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

[Smith, McCoy]

Or to put a finer point on it, the other issues you identify appear to be ones that are explicitly addressed in many already-approved OSI licenses, including Apache 2.0, the one you are modeling your license upon.

I hope you're getting a sense that there are several lawyers on this mailing list -- lawyers who have years of experience looking at, debating, and giving advice on the issues you identify in this submission -- who think that your proposed license is a variant of Apache 2.0 designed to solve a "problem" for USG users with Apache 2.0 that we are skeptical even exists.  Perhaps the ARL lawyers can clarify what the problem is, and that we are missing something.  But I think at least I am having a hard time understanding how this license does anything that Apache 2.0 doesn't.

-----Original Message-----
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Richard Fontana
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:33 AM
To: license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:17:07PM +0000, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote:
> 
> 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.

Even if you were correct in the assertions you've made about ARL code, why is a new license needed for contributors other than ARL?











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