauses 2 and 4 would be affected by preemption, redrafting the license/contract so that the rest stands in all cases should give you the same effect (or close). Apache license is almost unique in the following respect: there are 2 explicit directions in which it works. Direction (1) - from USG/others to the world. Here you have the problem that if you start without copyright, and the license tries to usurp the domain of copyright rights, that can make it all fail. You said it yourself: the concern is that it depends on copyright, and thus may all be deemed invalid. Indeed, I'm just saying that recreating copyright-like rights via contract where title 17 clearly denied them, can also be deemed invalid. Direction (2) - from a "contributor" to USG and the world, via "intentional submission for inclusion in the Work" (clause 5). This direction (2) doesn't
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 Richard Fontana > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 4:10 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Cc: lro...@rosenlaw.com > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-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? > > No, that's a much older topic of debate in open source. It's safe to say > from your previous remarks that ARL assumes that licenses are > contracts. :) As I understand it from ARL Legal, licenses ARE contracts. I am not a lawyer and don't know if they are the same or not. I'd really rather not open up a can of worms regarding what they are, I just want to make sure that the ARL OSL is interoperable with Apache 2.0, that it is as close to being legally identical to it as possible when applied to anything that has copyright attached, and that the OSI and Apache are happy with it. 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] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
I think what a lot of the lawyers on here are trying to say to you is -- why not just use Apache 2.0 and be done with it? You appear to find Apache 2.0 wanting because some of the materials that will be transmitted might not be copyrightable in some jurisdictions. And you believe as a result, the entire Apache 2.0 license (including the patent grants, and the disclaimer of warranties) would be rendered null & void as a result. Perhaps the lawyers from ARL are telling you that; if so, perhaps you could invite them to the conversation. I think many people on here are skeptical of the latter part of your analysis. In fact, I suspect that virtually every piece of code licensed under Apache 2.0 has some parts that aren't subject to copyright, since they don't satisfy the provisions of 17 USC 102 and the various judicial tests to separate expressive vs. non-expressive content. -Original Message- From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 1:43 PM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Cc: lro...@rosenlaw.com Subject: 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 Richard Fontana > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 4:10 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Cc: lro...@rosenlaw.com > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-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? > > No, that's a much older topic of debate in open source. It's safe to > say from your previous remarks that ARL assumes that licenses are > contracts. :) As I understand it from ARL Legal, licenses ARE contracts. I am not a lawyer and don't know if they are the same or not. I'd really rather not open up a can of worms regarding what they are, I just want to make sure that the ARL OSL is interoperable with Apache 2.0, that it is as close to being legally identical to it as possible when applied to anything that has copyright attached, and that the OSI and Apache are happy with it. Thanks, Cem Karan ___ 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: 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 Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > > 2) Liability is only one part of the puzzle; as I mentioned in an > > earlier email, there are IP issues that need to be solved (e.g. > > Caution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambus#Lawsuits). That makes CC0 > > unattractive. > > > Rambus and free software? > > What about the Rambus patent litigation informs the software license choice > issues being discussed in this thread? > > I'm sorry. I clearly have not been paying enough attention to this thread. I > have been engaged in issues at the intersection of patents and > standards since before patent enforcement by Rambus attracted the attention > of the FTC. "Rambus". Now you have my attention. The issue is the one that the Apache 2.0 license solves, and that the ARL OSL is attempting to solve for works that don't have copyright attached. Basically, clause 3 in each of the licenses means that you can't contribute software that has patents on it, and then sue everyone for using said contribution. Putting everything under CC0 doesn't protect the USG or anyone that uses USG-sponsored projects from being sued, which at the very least would be embarrassing, and in the worst-case, damaging to Open Source in general. I want to avoid that issue entirely by having a license that will stand up in court that makes it clear that contributors ARE licensing all patents and other necessary IP rights when they contribute. Thanks, Cem Karan U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1, August 2016 http://no/URL/as/yet TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE, REPRODUCTION, AND DISTRIBUTION 1. Definitions. "License" shall mean the terms and conditions for use, reproduction, and distribution as defined by Sections 1 through 10 of this document. "Licensor" shall mean the project originator or entity authorized by the project originator that is granting the License. "Legal Entity" shall mean the union of the acting entity and all other entities that control, are controlled by, or are under common control with that entity. For the purposes of this definition, "control" means (i) the power, direct or indirect, to cause the direction or management of such entity, whether by contract or otherwise, or (ii) ownership of fifty percent (50%) or more of the outstanding shares, or (iii) beneficial ownership of such entity. "You" (or "Your") shall mean an individual or Legal Entity exercising permissions granted by this License. "Source" form shall mean the preferred form for making modifications, including but not limited to software source code, documentation source, and configuration files. "Object" form shall mean any form resulting from mechanical transformation or translation of a Source form, including but not limited to compiled object code, generated documentation, and conversions to other media types. "Work" shall mean the work of authorship, whether in Source or Object form, made available under the License, as indicated by a notice that is included in or attached to the work (an example is provided in the Appendix below). "Derivative Works" shall mean any work, whether in Source or Object form, that is based on (or derived from) the Work and for which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship. For the purposes of this License, Derivative Works shall not include works that remain separable from, or merely link (or bind by name) to the interfaces of, the Work and Derivative Works thereof. "Contribution" shall mean any work of authorship, including the original version of the Work and any modifications or additions to that Work or Derivative Works thereof, that is intentionally submitted to Licensor for inclusion in the Work by the author or by an individual or Legal Entity authorized to submit on behalf of the author. For the purposes of this definition, "submitted" means any form of electronic, verbal, or written communication sent to the Licensor or its representatives, including but not limited to communication on electronic mailing lists, source code control systems, and issue
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 Lawrence Rosen > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 4:36 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Cc: Lawrence Rosen > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > Keran, your description of the "chain" is not usually correct for FOSS. The > Apache and GPL and MPL licenses don't have to work that way > through sublicensing. Each licensee receives his or her license directly > from the licensor. There is no chain. The licensor (contractor) can > directly enforce that license -- including its warranties and liability > disclaimers -- against each of its licensees even if it is not a copyright > owner. > > In law, that means that privity [1] is not an enforcement problem for most > FOSS licenses because there are no contractual "third parties". > > > The closest analogy I can provide is that contract law is innocent > > until proven guilty, while copyright is guilty until proven innocent. > > No. I didn't say it was a *good* analogy! ;) You're right that normal licenses don't rely on chains; they have copyright to fall back on. If I have a piece of software licensed to me under the Apache 2.0 license, then I'm allowed to do certain things because the license protects me from the copyright holder's legal attacks; in their eyes, I'm 'guilty' until I can prove my innocence via the Apache 2.0 license (and my complying with its terms, of course!). Contract law and the principle of privity means that I can only sue the person I had a contract with. If the USG has a contract with A and A breaks the license in some way, and hands off the code to B, then B is an innocent party. The trick is that the USG has to prove that A was the guilty party. In a chain, the USG would have to follow the chain until it could find the guilty party (innocent until proven guilty). At that point the USG may be able to help the upstream party sue (I don't know if this is possible, I'm not a lawyer). So, given that the USG doesn't have copyright to fall back on in all cases (copyright can be assigned to the USG, so there are cases where copyright applies), it has to make do with contract law. This is why the ARL OSL is written as it is; it tries to use copyright whenever possible, but still provide protections when there is no copyright. Thanks, Cem Karan > /Larry > > [1] Privity: The doctrine of privity in the common law of 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] > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 12:44 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: 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 > > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] > > On Behalf Of Engel Nyst > > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 11:34 AM > > To: license-discuss > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > > (US) wrote: > > > OK, but wouldn't those changes mean that the license no longer > > > applies to the uncopyrightable portions? That would mean that > > > downstream users would no longer have any protection from being sued, > > > etc., right? > > > > The obligations (a)-(d) would not apply to the uncopyrightable portions. > > That's not the whole license/contract, only those particular > > obligations that try to put "restrictions" on the rights to reproduce, > > prepare derivative works, and distribute them. > > > > For example, (a) says "[you can reproduce this work], provided that > > ... you give other recipients a copy of this license". In other words, > > "you can't reproduce this work if you don't add a copy of this license". > > This obligation doesn't apply to a public domain work, I can reproduce > > it without. > > OK, I see where you're coming from now. I had to have the ARL Legal team > explain this to me as well, but the ARL OSL is actually a > contract, and the contract can apply even if there is no copyright. We > release material to our collaborator
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
> The issue is the one that the Apache 2.0 license solves, and that the ARL OSL > is attempting to solve for works that don't have copyright attached. > Basically, clause 3 in each of the licenses means that you can't contribute > software that has patents on it, and then sue everyone for using said > contribution. Putting everything under CC0 doesn't protect the USG or anyone > that uses USG-sponsored projects from being sued, which at the very least > would be embarrassing, and in the worst-case, damaging to Open Source in > general. I want to avoid that issue entirely by having a license that will > stand up in court that makes it clear that contributors ARE licensing all > patents and other necessary IP rights when they contribute. Ah, thanks for your explanation. I now see the Rambus parallel: a patent-owning contributor asserting their patent against use of their contribution. I'm understanding that to be a concern about patent-owning non-governmental contributors, not about patents owned by the government. In that case, the code to which that patent license would relate would come from non-governmental contributors -- the government-specific copyright ownership concern would not seem relevant to that code. In any case, I'll add my voice to McCoy's: "why not just use Apache 2.0 and be done with it?" -- Scott ___ 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: 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 Engel Nyst > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 4:42 PM > To: license-discuss > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 9:43 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US) wrote: > > OK, I see where you're coming from now. I had to have the ARL Legal > > team explain this to me as well, but the ARL OSL is actually a > > contract, and the contract can apply even if there is no copyright. > > We release material to our collaborators on a regular basis under > > contract; we even do this with software, even though it is in the > > public domain. If they break the contract, we can sue them, but we > > can't sue anyone that they delivered the software to (it's in the > > public domain, so we don't have any copyright protections to sue > > over). The ARL OSL extends this as a chain; the USG releases the > > software to anyone that wants to download it, but by downloading it, > > they agree to the contract. That person in turn can hand off the > > software to another person, forming the chain. However, if the chain > > is broken, the USG only has the right to sue the first person that > > broke the chain; the others may be able to claim that they got the > > software in good faith. Since there is no copyright involved, and > > since they didn't break the contract, they are innocent; only the > > person that broke the chain originally is liable (note that I'm not a > > lawyer, and may have gotten some of this wrong; it's just my understanding > > from the ARL Legal team). This means that to sue, the USG > will need to prove that the person was the first one in the chain to break > the contract. > > > > Copyright is something entirely different from contract law. > > Copyright is a bundle of rights that an author gets by creating a > > work. The license allows a user to use the work without getting > > sued/stopped/etc. The trick is that since copyright attaches to a > > work AND since you can't copy/use/display/perform/etc. a work without > > permission from the copyright holders, you have to be able to point to > > the license that allows you to use the work without being sued. That > > means that a copyright holder doesn't need to follow a chain, it just > > needs to demonstrate that it has copyright on the work, and that its > > license is being violated. > > > > The closest analogy I can provide is that contract law is innocent > > until proven guilty, while copyright is guilty until proven innocent. > > I understand the intention, and I know it seems tempting to work via > contract, but here's the problem: > > Caution-https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/301 > > "On and after January 1, 1978, all legal or equitable rights that are > equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of > copyright as specified by section 106 in works of authorship that are fixed > in a tangible medium of expression and come within the subject > matter of copyright as specified by sections 102 and 103, whether created > before or after that date and whether published or > unpublished, are governed exclusively by this title. Thereafter, no person > is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work > under the common law or statutes of any State." > > Some claims of breaches of contract will fall squarely into what this > paragraph says: they would claim the same thing as the rights under > copyright. > > In other words: if A tries to make a contract with B, where A says "you > can't reproduce this work", that obligation lives or dies via > copyright alone. (if nothing else is involved) > > From what you say, you intend here exactly that: to recreate the rights to > reproduce, distribute, or make derivative works, or to put > obligations as if you had them, through contract. It seems to me that > copyright law already says USG can't do that. > > You can do a lot of contracts, to be sure; just not those who simulate > copyright. Got it; I'm going to forward your comments to the ARL Lawyer I'm working with to see what his opinion is. He's on vacation for another week though, so I won't be able to give you a good response until then. > Caselaw on this exact topic seems a mess. I don't know what would come of > this; without getting into it, here's my suggestion, considering > all I understand from your in
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 Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > I think what a lot of the lawyers on here are trying to say to you is -- why > not just use Apache 2.0 and be done with it? > > You appear to find Apache 2.0 wanting because some of the materials that > will be transmitted might not be copyrightable in some > jurisdictions. And you believe as a result, the entire Apache 2.0 license > (including the patent grants, and the disclaimer of warranties) > would be rendered null & void as a result. Perhaps the lawyers from ARL are > telling you that; if so, perhaps you could invite them to the > conversation. I have, but they've refused, and won't budge on it. > I think many people on here are skeptical of the latter part of your > analysis. In fact, I suspect that virtually every piece of code licensed > under Apache 2.0 has some parts that aren't subject to copyright, since they > don't satisfy the provisions of 17 USC 102 and the various > judicial tests to separate expressive vs. non-expressive content. Possibly true. If our management eventually says that they're willing to take the risk and go with it, I'll be willing to drop the ARL OSL. So far it hasn't happened, and so far our lawyers are convinced that the copyright is going to be a problem. 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] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
I find it odd that your lawyers are making you argue the legal issues here even though you aren't a lawyer, and won't themselves join in to the conversation. Further on my point, the US DOJ (i.e., the top government lawyers in the USA) website states that most of the material on their website is public domain and freely usable by the public, yet still appends a disclaimer of liability to that material: https://www.justice.gov/legalpolicies That seems to me like a pretty concrete example of the USG understanding that a disclaimer of liability is not null and void just because the materials for which liability is disclaimed is not licensable because it is in the public domain. The very problem the ARL lawyers are saying this new license proposal is attempting to solve. -Original Message- From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 7:03 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: 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 Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > I think what a lot of the lawyers on here are trying to say to you is > -- why not just use Apache 2.0 and be done with it? > > You appear to find Apache 2.0 wanting because some of the materials > that will be transmitted might not be copyrightable in some > jurisdictions. And you believe as a result, the entire Apache 2.0 > license (including the patent grants, and the disclaimer of > warranties) would be rendered null & void as a result. Perhaps the > lawyers from ARL are telling you that; if so, perhaps you could > invite them to the conversation. I have, but they've refused, and won't budge on it. > I think many people on here are skeptical of the latter part of your > analysis. In fact, I suspect that virtually every piece of code > licensed under Apache 2.0 has some parts that aren't subject to > copyright, since they don't satisfy the provisions of 17 USC 102 and > the various judicial tests to separate expressive vs. non-expressive content. Possibly true. If our management eventually says that they're willing to take the risk and go with it, I'll be willing to drop the ARL OSL. So far it hasn't happened, and so far our lawyers are convinced that the copyright is going to be a problem. Thanks, Cem Karan ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
