[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.
> -----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
> I see multiple questions:
> - Is there any conflict between the terms in your license and the Apache
> - If there are conflicts, are they one-way? I.e. can at least a work under
> 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
> -- Richard
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 5559 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the License-discuss