[License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [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: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:34 AM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] 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.

They have their reasons, but I'll try to get at least one on this list again.

> 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:  Caution-
> 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.

Once again, liability isn't the only issue; there are also copyright issues 
(for contributors), and IP issues.  If we could solve the problem via a simple 
disclaimer of liability, we would.  We need to handle ALL the issues.

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/20160817/33f15032/attachment.p7s>