[License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] The Federal Register Process

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

Thank you for your understanding; I know that the process isn't fun, but if we 
can make it happen, then maybe, JUST MAYBE, we can also join Open Source, and 
not just open source.

Thank you all for your patience.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 4:28 PM
> To: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil>; 
> license-discuss at opensource.org
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] The Federal Register Process
>
> Cem, my previous email about the Federal Register process wasn't clear.
>
> It certainly starts as a proposal from your department's lawyers for a 
> formal legal policy of some sort.
>
> THEN it becomes a public process. THEN there are public hearings and 
> specific written feedback. THEN the arguments become relevant to
> the public.
>
> How that process concludes is up to democracy.
>
> But at least it won't be just a bunch of attorneys in a government 
> department who are worried that their public domain software might
> already be used as a part of open source software without any new license 
> confusion.
>
> I'm on YOUR side to see you join the open source community.
>
> /Larry
>
> P.S. I'm already dealing with Federal Register activities relating to the 
> National Organic Program. I know how lengthy and confusing such
> regulations can become.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
> [mailto:cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil]
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 1:13 PM
> To: lrosen at rosenlaw.com; license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: RE: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research 
> Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
>
> OK, I've pushed it forward to the guys in charge of code.gov and the Federal 
> Source Code policy; I'll bring it up with them on Thursday as
> well.  I don't know if they'll support it, nor do I know if I'm allowed to 
> point the list to where the comments are[1], but if I am, I'll aim
> everyone there.  My only request is that everyone tries to get **all** their 
> points in on the first round; that way we can limit the number
> of rounds we have to go through on the Federal Register (each round takes 
> months to complete).
>
> Thanks,
> Cem Karan
>
> [1] I'd be **very** surprised if I wasn't allowed to tell people about 
> something in the Federal Register, but the law can be... unexpected.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org]
> > On Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen
> > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 3:54 PM
> > To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> > Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>
> > 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 Karan wrote:
> >
> > > The Federal Register process may be the best way forwards.  I'll
> > > bring it up in the next Federal Source Code policy meeting.
> >
> >
> >
> > That may be a good solution. The Federal Register process requires
> > public notice; public hearings; public feedback; written proposals
> > based on legal reasoning; etc. It is not an in-house in-government
> > discussion. :-)
> >
> >
> >
> > /Larry
>

-------------- 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/20170228/7a251010/attachment.p7s>