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

Mon Aug 22 17:14:59 UTC 2016

OK, so assuming that the NOSA 2.0 license is dead in the water, what about the ARL OSL?  Is it also, dead, and if so, why?  Leave aside the license proliferation aspect, and focus on what needs to be changed with the ARL OSL to make it acceptable.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Richard Fontana
> Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 10:21 AM
> To: 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
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----
> 
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 02:24:53AM +0000, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I'm assuming 'Richard' is me and 'Bruce' is Bruce Perens. Neither of us were on the OSI board at that time; we were just participants on a
> mailing list. Also, I don't recall Bruce Perens' involvement in the
> CC0 discussion at all, but my objective was to encourage the OSI take a consistent approach to the problem of nonstandard provisions
> dealing with patents, having remembered the discussion of the MXM license in ~2009, rather than an approach that would be explainable
> solely by attitudes towards the license steward.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> That's a special, unfortunate case. With NOSA 2.0 I continued (and sort of continue) to feel that the license was salvageable with a lot of
> work, which no one (including me and I think including NASA) seems to have the time or inclination to take on individually or collectively.
> Possibly, in retrospect, the better approach with NOSA
> 2.0 would have been to outright reject it as being way too complex with a number of likely or actual fatal problems. An issue there was
> that, until recently, I assumed that the OSI customarily does not formally reject licenses, as opposed to just not approving those that are
> problematic (holding out the possibility of the license steward submitting revisions or improvements). I think that is actually true of
> licenses submitted in the past several years, but I recently learned that in the distant past there were licenses the OSI actually formally
> rejected.
> 
> Even now, I still think NOSA 2.0 can be fixed without revising it beyond all recognition. However, I pointed out at least one significant
> problem (related, in fact, to the MXM/CC0 patent provisions issue) and it did not seem that Bryan was receptive to discussing it. Even if
> the OSI did have at least an earlier history of rejecting licenses, I believe it's true that revised versions of problematic submitted licenses
> have generally been prepared by the license steward rather than that task being taken on by the OSI itself. That is, it would be strange if
> the only way to get an acceptable version of NOSA 2.0 would be for the OSI to take on primary responsibility for drafting it.
> 
> Richard
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ARL OSL.txt
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20160822/6e8f260e/attachment.txt>
-------------- 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/20160822/6e8f260e/attachment.p7s>