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

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Smith, McCoy
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 4:51 PM
> To: license-discuss at 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5559 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20160817/2dc7a9d4/attachment.p7s>