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

[Brian Behlendorf]

Totally agree.  But can the USG file patents?  I suppose research 
organizations can (MITRE, maybe even NASA?) so it's not that academic; but 
presumably any place where this public domain arises, it applies to 
patents too.  Would be nice to get that sorted.

Brian

On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Chris DiBona wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
>