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

2017-03-02 Thread Jim Wright 
We do agree for the most part, but not entirely here.  I was more looking back 
to Cem’s original question about whether CC0 would ensure their projects are 
Open Source today, which it would not, in the absence of action on CC0 that 
would not be unanimously supported to say the least.  My take is that they 
could better attend to this problem right now by choosing any existing OSI 
license, preferably one with a clear patent license, and if Cem is looking to 
ensure that their projects are Open Source in the immediate term, this is a 
path that requires nothing of the rest of us and little to nothing of them 
either IMHO.  

Of course my view is obviously colored by my take that CC0 is *not* a good 
model for open source and that it would have been a bad thing for it to have 
been approved - a license that specifically reserves rights of the author to 
pursue infringement claims against users is not a license we want to encourage 
the use of, by the government or anyone else...

 Best,
  Jim


> On Mar 1, 2017, at 3:34 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> 
> Jim Wright wrote: <>
> > Something is certainly better than nothing, I agree, but ...
>  
> Jim, I'm on your side on this. :-)  I'm hoping that a U.S. government open 
> source policy, someday published in the Federal Register and bearing the 
> force of law, will also include an express patent pledge that we can all rely 
> on. Copyright isn't enough. Maybe even UPL?
>  
> Such a pledge could become a model for other large patent-holding 
> institutions, such as universities, to give open source users reassurance 
> that they are not patent infringers.
>  
> That's a bigger topic than for here. It is largely up to that public Federal 
> Register process that eventually may ensue. It has nothing to 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; 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 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 do not 
> apply to all participants.  Something closer to symmetry and broad coverage 
> should be achievable here IMHO - the perfect may sometimes be the enemy of 
> the good, but in this case, we can, I think, do better than CC0.  YMMV of 
> course.
>  
>  Best,
>   Jim
>  
> 
> On Mar 1, 2017, at 2:01 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com 
> <mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com>> wrote:
> 
>> 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 at some ostensible 
>> > policy on waiving patent rights, we should all have a clearly scoped 
>> > patent license for the project, government and private contributors alike, 
>> > and there is an easy vehicle to achieve this, use an OSI approved license. 
>>  
>> Jim, regardless of which OSI-approved license(s) the U.S. government chooses 
>> for its distributed software, neither the "public domain" question nor the 
>> "patent license" question will EVER be fully answered for any particular 
>> software simply by reading those licenses. You have to look at the software 
>> itself. Of course, we could all sue each other and let the courts decide
>>  
>> I'll be grateful for a published government policy – perhaps posted in the 
>> Federal Register someday – that reassures us of a commitment by government 
>> agencies to open source using any OSI-approved license.
>>  
>> Including CC0.
>>  
>> /Larry
>>  
>> ___
>> License-discuss mailing list
>> License-discuss@opensource.org <mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org>
>> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss 
>> <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

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

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

2017-03-02 Thread Jim Wright 
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 do not 
apply to all participants.  Something closer to symmetry and broad coverage 
should be achievable here IMHO - the perfect may sometimes be the enemy of the 
good, but in this case, we can, I think, do better than CC0.  YMMV of course.

 Best,
  Jim


> On Mar 1, 2017, at 2:01 PM, Lawrence Rosen  wrote:
> 
> 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 at some ostensible 
> > policy on waiving patent rights, we should all have a clearly scoped patent 
> > license for the project, government and private contributors alike, and 
> > there is an easy vehicle to achieve this, use an OSI approved license. 
>  
> Jim, regardless of which OSI-approved license(s) the U.S. government chooses 
> for its distributed software, neither the "public domain" question nor the 
> "patent license" question will EVER be fully answered for any particular 
> software simply by reading those licenses. You have to look at the software 
> itself. Of course, we could all sue each other and let the courts decide
>  
> I'll be grateful for a published government policy – perhaps posted in the 
> Federal Register someday – that reassures us of a commitment by government 
> agencies to open source using any OSI-approved license.
>  
> Including CC0.
>  
> /Larry
>  
> ___
> 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] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

2017-03-01 Thread Lawrence Rosen 
Jim Wright wrote:

> in the absence of action on CC0 that would not be unanimously supported to 
> say the least

 

I know that is true but I don't know what it means for this license-discuss@ 
list. I haven't personally voted on a license in years.

 

According to several government folks here, government departments and others 
are already using CC0 for software. Profusely. Please don't blame me; neither 
Creative Commons nor I ever recommended CC0 for software. But that happened, 
because of those damned software patents that interfered with normal open 
source licensing by government departments and universities.

 

TO ANYONE AT OSI WHO ACTUALLY VOTES: Please vote to list CC0 as an OSI-approved 
open source license. Even Jim Wright said, and he's right, "Something is 
certainly better than nothing, I agree" Deal with patents separately.

 

/Larry

 

 

From: Jim Wright [mailto:jim.wri...@oracle.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 4:19 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Cc: Larry Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com>; cem.f.karan....@mail.mil
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research 
Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

 

We do agree for the most part, but not entirely here.  I was more looking back 
to Cem’s original question about whether CC0 would ensure their projects are 
Open Source today, which it would not, in the absence of action on CC0 that 
would not be unanimously supported to say the least.  My take is that they 
could better attend to this problem right now by choosing any existing OSI 
license, preferably one with a clear patent license, and if Cem is looking to 
ensure that their projects are Open Source in the immediate term, this is a 
path that requires nothing of the rest of us and little to nothing of them 
either IMHO.  

 

Of course my view is obviously colored by my take that CC0 is *not* a good 
model for open source and that it would have been a bad thing for it to have 
been approved - a license that specifically reserves rights of the author to 
pursue infringement claims against users is not a license we want to encourage 
the use of, by the government or anyone else...

 

 Best,

  Jim

 

 

On Mar 1, 2017, at 3:34 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com 
<mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com> > wrote:

 

Jim Wright wrote:

> Something is certainly better than nothing, I agree, but ...

 

Jim, I'm on your side on this. :-)  I'm hoping that a U.S. government open 
source policy, someday published in the Federal Register and bearing the force 
of law, will also include an express patent pledge that we can all rely on. 
Copyright isn't enough. Maybe even UPL?

 

Such a pledge could become a model for other large patent-holding institutions, 
such as universities, to give open source users reassurance that they are not 
patent infringers.

 

That's a bigger topic than for here. It is largely up to that public Federal 
Register process that eventually may ensue. It has nothing to 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 <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 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 do not 
apply to all participants.  Something closer to symmetry and broad coverage 
should be achievable here IMHO - the perfect may sometimes be the enemy of the 
good, but in this case, we can, I think, do better than CC0.  YMMV of course.

 

 Best,

  Jim

 

On Mar 1, 2017, at 2:01 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com 
<mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com> > wrote:

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 at some ostensible policy on waiving 
> patent rights, we should all have a clearly scoped patent license for the 
> project, government and private contributors alike, and there is an easy 
> vehicle to achieve this, use an OSI approved license.  

 

Jim, regardless of which OSI-approved license(s) the U.S. government chooses 
for its distributed software, neither the "public domain" question nor the 
"patent license" questi

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

2017-03-01 Thread Diane Peters 
Hi everyone,

As regards CC0 and its use by the USG, you may find this comment we posted
previously of possible interest and relevance.

https://github.com/WhiteHouse/source-code-policy/issues/149

Diane

Diane M. Peters
General Counsel, Creative Commons
Portland, Oregon
http://creativecommons.org/staff#dianepeters
13:00-21:00 UTC


On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:

> Jim Wright wrote:
>
> > Something is certainly better than nothing, I agree, but ...
>
>
>
> Jim, I'm on your side on this. :-)  I'm hoping that a U.S. government open
> source policy, someday published in the Federal Register and bearing the
> force of law, will also include an express patent pledge that we can all
> rely on. Copyright isn't enough. Maybe even UPL?
>
>
>
> Such a pledge could become a model for other large patent-holding
> institutions, such as universities, to give open source users reassurance
> that they are not patent infringers.
>
>
>
> That's a bigger topic than for here. It is largely up to that public
> Federal Register process that eventually may ensue. It has nothing to 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; 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 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 do
> not apply to all participants.  Something closer to symmetry and broad
> coverage should be achievable here IMHO - the perfect may sometimes be the
> enemy of the good, but in this case, we can, I think, do better than CC0.
> YMMV of course.
>
>
>
>  Best,
>
>   Jim
>
>
>
> On Mar 1, 2017, at 2:01 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>
> 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 at some ostensible
> policy on waiving patent rights, we should all have a clearly scoped patent
> license for the project, government and private contributors alike, and
> there is an easy vehicle to achieve this, use an OSI approved license.
>
>
>
> Jim, regardless of which OSI-approved license(s) the U.S. government
> chooses for its distributed software, neither the "public domain" question
> nor the "patent license" question will EVER be fully answered for any
> particular software simply by reading those licenses. You have to look at
> the software itself. Of course, we could all sue each other and let the
> courts decide
>
>
>
> I'll be grateful for a published government policy – perhaps posted in the
> Federal Register someday – that reassures us of a commitment by government
> agencies to open source using *any* OSI-approved license.
>
>
>
> Including CC0.
>
>
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
> ___
> 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
>
>
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

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

2017-03-01 Thread Lawrence Rosen 
Jim Wright wrote:

> Something is certainly better than nothing, I agree, but ...

 

Jim, I'm on your side on this. :-)  I'm hoping that a U.S. government open 
source policy, someday published in the Federal Register and bearing the force 
of law, will also include an express patent pledge that we can all rely on. 
Copyright isn't enough. Maybe even UPL?

 

Such a pledge could become a model for other large patent-holding institutions, 
such as universities, to give open source users reassurance that they are not 
patent infringers.

 

That's a bigger topic than for here. It is largely up to that public Federal 
Register process that eventually may ensue. It has nothing to 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; 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 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 do not 
apply to all participants.  Something closer to symmetry and broad coverage 
should be achievable here IMHO - the perfect may sometimes be the enemy of the 
good, but in this case, we can, I think, do better than CC0.  YMMV of course.

 

 Best,

  Jim

 

On Mar 1, 2017, at 2:01 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com 
<mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com> > wrote:

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 at some ostensible policy on waiving 
> patent rights, we should all have a clearly scoped patent license for the 
> project, government and private contributors alike, and there is an easy 
> vehicle to achieve this, use an OSI approved license.  

 

Jim, regardless of which OSI-approved license(s) the U.S. government chooses 
for its distributed software, neither the "public domain" question nor the 
"patent license" question will EVER be fully answered for any particular 
software simply by reading those licenses. You have to look at the software 
itself. Of course, we could all sue each other and let the courts decide

 

I'll be grateful for a published government policy – perhaps posted in the 
Federal Register someday – that reassures us of a commitment by government 
agencies to open source using any OSI-approved license.

 

Including CC0.

 

/Larry

 

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org <mailto: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] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

2017-03-01 Thread Lawrence Rosen 
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 at some ostensible policy on waiving 
> patent rights, we should all have a clearly scoped patent license for the 
> project, government and private contributors alike, and there is an easy 
> vehicle to achieve this, use an OSI approved license.  

 

Jim, regardless of which OSI-approved license(s) the U.S. government chooses 
for its distributed software, neither the "public domain" question nor the 
"patent license" question will EVER be fully answered for any particular 
software simply by reading those licenses. You have to look at the software 
itself. Of course, we could all sue each other and let the courts decide

 

I'll be grateful for a published government policy – perhaps posted in the 
Federal Register someday – that reassures us of a commitment by government 
agencies to open source using any OSI-approved license.

 

Including CC0.

 

/Larry

 

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

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

2017-03-01 Thread Jim Wright 
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 government on the 
most equal footing possible with everyone else given the expressed intent re: 
license scope… maybe the grant of “any and all copyright rights” would make 
them feel better about the copyright grant by virtue of not suggesting there 
necessarily are any?  Obviously tooting the horn here but 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 at some ostensible policy on waiving patent rights, we should all have 
a clearly scoped patent license for the project, government and private 
contributors alike, and there is an easy vehicle to achieve this, use an OSI 
approved license.  


> On Mar 1, 2017, at 7:49 AM, Jim Wright  wrote:
> 
> 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 
> rights applicable to the project - the UPL.  
> 
> If the government releases code under the UPL, and accepts contributions 
> under the UPL, they are using an OSI approved license, full stop, no need of 
> extra terms or to treat other contributors any differently than the 
> government itself, no need of an express public domain dedication which is 
> any different than what is already true by law, everyone is simply licensing 
> whatever copyright rights they possess as well as whatever patent rights they 
> possess covering the project as they contributed to or provided it, and it 
> seems to me at first glance like nothing else need be done…?
> 
> Regards,
>  Jim
> 
> 
>> On Mar 1, 2017, at 6:49 AM, Richard Fontana  wrote:
>> 
>> 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 use of nominal copyright licenses, I'd find it
>> surprising if CC0 was treated differently.
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

2017-03-01 Thread Jim Wright 
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 rights applicable 
to the project - the UPL.  

If the government releases code under the UPL, and accepts contributions under 
the UPL, they are using an OSI approved license, full stop, no need of extra 
terms or to treat other contributors any differently than the government 
itself, no need of an express public domain dedication which is any different 
than what is already true by law, everyone is simply licensing whatever 
copyright rights they possess as well as whatever patent rights they possess 
covering the project as they contributed to or provided it, and it seems to me 
at first glance like nothing else need be done…?

 Regards,
  Jim


> On Mar 1, 2017, at 6:49 AM, Richard Fontana  wrote:
> 
> 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 use of nominal copyright licenses, I'd find it
> surprising if CC0 was treated differently.
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

2017-03-01 Thread Christopher Sean Morrison 

> 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? Including for U.S. government works that may (or
>> may not) be public domain?
> 
> For whatever it's worth, I said at the time it was under review that CC0
> was very clearly open source, and thus approving it makes sense despite
> its unfortunate explicit waiver of patent rights.
> 
>> The absence of an explicit patent provision applies equally to the BSD
>> and MIT licenses. 
> 
> I will quibble that these are not the as an explicit denial of even an
> _implicit_ patent license, which is the situation that applies with CC0.
> I continue to say, CC0 would be made a better permissive licence were
> that clause removed.  But I would not wish the ideal to become the enemy
> of the good.

Ditto, I think CC0 would be a far better license if it included an explicit 
patent grant or at least had an author option to include one.  I can raise that 
point with them to see if their perspective is any different now X years later 
or if any development is in the works.

From what Richard said, it sounds like a CC0 submission “should” be the steward 
so I’ll contact them to see if they’re willing to submit it again given recent 
developments.  However, if they decline, I’ll write up and submit the request 
myself as a Gov’t proponent.  If anything, it will let the patent right denial 
discussion be hashed out and a decision can be made here or by the OSI board.

Cheers!
Sean

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

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

2017-03-01 Thread Rick Moen 
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 whatever it's worth, I said at the time it was under review that CC0
was very clearly open source, and thus approving it makes sense despite
its unfortunate explicit waiver of patent rights.
 
> The absence of an explicit patent provision applies equally to the BSD
> and MIT licenses. 

I will quibble that these are not the as an explicit denial of even an
_implicit_ patent license, which is the situation that applies with CC0.
I continue to say, CC0 would be made a better permissive licence were
that clause removed.  But I would not wish the ideal to become the enemy
of the good.

-- 
Cheers,  299792458 meters per second.  Not
Rick Moenjust a good idea.  It's the law.
r...@linuxmafia.com
McQ! (4x80
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

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

2017-03-01 Thread Richard Fontana 
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 explicitly denying patent rights may have on the
> liberal licenses.  That commentary was not grounds for disapproval
> and not a fault of CC0, it was primarily a social and license impact
> discussion, but it was withdrawn regardless.  So …

I think it was withdrawn before the discussion was complete. I believe
there were some who felt it was inappropriate for an OSI-approved
license to explicitly deny patent rights. 

> The only question I have is whether the license steward is the only
> one eligible to formally submit CC0 for reconsideration?  If not, I
> will formally submit it myself as there is ample evidence of
> prolific use, niche utility that differentiates it from other
> licenses, and no known clauses that conflict with the OSD.

https://opensource.org/approval implies that it's supposed to be the
license steward. The *GPLv3 cases suggest that there's an implied
exception to this where there's no likelihood that the license steward
will submit a license that is nonetheless likely to be of significant
interest to many in the OSI community.







___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

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

2017-03-01 Thread Christopher Sean Morrison 

> 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 the OSI-approved open 
> source license list, regardless of the elegance of that solution for DOSA.

I don’t think you’ll find any disagreement, even amongst USG developers and 
lawyers.  OSI is the established authority and many programs (e.g., Google 
Summer of Code) require that projects utilize an OSI-approved license.

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 explicitly denying 
patent rights may have on the liberal licenses.  That commentary was not 
grounds for disapproval and not a fault of CC0, it was primarily a social and 
license impact discussion, but it was withdrawn regardless.  So … 

The only question I have is whether the license steward is the only one 
eligible to formally submit CC0 for reconsideration?  If not, I will formally 
submit it myself as there is ample evidence of prolific use, niche utility that 
differentiates it from other licenses, and no known clauses that conflict with 
the OSD.

That way, we can all get past the distracting “it’s not OSI-approved” rote.

Cheers!
Sean

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

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

2017-03-01 Thread Lawrence Rosen 
Nigel Tzeng wrote:

> If DOSA explicitly defines the licensing authority I would prefer it be
stated as any DOD approved open source license.

 

Isn't that already true for every software distributor, including the U.S.
government? Every distributor controls its own licensing strategies. Even
Google asserts that authority for itself, refusing AGPL software. I have no
problem with that level of independence. That is (perhaps unfortunately) why
there are so many FOSS licenses.

 

But the concern is yet another FOSS license for the U.S. Army Research
Laboratory.

 

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 the OSI-approved open
source license list, regardless of the elegance of that solution for DOSA.

 

/Larry

 

 

From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 9:23 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

 

OSI approval is not explicitly required under DOSA. It just says open source
license. 

 

If DOSA explicitly defines the licensing authority I would prefer it be
stated as any DOD approved open source license.

 

That would insure that any projects we develop for sponsors and released as
open source will be under a license that has been reviewed and accepted by
DOD legal from both from a security as well as compliance standpoint.

From: Jim Wright <jwri...@commsoft.com <mailto:jwri...@commsoft.com> >

Date: Wednesday, Mar 01, 2017, 11:53 AM

To: license-discuss@opensource.org <mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org>
<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
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,
which appears to require them to pick one (or several) FOSS licenses to
actually apply.  CC0 doesn't work for that purpose because it's not OSI
approved anyway and also doesn't have a patent license, but observing this
doesn't solve Cem's problem of how to license this stuff in a way that *is*
OSI approved, which I think is what he's getting at.  (Feel free to correct
me.)


> On Mar 1, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Richard Fontana <font...@sharpeleven.org
<mailto:font...@sharpeleven.org> > wrote:
> 
> 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. 
> 
> 

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org <mailto: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] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

2017-03-01 Thread Tzeng, Nigel H. 
OSI approval is not explicitly required under DOSA. It just says open source 
license.

If DOSA explicitly defines the licensing authority I would prefer it be stated 
as any DOD approved open source license.

That would insure that any projects we develop for sponsors and released as 
open source will be under a license that has been reviewed and accepted by DOD 
legal from both from a security as well as compliance standpoint.
From: Jim Wright <jwri...@commsoft.com<mailto:jwri...@commsoft.com>>
Date: Wednesday, Mar 01, 2017, 11:53 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org 
<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 
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, which appears 
to require them to pick one (or several) FOSS licenses to actually apply.  CC0 
doesn’t work for that purpose because it’s not OSI approved anyway and also 
doesn’t have a patent license, but observing this doesn’t solve Cem’s problem 
of how to license this stuff in a way that *is* OSI approved, which I think is 
what he’s getting at.  (Feel free to correct me…)


> On Mar 1, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Richard Fontana <font...@sharpeleven.org> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>

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

2017-03-01 Thread Jim Wright 
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, which appears 
to require them to pick one (or several) FOSS licenses to actually apply.  CC0 
doesn’t work for that purpose because it’s not OSI approved anyway and also 
doesn’t have a patent license, but observing this doesn’t solve Cem’s problem 
of how to license this stuff in a way that *is* OSI approved, which I think is 
what he’s getting at.  (Feel free to correct me…)


> On Mar 1, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Richard Fontana  wrote:
> 
> 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. 
> 
> 

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

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

2017-03-01 Thread Lawrence Rosen 
Richard Fontana wrote:

> I think the code.mil approach is much more elegant without introducing the 
> use of CC0. 

 

Richard, I'm not as concerned with elegance as you are. Most FOSS licenses 
aren't elegant. Whatever code.mil is recommending has nothing to do with the 
elegance of its approach.

 

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?

 

The absence of an explicit patent provision applies equally to the BSD and MIT 
licenses. By also licensing U.S. government works under (e.g.) the Apache 
license, that problem is resolved, but not elegantly.

 

/Larry

 

-Original Message-
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf 
Of Richard 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 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 +, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:

> 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 by the FSF and by the GSA (see Federal Source 
> Code Policy examples).  The fact that the OSI has not approved CC0 is a 
> “complication” of its own making.  One easily solved with an email from the 
> OSI to CC requesting that CC resubmit CC0 and then the OSI board approving 
> it.  

> 

> Nigel

> 

> On 3/1/17, 9:37 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Richard Fontana" < 
> <mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org%20on%20behalf%20of%20font...@sharpeleven.org>
>  license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org on behalf of font...@sharpeleven.org> 
> 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

> CC0. Indeed, I would think use of CC0 by the Government is just as

> problematic, or non-problematic, as the use of any open source

> license, such as the Apache License 2.0. Strictly speaking, the use of

> CC0 assumes that you have copyright ownership. 

> 

> Only noting this because the fact that OSI has not approved CC0 makes

> this more complicated than the case where CC0 is not used at all. 

> 

> The code.mil folks discussed an earlier version of this approach with

> the OSI. But this is the first I've heard of using CC0.

> 

> Richard

> 

> 

> 

> 

> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 04:23:12PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM 
> ARL (US) wrote:

> > All, the folks at code.mil came up with what may be a really, really 
> good 

> > idea; see 

> >  
> <https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md>
>  
> https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md.

> > 

> > The basic idea is simple; when the Government releases code, it's in 
> the 

> > public domain (likely CC0).  The project owners select an OSI-approved 

> > license, and will only accept contributions to the project under their 
> chosen 

> > license[1].  Over time the code base becomes a mixture, some of which 
> is under 

> > CC0, and some of which is under the OSI-approved license.  I've talked 
> with 

> > ARL's lawyers, and they are satisfied with this solution.  Would OSI be 
> happy 

> > with this solution?  That is, would OSI recognize the projects as being 
> truly 

> > Open Source, right from the start?  The caveat is that some projects 
> will be 

> > 100% CC0 at the start, and can only use the chosen Open Source license 
> on 

> > those contributions that have copyright attached.  Note that Government 

> > projects that wish to make this claim would have to choose their 
> license and 

> > announce it on the project site so that everyone knows what they are 
> licensing 

> > their contributions

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

2017-03-01 Thread Richard Fontana 
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 +, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> 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 by the FSF and by the GSA (see Federal Source 
> Code Policy examples).  The fact that the OSI has not approved CC0 is a 
> “complication” of its own making.  One easily solved with an email from the 
> OSI to CC requesting that CC resubmit CC0 and then the OSI board approving 
> it.  
> 
> Nigel
> 
> On 3/1/17, 9:37 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of 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
> CC0. Indeed, I would think use of CC0 by the Government is just as
> problematic, or non-problematic, as the use of any open source
> license, such as the Apache License 2.0. Strictly speaking, the use of
> CC0 assumes that you have copyright ownership. 
> 
> Only noting this because the fact that OSI has not approved CC0 makes
> this more complicated than the case where CC0 is not used at all. 
> 
> The code.mil folks discussed an earlier version of this approach with
> the OSI. But this is the first I've heard of using CC0.
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 04:23:12PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM 
> ARL (US) wrote:
> > All, the folks at code.mil came up with what may be a really, really 
> good 
> > idea; see 
> > 
> https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md.
> > 
> > The basic idea is simple; when the Government releases code, it's in 
> the 
> > public domain (likely CC0).  The project owners select an OSI-approved 
> > license, and will only accept contributions to the project under their 
> chosen 
> > license[1].  Over time the code base becomes a mixture, some of which 
> is under 
> > CC0, and some of which is under the OSI-approved license.  I've talked 
> with 
> > ARL's lawyers, and they are satisfied with this solution.  Would OSI be 
> happy 
> > with this solution?  That is, would OSI recognize the projects as being 
> truly 
> > Open Source, right from the start?  The caveat is that some projects 
> will be 
> > 100% CC0 at the start, and can only use the chosen Open Source license 
> on 
> > those contributions that have copyright attached.  Note that Government 
> > projects that wish to make this claim would have to choose their 
> license and 
> > announce it on the project site so that everyone knows what they are 
> licensing 
> > their contributions under, which is the way that OSI can validate that 
> the 
> > project is keeping its end of the bargain at the start.
> > 
> > If this will satisfy OSI, then I will gladly withdraw the ARL OSL from 
> > consideration.  If there are NASA or other Government folks on here, 
> would 
> > this solution satisfy your needs as well?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Cem Karan
> > 
> > [1] There is also a form certifying that the contributor has the right 
> to do 
> > so, etc.  The Army Research Laboratory's is at 
> > 
> https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions/blob/master/ARL%20Form%20-%20266.pdf,
>  
> > and is, unfortunately, only able to be opened in Adobe Acrobat.  We're 
> working 
> > to fix that, but there are other requirements that will take some time.
> 
> 
> 
> > ___
> > 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
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

2017-03-01 Thread Tzeng, Nigel H. 
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 by the FSF and by the GSA (see Federal Source 
Code Policy examples).  The fact that the OSI has not approved CC0 is a 
“complication” of its own making.  One easily solved with an email from the OSI 
to CC requesting that CC resubmit CC0 and then the OSI board approving it.  

Nigel

On 3/1/17, 9:37 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of 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
CC0. Indeed, I would think use of CC0 by the Government is just as
problematic, or non-problematic, as the use of any open source
license, such as the Apache License 2.0. Strictly speaking, the use of
CC0 assumes that you have copyright ownership. 

Only noting this because the fact that OSI has not approved CC0 makes
this more complicated than the case where CC0 is not used at all. 

The code.mil folks discussed an earlier version of this approach with
the OSI. But this is the first I've heard of using CC0.

Richard




On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 04:23:12PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM 
ARL (US) wrote:
> All, the folks at code.mil came up with what may be a really, really good 
> idea; see 
> 
https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md.
> 
> The basic idea is simple; when the Government releases code, it's in the 
> public domain (likely CC0).  The project owners select an OSI-approved 
> license, and will only accept contributions to the project under their 
chosen 
> license[1].  Over time the code base becomes a mixture, some of which is 
under 
> CC0, and some of which is under the OSI-approved license.  I've talked 
with 
> ARL's lawyers, and they are satisfied with this solution.  Would OSI be 
happy 
> with this solution?  That is, would OSI recognize the projects as being 
truly 
> Open Source, right from the start?  The caveat is that some projects will 
be 
> 100% CC0 at the start, and can only use the chosen Open Source license on 
> those contributions that have copyright attached.  Note that Government 
> projects that wish to make this claim would have to choose their license 
and 
> announce it on the project site so that everyone knows what they are 
licensing 
> their contributions under, which is the way that OSI can validate that 
the 
> project is keeping its end of the bargain at the start.
> 
> If this will satisfy OSI, then I will gladly withdraw the ARL OSL from 
> consideration.  If there are NASA or other Government folks on here, 
would 
> this solution satisfy your needs as well?
> 
> Thanks,
> Cem Karan
> 
> [1] There is also a form certifying that the contributor has the right to 
do 
> so, etc.  The Army Research Laboratory's is at 
> 
https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions/blob/master/ARL%20Form%20-%20266.pdf,
 
> and is, unfortunately, only able to be opened in Adobe Acrobat.  We're 
working 
> to fix that, but there are other requirements that will take some time.



> ___
> 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


___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

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

2017-03-01 Thread Richard Fontana 
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 use of nominal copyright licenses, I'd find it
surprising if CC0 was treated differently.


___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

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

2017-03-01 Thread Simon Phipps 
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
> CC0. Indeed, I would think use of CC0 by the Government is just as
> problematic, or non-problematic, as the use of any open source
> license, such as the Apache License 2.0. Strictly speaking, the use of
> CC0 assumes that you have copyright ownership.
>

I may be misunderstanding, but I had understood that the effect of the
Copyright Act only affected the USA and that outside the USA the status of
government works is not reliably determined. As such I would expect a
license like CC0 to be necessary to give people outside the USA certainty
as to their rights regarding government works.


>
> Only noting this because the fact that OSI has not approved CC0 makes
> this more complicated than the case where CC0 is not used at all.
>

I realise CC has resource constraints but I would love to see this
revisited.

Regards

Simon
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

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

2017-03-01 Thread Richard Fontana 
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, as the use of any open source
license, such as the Apache License 2.0. Strictly speaking, the use of
CC0 assumes that you have copyright ownership. 

Only noting this because the fact that OSI has not approved CC0 makes
this more complicated than the case where CC0 is not used at all. 

The code.mil folks discussed an earlier version of this approach with
the OSI. But this is the first I've heard of using CC0.

Richard




On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 04:23:12PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL 
(US) wrote:
> All, the folks at code.mil came up with what may be a really, really good 
> idea; see 
> https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md.
> 
> The basic idea is simple; when the Government releases code, it's in the 
> public domain (likely CC0).  The project owners select an OSI-approved 
> license, and will only accept contributions to the project under their chosen 
> license[1].  Over time the code base becomes a mixture, some of which is 
> under 
> CC0, and some of which is under the OSI-approved license.  I've talked with 
> ARL's lawyers, and they are satisfied with this solution.  Would OSI be happy 
> with this solution?  That is, would OSI recognize the projects as being truly 
> Open Source, right from the start?  The caveat is that some projects will be 
> 100% CC0 at the start, and can only use the chosen Open Source license on 
> those contributions that have copyright attached.  Note that Government 
> projects that wish to make this claim would have to choose their license and 
> announce it on the project site so that everyone knows what they are 
> licensing 
> their contributions under, which is the way that OSI can validate that the 
> project is keeping its end of the bargain at the start.
> 
> If this will satisfy OSI, then I will gladly withdraw the ARL OSL from 
> consideration.  If there are NASA or other Government folks on here, would 
> this solution satisfy your needs as well?
> 
> Thanks,
> Cem Karan
> 
> [1] There is also a form certifying that the contributor has the right to do 
> so, etc.  The Army Research Laboratory's is at 
> https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions/blob/master/ARL%20Form%20-%20266.pdf,
>  
> and is, unfortunately, only able to be opened in Adobe Acrobat.  We're 
> working 
> to fix that, but there are other requirements that will take some time.



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

2017-03-01 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
Hi all, I want to keep this question at the forefront of discussion; the next 
Federal Source Code Policy group meeting is this Thursday, and if this 
solution is acceptable to OSI, then this can become a part of the Federal 
policy going forwards.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> 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.mil came up with what may be a really, really good
> idea; see
> https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md.
>
> The basic idea is simple; when the Government releases code, it's in the
> public domain (likely CC0).  The project owners select an OSI-approved
> license, and will only accept contributions to the project under their 
> chosen
> license[1].  Over time the code base becomes a mixture, some of which is 
> under
> CC0, and some of which is under the OSI-approved license.  I've talked with
> ARL's lawyers, and they are satisfied with this solution.  Would OSI be 
> happy
> with this solution?  That is, would OSI recognize the projects as being 
> truly
> Open Source, right from the start?  The caveat is that some projects will be
> 100% CC0 at the start, and can only use the chosen Open Source license on
> those contributions that have copyright attached.  Note that Government
> projects that wish to make this claim would have to choose their license and
> announce it on the project site so that everyone knows what they are 
> licensing
> their contributions under, which is the way that OSI can validate that the
> project is keeping its end of the bargain at the start.
>
> If this will satisfy OSI, then I will gladly withdraw the ARL OSL from
> consideration.  If there are NASA or other Government folks on here, would
> this solution satisfy your needs as well?
>
> Thanks,
> Cem Karan
>
> [1] There is also a form certifying that the contributor has the right to do
> so, etc.  The Army Research Laboratory's is at
> https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions/blob/master/ARL%20Form%20-%20266.pdf,
> and is, unfortunately, only able to be opened in Adobe Acrobat.  We're 
> working
> to fix that, but there are other requirements that will take some time.


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

2017-02-28 Thread Lawrence Rosen 
Would CC0 plus Apache licenses resolve the patent problem?

/Larry


-Original Message-
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf 
Of Smith, McCoy
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 9:37 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

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 isn't OSI approved (nor would it likely ever be as 
it's not an independent license).  I presented it to the CC folks at their 
annual gathering in Seoul in late 2015:  
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0HBOY8b2doESnl2d0M1clJ5bG8/view as well as 
other venues (FSF-E).
The proposal was mainly directed to the licensing of "open hardware" but it is 
adaptable so that it could provide a supplement patent grant for software, when 
such software does not come with, or disclaims, a patent license.
That may or may not be useful here, as you're getting somewhat complex in your 
licensing regime (CC0+Plug-In+OSI approved licensing).

-Original Message-
From: License-discuss [mailto: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, 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 copyrightable USG work 
> distributed by the USG).
> 
> The CC licenses are also not on the OSI list (although there has been 
> some discussion in the past of whether they should be added, IIRC).

Any objections to CC-0 also seemed to be patent-related; if the scheme had a 
patent grant accompanying the CC-0 license, that might solve both of these 
issues in one go and lead to something very, very good.

Gerv

___
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

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

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

2017-02-28 Thread Smith, McCoy 
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 isn't OSI approved (nor would it likely ever be as 
it's not an independent license).  I presented it to the CC folks at their 
annual gathering in Seoul in late 2015:  
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0HBOY8b2doESnl2d0M1clJ5bG8/view as well as 
other venues (FSF-E).
The proposal was mainly directed to the licensing of "open hardware" but it is 
adaptable so that it could provide a supplement patent grant for software, when 
such software does not come with, or disclaims, a patent license.
That may or may not be useful here, as you're getting somewhat complex in your 
licensing regime (CC0+Plug-In+OSI approved licensing).

-Original Message-
From: License-discuss [mailto: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, 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 copyrightable USG work 
> distributed by the USG).
> 
> The CC licenses are also not on the OSI list (although there has been 
> some discussion in the past of whether they should be added, IIRC).

Any objections to CC-0 also seemed to be patent-related; if the scheme had a 
patent grant accompanying the CC-0 license, that might solve both of these 
issues in one go and lead to something very, very good.

Gerv

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

2017-02-28 Thread Gervase Markham 
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 copyrightable USG work
> distributed by the USG).
> 
> The CC licenses are also not on the OSI list (although there has been
> some discussion in the past of whether they should be added, IIRC).

Any objections to CC-0 also seemed to be patent-related; if the scheme
had a patent grant accompanying the CC-0 license, that might solve both
of these issues in one go and lead to something very, very good.

Gerv

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

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

2017-02-28 Thread Smith, McCoy 
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 copyrightable USG work distributed by the USG).

The CC licenses are also not on the OSI list (although there has been some 
discussion in the past of whether they should be added, IIRC).

-Original Message-
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf 
Of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
Sent: Tuesday, 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/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md.

The basic idea is simple; when the Government releases code, it's in the public 
domain (likely CC0).  The project owners select an OSI-approved license, and 
will only accept contributions to the project under their chosen license[1].  
Over time the code base becomes a mixture, some of which is under CC0, and some 
of which is under the OSI-approved license.  I've talked with ARL's lawyers, 
and they are satisfied with this solution.  Would OSI be happy with this 
solution?  That is, would OSI recognize the projects as being truly Open 
Source, right from the start?  The caveat is that some projects will be 100% 
CC0 at the start, and can only use the chosen Open Source license on those 
contributions that have copyright attached.  Note that Government projects that 
wish to make this claim would have to choose their license and announce it on 
the project site so that everyone knows what they are licensing their 
contributions under, which is the way that OSI can validate that the project is 
keeping its end of the bargain at the start.

If this will satisfy OSI, then I will gladly withdraw the ARL OSL from 
consideration.  If there are NASA or other Government folks on here, would this 
solution satisfy your needs as well?

Thanks,
Cem Karan

[1] There is also a form certifying that the contributor has the right to do 
so, etc.  The Army Research Laboratory's is at 
https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions/blob/master/ARL%20Form%20-%20266.pdf,
and is, unfortunately, only able to be opened in Adobe Acrobat.  We're working 
to fix that, but there are other requirements that will take some time.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss