[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

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

There likely will be some USG-only discussion beforehand, but since there are 
a lot of people to coordinate on this, the sooner I get started, the better.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 5:00 PM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [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
>
> All active links contained in this email were disabled.  Please verify the 
> identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links
> contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a 
> Web browser.
>
>
>
>
> ----
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
-------------- 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/c2893b56/attachment.p7s>