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

[Chris DiBona]

In military contracting , patent grants are key to the point where I
wouldn't consider a non patent granting license from, say, lockheed as
being open source at all.

On Aug 18, 2016 3:05 PM, "Tzeng, Nigel H." <Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu> wrote:

> On 8/18/16, 3:57 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Lawrence Rosen"
> <license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org on behalf of lrosen at rosenlaw.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >Nigel Tzeng wrote:
> >> The issue here is for code that is potentially quite substantial.  I
> >>would think that would be a different scenario.
> >
> >If I include the works of Shakespeare in my software, it would of course
> >be substantial and yet still be public domain almost everywhere (?).
>
> If patents aren't a concern then okay.  Copyright lasts longer than
> patents so for anything that is in the public domain because of age then
> no patents would still apply.
>
> There isn¹t a lot of code that has aged out.  Only code written between
> before 1963 and didn¹t get a renewal.
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20160818/37523046/attachment.html>