[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)]

We apply for and are granted patents on a regular basis at ARL.  In fact, part of how scientists and engineers are evaluated on their performance can include the number of patents they get, all of which are owned by the USG.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Brian Behlendorf
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 8:46 PM
> 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
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----
> 
> 
> 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
> >
> > 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/20160819/1a35d474/attachment.p7s>