[License-discuss] Unsubscribe
Michael
michael at i4software.com
Fri Aug 19 00:54:33 UTC 2016
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 18, 2016, at 8:45 PM, license-discuss-request at opensource.org wrote:
>
> Send License-discuss mailing list submissions to
> license-discuss at opensource.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> license-discuss-request at opensource.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> license-discuss-owner at opensource.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of License-discuss digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. 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.)
> 2. 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.)
> 3. Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army
> Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 (Chris DiBona)
> 4. Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army
> Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
> (Brian Behlendorf)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 21:31:20 +0000
> From: "Tzeng, Nigel H." <Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu>
> To: "license-discuss at opensource.org" <license-discuss at opensource.org>,
> Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>
> 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
> Message-ID: <D3DB9A2C.2F60C%Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> From: License-discuss <license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org>> on behalf of "Smith, McCoy" <mccoy.smith at intel.com<mailto:mccoy.smith at intel.com>>
>
>>> "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.*"
>
>> The problem is, I think to many of us commenting here, is that those other lawyers are not part of this conversation. And for whatever reason have said they will not be. So we're hearing "I'm not a lawyer, but unnamed lawyers have >told me there is this problem, but have not explained their basis for finding that problem."
>
>> So there is likely some skepticism that there is a need at all for this license, as it seems to be just Apache 2.0, with clauses to address a problem that many (or all) of the lawyers on here are not even sure exists.
>
> I get that, but you won't be the ones that have to deal with any problems that arise if the issue does exist. If approving ARL OSL and NOSA gives NASA and ARL/Army the legal warm fuzzies to be more liberal in open sourcing code then one new special purpose license doesn't hurt anyone even on the proliferation front. Only one because NOSA 1.3 would get retired in favor of NOSA 2.0.
>
> The White House can mandate 20% OSS release across all agencies but it's easy for any agency uncomfortable with open sourcing their software to simply decline. In many places it's as easy as writing a classification guide that says all software developed for this agency is automatically FOUO or LES. Then open sourcing anything becomes a royal pain in the rear and not open sourcing anything is as simple as writing a disclaimer that points at the class guide.
>
> And OSI's intransigence on CC0 may come around and bite it in the rear if a significant FedGov OSS mandate starts off with CC0 as a default open source license for the USG because that's what they did for code.gov and it's the only one that fits the bill for public domain software. And I don't recall that CC0 "contains any specific terms about distribution of source code" so if CC0 is usable for software then so is CC-BY and perhaps CC-BY-SA.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/attachments/20160818/475542c8/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 21:58:52 +0000
> From: "Tzeng, Nigel H." <Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu>
> To: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>,
> "license-discuss at opensource.org" <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
> Message-ID: <D3DBA181.2F651%Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 15:11:30 -0700
> From: Chris DiBona <cdibona at gmail.com>
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>
> 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
> Message-ID:
> <CAEq5uwmKkWHyv-YCv9RF13R8DhxRQzE+68B4idAQJUssjH1PLw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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/attachments/20160818/37523046/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 17:45:35 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Brian Behlendorf <brian at behlendorf.com>
> To: chris at dibona.com, license-discuss at opensource.org
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>
> 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
> Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1608181744030.4804 at flooz>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"; Format="flowed"
>
>
> 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
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of License-discuss Digest, Vol 56, Issue 40
> ***********************************************
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list