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

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

On 8/19/16, 6:55 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Rick Moen"
<license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org on behalf of rick at linuxmafia.com>
wrote:


>Speaking for Creative Commons, Christopher Allan Webber appears to have
>correctly understood this feedback to be _not_ at all a rejection of the
>licence but rather suggestions for its revision, which he said (in his
>note on Feb. 24, 2012 withdrawing the application) CC would consider
>when the organisation has time.  _He_ understood this, even though some
>people on this mailing list today appear not to have.

He said that CC would consider when they had more timeŠback in 2012Šso I
guess either Creative Commons has been insanely busy the last four years
or that was a very polite way of saying ³yah whatever, the FSF already
recommends CC0 even WITH the patent statement. You came to us, not us to
you².

Christopher was exceedingly polite during that discussion and CC has also
been publicly polite in general to the OSI.

My understanding then and now was that it had become clear to them that
Richard and Bruce was going to stall approval for a long time/forever
unless they took out the patent clause that the open data folks wanted. So
they withdrew because they were never going to do that and the discussions
were getting more and more heated.  The situation was immensely silly and
damaging to the OSI.

If you don¹t believe that was a correct assessment on their part then pray
tell the status of NOSA v2 that was originally submitted for approval in
2013.

If you don¹t consider it was damaging then consider this: the White House
has told government agencies that "Thou Shall Open Source 20% of Your
Software Portfolio² and their first example was their own code.gov site
released under CC0*.

So the idea that ³it¹s not really open source unless OSI approved² took a
major hit because either the folks promoting Open Source at the highest
level of government don¹t know who the OSI is or they simply don¹t care.

* After going back and looking the eRegulations project from the CFPB that
was cited as an example in the Federal Source Code Policy Memorandum is
also CC0.