[License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

[Smith, McCoy]

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-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 1:43 PM
To: license-discuss at opensource.org
Cc: lrosen at 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-bounces at opensource.org] 
> On Behalf Of Richard Fontana
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 4:10 PM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Cc: lrosen at 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 +0000, 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