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

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 4:26 PM
> To: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>; 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.

Actually, we ARE in talks with NASA; the attorney at ARL that is working on this used to work at NASA, and so knows the right people to talk to over there.

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/20160818/4d7ccb20/attachment.p7s>