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

Mon Feb 27 20:18:41 UTC 2017

I've already gotten in contact with her, and I'm hoping to have a face to face with either her or someone else from DDS (the people behind code.mil) on Thursday at the next Federal Source Code Policy meeting.  Thank you for looking her up though!

As for punting it upstairs, I've been pushing everyone I can on this.  My feeling is that ARL is leading most of the Government in terms of figuring it out at this point, and that means that our analysis is where we're at.  So, if you have case law or Federal law that I can look at that says we can **safely** use the standard OSI-approved licenses on works that don't have copyright attached, please let me know.  And remember that 'safely' in this context means that the license's terms remain valid even though the work is in the public domain.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tzeng, Nigel H. [mailto:Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu]
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 1:53 PM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org; Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil>
> Cc: feedback at dds.mil; sharon.woods at dds.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.
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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:
> 
> 
> 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/de27f247/attachment.p7s>