[License-discuss] Possible alternative was: 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
Wed Mar 1 14:08:09 UTC 2017

Hi all, I want to keep this question at the forefront of discussion; the next 
Federal Source Code Policy group meeting is this Thursday, and if this 
solution is acceptable to OSI, then this can become a part of the Federal 
policy going forwards.

Cem Karan

> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 11:23 AM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open 
> Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
> All, the folks at code.mil came up with what may be a really, really good
> idea; see
> https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md.
> The basic idea is simple; when the Government releases code, it's in the
> public domain (likely CC0).  The project owners select an OSI-approved
> license, and will only accept contributions to the project under their 
> chosen
> license[1].  Over time the code base becomes a mixture, some of which is 
> under
> CC0, and some of which is under the OSI-approved license.  I've talked with
> ARL's lawyers, and they are satisfied with this solution.  Would OSI be 
> happy
> with this solution?  That is, would OSI recognize the projects as being 
> truly
> Open Source, right from the start?  The caveat is that some projects will be
> 100% CC0 at the start, and can only use the chosen Open Source license on
> those contributions that have copyright attached.  Note that Government
> projects that wish to make this claim would have to choose their license and
> announce it on the project site so that everyone knows what they are 
> licensing
> their contributions under, which is the way that OSI can validate that the
> project is keeping its end of the bargain at the start.
> If this will satisfy OSI, then I will gladly withdraw the ARL OSL from
> consideration.  If there are NASA or other Government folks on here, would
> this solution satisfy your needs as well?
> Thanks,
> Cem Karan
> [1] There is also a form certifying that the contributor has the right to do
> so, etc.  The Army Research Laboratory's is at
> https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions/blob/master/ARL%20Form%20-%20266.pdf,
> and is, unfortunately, only able to be opened in Adobe Acrobat.  We're 
> working
> to fix that, but there are other requirements that will take some time.
-------------- 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/20170301/9a059fb5/attachment.p7s>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list