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

59 PM > To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army > Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1 > > Something is certainly better than nothing, I agree, but I think many of

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

Something is certainly better than nothing, I agree, but I think many of us would rather have an express and broad license from all participants in a project, including the government, than to have to rely on less than well understood public domain dedications and waivers of patent rights that

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

t;mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com> ; license-discuss@opensource.org <mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1 Something is certainly better than nothing, I

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

do > with OSI's approval of CC0. This WE can do now on our own on behalf of > government open source. > > > > /Larry > > > > > > *From:* Jim Wright [mailto:jim.wri...@oracle.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 1, 2017 2:59 PM > *To:* lro...@rosenlaw.com; li

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

PM To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1 Something is certainly better than nothing, I agree, but I think many of us would rather have an expr

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

Jim Wright wrote: > it seems odd to me to require a dedication to the public domain in any event > - stuff is either in the public domain by law or isn’t, and to whatever > extent it isn’t, we should have a copyright license, full stop. Similarly as > to patents, I don’t want to have to look

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

Of course, as Richard pointed out earlier, this would also be true as to the ASL, etc., except to the extent that the government choosing to effectively “waive" patent rights as Cem has said is not the same thing as a terminable patent license in the ASL - the UPL thus arguably putting the

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

Indeed, if there’s no copyright in the US, there may be no need of a copyright license from the government here, but in any event there *is* an OSI approved permissive license that licenses both any applicable copyright rights (without actually requiring that the government have any) and patent

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

> On Mar 1, 2017, at 4:17 PM, Rick Moen wrote: > > Quoting Lawrence Rosen (lro...@rosenlaw.com): > >> The question remains from many years of discussion here: What is wrong >> with CC0 being approved by OSI as a license for components in other >> open source software?

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

Quoting Lawrence Rosen (lro...@rosenlaw.com): > The question remains from many years of discussion here: What is wrong > with CC0 being approved by OSI as a license for components in other > open source software? Including for U.S. government works that may (or > may not) be public domain? For

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

On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 01:50:42PM -0500, Christopher Sean Morrison wrote: > If I recall correctly, there were no objections to CC0 when it was > submitted for OSI approval. It was withdrawn by the steward after > prolonged patent clause commentary. considering what the > implications of

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

> A proposed solution, however, is that the U.S. government will distribute > software under CC0. I don't care if that is sensible. I don't care if that is > odd. I do care that CC0 be an OSI-approved license, regardless of its flaws. > > That will reaffirm the authority in our community of

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

ive was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1 OSI approval is not explicitly required under DOSA. It just says open source license. If DOSA explicitly defines the licensing authority I would prefer it be stated as any DOD approved open source lice

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

license-discuss@opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org>> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1 Certainly the approach code.mil spells out to contributions seems ok without havin

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

Certainly the approach code.mil spells out to contributions seems ok without having to address the license issue at all, but these questions seem orthogonal to me. Cem seems to be trying to ensure that all open source projects operating using this process are under an OSI approved license,

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

ichard Fontana Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 8:30 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1 Well the complication is mainly a response to Cem wanting the OSI to ble

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

Well the complication is mainly a response to Cem wanting the OSI to bless his proposed approach. I think however that code.mil has already rejected this sort of idea. I think the code.mil approach is much more elegant without introducing the use of CC0. On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 03:08:22PM

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

Richard, It is very hard for me to take a complaint that CC0 not being OSI approved as a significant issue vs continued feet dragging when the OSI won’t provide guidance on license asymmetry, won’t vote on NOSA v2.0 and had the opportunity to pass CC0 years ago. CC0 is accepted as open source

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

On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 09:37:13AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote: > Strictly speaking, the use of > CC0 assumes that you have copyright ownership. I guess that's a bit of an overstatement, but still given the nature of the angst I've heard from US government people over the years concerning the

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

Hi Richard, On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > I really like the approach as it currently exists. But why is use of > CC0 necessary? If some work of the US government is in the public > domain by virtue of the Copyright Act, there is no need to use

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

I really like the approach as it currently exists. But why is use of CC0 necessary? If some work of the US government is in the public domain by virtue of the Copyright Act, there is no need to use CC0. Indeed, I would think use of CC0 by the Government is just as problematic, or non-problematic,

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

age- > From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 11:23 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open > Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1 > > All, the folks at code.m

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

] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1 FWIW, I have authored what I call a "plug-in" license intended to allow an add-in patent license to licenses like CC0 that lack one (or disclaim them). It's a bit of a WIP, and

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

license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Gervase Markham Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 9:17 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1 On 28/02/17 17:09, Smith

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

On 28/02/17 17:09, Smith, McCoy wrote: > You should consider the fact that CC0 has an express disclaimer of > patent licenses (in Section 4.a). That may mean that it doesn't > address one of the concerns that I think you had (i.e., that there > might be USG patents covering the non-US

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

, February 28, 2017 8:23 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1 All, the folks at code.mil came up with what may be a really, really good idea; see https://github.com