[License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research Laboratory Open Source License proposal

Richard Eckart de Castilho richard.eckart at gmail.com
Tue Jul 26 05:55:37 UTC 2016

Hi Cem,

> On 25.07.2016, at 18:41, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil> wrote:
> OK at this point I want to start another discussion about the license 
> (attached once again, with the minor correction of stripping out the word 
> 'Apache', which I'd left in earlier).  Is the license compatible with Apache 
> 2.0 and the licenses that Apache 2.0 is compatible with?  If not, why not?

This list is IMHO not the right place to ask whether your license would be
compatible with the Apache License 2.0. You should post that question on
the legal-discuss list of Apache (legal-discuss at apache.org). 

Mind there have been requests to Apache from USG-affiliated people requesting
the Apache license to be changed - these have been discussed but rejected. Your
approach to create a new license seems kind of novel in that respect.

When it comes to compatibility, the question is what you actually mean by that.
I see multiple questions:

- Is there any conflict between the terms in your license and the Apache license?

- If there are conflicts, are they one-way? I.e. can at least a work under your
  license include code under the Apache license or vice versa?

Finally there is a policy question. If your desire is that Apache (or parties
following the Apache-view of third-party license management) should be able to
make used of code under your license, then you should check out this page:


If you can get Apache to add your license to that list under "considered to be 
similar", that should be a strong blessing.

If you bring up the topic with Apache, I would recommend you state your
expectations/wishes regarding license compatibility and policy separately
trying to avoid the two aspects to be mingled up in the discussion.


-- Richard

More information about the License-discuss mailing list