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

Mon Feb 27 18:53:20 UTC 2017

Cem, Sharon Woods is the counsel on the DDS.  That’s probably not her email address above…it’s just a shot in the dark.  But maybe feedback at dds.mil will get you the right email or she might join this discussion. ☺

I still say ARL should punt the problem upstairs and let OSD, DISA or Department of Army create a suitable open source agreement for all of DoD.  On first reading I don’t think the Defense Open Source Agreement meets your needs though.

From: License-discuss <license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org> on behalf of "Smith, McCoy" <mccoy.smith at intel.com>
Reply-To: License Discuss <license-discuss at opensource.org>
Date: Monday, February 27, 2017 at 1:01 PM
To: "lrosen at rosenlaw.com" <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>, License Discuss <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

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:

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 [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 severability 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 (www.rosenlaw.com<http://www.rosenlaw.com>)

3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482

Cell: 707-478-8932
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20170227/54d194e3/attachment.html>