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

Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil
Tue Jul 26 16:47:25 UTC 2016

Thank you!  I've subscribed to legal-discuss at apache.org and will be bringing 
up our license there shortly.  And thank you for all your points, assuming you 
don't mind, I'll bring them up at legal-discuss at apache.org as well.

Cem Karan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Richard Eckart de Castilho
> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 1:56 AM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research 
> Laboratory Open Source License proposal
> 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.
> ----
> 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:
>   Caution-http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
> 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.
> Best,
> -- Richard
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
-------------- 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/20160726/c707e1f3/attachment.p7s>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list