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

[Richard Fontana]

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 08:55:54PM +0000, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> If the USG is using CC0 for their new OSS initiative
> is this something that should be revisited?

Yes, I think so. 

> Of course, you know I¹m of the opinion that is the OSI states a license is
> open source if it passes the OSD then we should either amend the OSD to
> require explicit patent grants moving forward or not block useful new
> licenses because of the lack of a patent grant.

I'm inclined to agree with that. Note, though, the controversial issue
with CC0 was the explicit refusal to grant a patent license. I don't
think a license with a similar feature has been submitted for OSI
approval since the CC0 event. The OSI has approved at least one
license since that time that did not explicitly address patents.

Richard