[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]

"I don't believe that there is an OSD requirement that the lawyers on License-Review/License-Discuss agree that the legal concern being addressed by a new license submission is valid.  *Especially when other lawyers disagree.*"

The problem is, I think to many of us commenting here, is that those other lawyers are not part of this conversation.  And for whatever reason have said they will not be.  So we're hearing "I'm not a lawyer, but unnamed lawyers have told me there is this problem, but have not explained their basis for finding that problem."

So there is likely some skepticism that there is a need at all for this license, as it seems to be just Apache 2.0, with clauses to address a problem that many (or all) of the lawyers on here are not even sure exists.

From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 1:26 PM
To: Lawrence Rosen; 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


>Cem Karan wrote:

>> The only reason that the ARL OSL was proposed AT ALL is because there is a strong concern that since USG code doesn't have copyright [1], any license that relies exclusively on copyright may be invalidated by the courts [2].



>We understand that strong concern. Most of us don't share it.

Well, if all lawyers agreed then IP cases would go a lot more quickly, no?

Plaintiff's lawyer: We think X!
Defendant's lawyer: We agree!

I don't believe that there is an OSD requirement that the lawyers on License-Review/License-Discuss agree that the legal concern being addressed by a new license submission is valid.  Especially when other lawyers disagree.

Given that NOSA is still in limbo, it might be fair (not really given how long NOSA has been in limbo) to ask that ARL and NASA lawyers get together and address their concerns in one special purpose license since both are trying to address legal concerns they believe are valid for USG OSS projects.  Although, with the current white house interest, both NASA and ARL could punt the issue up to the Tony Scott at the OMB (or whomever Chris suggested) and say "here are our requirements...give us a FedGov OSS license that address those needs and submit it to the OSI".

And then approve (or deny) that license quickly once submitted If it passes the OSD and retire the existing NOSA license rather than sit on it for three years without resolution.  Hopefully, if the White House submits a license to the OSI it is reviewed with a bit more alacrity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20160818/9885032e/attachment.html>