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

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

Why not limit it to USG lawyers? That may be an easier sell for a first
meeting.  Especially if you can convince someone at the OMB to host the
telcon because of the new policy and get the relevant DOJ lawyers to dial
in.


It is too much to expect clear guidance (this is the government after all)
but it would at least be useful if the lawyers that approved the release
of code.gov under CC0 could tell your lawyers why they thought it was
sufficient.  Especially if these are the same set of lawyers providing
legal guidance to the White House OMB 20% OSS mandate.

On 8/18/16, 4:36 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY
RDECOM ARL (US)" <license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org on behalf of
cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil> wrote:

>Larry, I agree with you completely about the need for all attorneys
>talking to 
>one another, while us engineers sit back and listen.  I'm going to try to
>talk 
>the various attorneys in the USG that I've contacted into being part of a
>telecon.  If I'm able to do so, are there any attorneys on this list who
>would 
>be interested in taking part in that discussion?  If you are, please
>email me 
>directly; put "ARL OSL telecon" as the subject line, and tell me what
>times 
>are best for you relative to the Eastern Time Zone.
>
>PLEASE NOTE!  That telecon MUST be for attorneys ONLY!  I may be able to
>convince the ARL attorneys to talk to outside attorneys, but they will be
>VERY 
>unhappy if anyone else is coming in on the line.  There are good legal
>reasons 
>for this; please don't try to sneak in.
>
>Thanks,
>Cem Karan