[License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Views on React licensing?

Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil
Tue Dec 13 18:33:12 UTC 2016

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 1:28 PM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?
> On 12/13/16, 12:07 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Richard Fontana"
> <license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org on behalf of fontana at opensource.org> wrote:
> >If the US government standardizes on some particular explicit patent
> >language to use with CC0 I would welcome OSI review of that.
> >
> >Richard
> The point is that the implementers of the open source policy within the federal government doesn¹t care that CC0 isn¹t OSI approved.  Nor
> do they have standing to submit CC0 anyway so Creative Commons would have to do so.
> Why would they bother?  The FSF already recommends CC0 for public domain release and so does the US government (or a notable part
> of it anyway).
> I also doubt that any patent grant drafted by US government lawyers would be broad but necessarily nuanced so it wouldn¹t fare any
> better than NOSA v2.0.  I¹m curious, when is the next board meeting and are you going to allow an up or down vote on NOSA at that
> meeting?

I am VERY interested in this; I will be attending the USG Open Source policy meeting on Thursday, if someone can tell me where NOSA 2.0 is at this point, I could fill in everyone else there.

Cem Karan
-------------- 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/20161213/c4dfc177/attachment.p7s>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list