[License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research Laboratory Open Source License proposal

Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil
Thu Aug 18 20:23:48 UTC 2016


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wheeler, David A [mailto:dwheeler at ida.org]
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 2:52 PM
> To: legal-discuss at apache.org
> Cc: Karl Fogel <kfogel at red-bean.com>; Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>; 
> license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: RE: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research 
> Laboratory Open Source License proposal
>
> William A Rowe Jr [Caution-mailto:wrowe at rowe-clan.net]:
> > Unsure how this news might apply but it sounds like changes in overall 
> > policy might gain some traction to address this... If OMB came up
> with the rational of either approving AL 2.0 as is, or made a compelling 
> case for AL 2.1 clarifications.
> Caution-https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/08/the-white-house-just-released-the-federal-source-code-policy-to-help-government-agencies-
> go-open-source/
>
> The detailed policy is here:
> Caution-https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2016/m_16_21.pdf
>
> That new US federal government policy doesn't directly apply to many of 
> Cem's cases.  The policy doesn't apply to National Security
> Systems (NSS), and I expect that a lot of what the Army research labs do 
> would be classified as NSS.  The policy certainly presses for the
> release of open source software in general; it requires that a minimum of 
> 20% of custom-developed code be released as OSS in each year
> for 3 years.  It does note (in its definitions) that "custom developed code" 
> includes software developed by government officials as part of
> their official duties.  The policy itself does not delve into this kind of 
> legal analysis.

The current lack of legal analysis is the problem.  If they had complete 
analysis and full guidance about the license, we wouldn't be here at all!

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/20160818/8bb26c73/attachment.p7s>


More information about the License-discuss mailing list