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

[Engel Nyst]

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Richard Fontana
<fontana at sharpeleven.org> wrote:
> 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?

I'm assuming it's because they (ARL) don't have section 5 otherwise.

ARL OSL can apply to public domain works and have a clause 5 to point
to why contributors' code is under AL2.0.
While arguably unnecessary, I believe I see where they're coming from,
it's not hurting, and it's better in a document that equally gives
from USG all AL2.0-for-public-domain-works including patent grant.

Just my understanding of the needs of the OP.