[License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil
Mon Feb 27 18:18:38 UTC 2017


I've read it.  I've gotten in contact with the code.mil folks, and we'll be discussing it in person shortly.  

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Smith, McCoy [mailto:mccoy.smith at intel.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 1:01 PM
> To: lrosen at rosenlaw.com; license-discuss at opensource.org; Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil>
> Subject: RE: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For what it’s worth (I think it is generally pretty relevant), the DoD published a draft “Agreement” that is intended to address the issue of
> there being no US copyright in works authored by the US Government:
> 
> 
> Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/LICENSE-agreement.md#draft-defense-open-source-
> agreement < Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/LICENSE-agreement.md#draft-defense-open-
> source-agreement >
> 
> 
> 
> I find that Agreement somewhat strange in that it says it is an Agreement (and a license) and then refers back to an associated open
> source license appended to the software, but it seems to me that what they are trying to get at is essentially converting the appended
> open source license into a contract to the extent that there is non-copyrighted material distributed by the DoD, such that all the
> provisions of the open source license would apply to that material but not via license but instead via contract.
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that it might be worth synching up the folks who are writing the ARL OSL with the folks promulgating the draft DoD open
> source agreement, as they seem to be pursuing the same goal but in different ways and through different channels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: License-discuss [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org]On Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 9:50 AM
> To: 'Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)'; license-discuss at opensource.org
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
> 
> 
> 
> Cem Karan wrote:
> 
> > I'm not a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer, I don't pretend to be one on TV or anywhere else, and nothing I say should be construed as legal
> advice.
> 
> 
> 
> In that situation, it would be unfair to ask you my question directly, so please forward my email directly to your lawyer(s). I'd like to hear
> from them directly or on this list.
> 
> 
> 
> Cem Karan wrote:
> 
> . . . the truly serious issue is severabilityCaution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability < Caution-
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability > ).  The concern is that if the USG uses a license that depends on copyright (e.g., Apache 2.0),
> and those clauses are declared unenforceable by the courts, then it may be possible to declare the entire license unenforceable.
> 
> 
> 
> Larry Rosen asked:
> 
> Apache-licensed software also may (and frequently does) contain public domain components. Are you suggesting that "severability" is a
> potential problem with Apache software?
> 
> 
> 
> /Larry
> 
> 
> 
> Lawrence Rosen
> 
> Rosenlaw (Caution-www.rosenlaw.com < Caution-http://www.rosenlaw.com > )
> 
> 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
> 
> Cell: 707-478-8932

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6419 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20170227/0e2d6bd4/attachment.p7s>


More information about the License-discuss mailing list