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

Wed Mar 1 16:41:39 UTC 2017

Then there would still need to be a disclaimer of warranty and liability, and there would still need be a way of settling the problems of foreign jurisdictions.  The Government could write its own terms, but those terms would like not be widely recognized.  CC0 is well-known, and acceptable to our lawyers.  Public domain release without disclaimers of warranty and liability is not acceptable.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Richard Fontana
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 11:30 AM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----
> 
> Well the complication is mainly a response to Cem wanting the OSI to bless his proposed approach. I think however that code.mil has
> already rejected this sort of idea.
> 
> I think the code.mil approach is much more elegant without introducing the use of CC0.
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 03:08:22PM +0000, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> > Richard,
> >
> > It is very hard for me to take a complaint that CC0 not being OSI approved as a significant issue vs continued feet dragging when the OSI
> won’t provide guidance on license asymmetry, won’t vote on NOSA v2.0 and had the opportunity to pass CC0 years ago.
> >
> > CC0 is accepted as open source by the FSF and by the GSA (see Federal Source Code Policy examples).  The fact that the OSI has not
> approved CC0 is a “complication” of its own making.  One easily solved with an email from the OSI to CC requesting that CC resubmit CC0
> and then the OSI board approving it.
> >
> > Nigel
> >
> > On 3/1/17, 9:37 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Richard Fontana" <license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org on behalf of
> fontana at sharpeleven.org> wrote:
> >
> >     I really like the approach as it currently exists. But why is use of
> >     CC0 necessary? If some work of the US government is in the public
> >     domain by virtue of the Copyright Act, there is no need to use
> >     CC0. Indeed, I would think use of CC0 by the Government is just as
> >     problematic, or non-problematic, as the use of any open source
> >     license, such as the Apache License 2.0. Strictly speaking, the use of
> >     CC0 assumes that you have copyright ownership.
> >
> >     Only noting this because the fact that OSI has not approved CC0 makes
> >     this more complicated than the case where CC0 is not used at all.
> >
> >     The code.mil folks discussed an earlier version of this approach with
> >     the OSI. But this is the first I've heard of using CC0.
> >
> >     Richard
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >     On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 04:23:12PM +0000, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote:
> >     > All, the folks at code.mil came up with what may be a really, really good
> >     > idea; see
> >     > Caution-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
> >     > Caution-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.
> >
> >
> >
> >     > _______________________________________________
> >     > License-discuss mailing list
> >     > License-discuss at opensource.org
> >     >
> > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-
> > discuss
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     License-discuss mailing list
> >     License-discuss at opensource.org
> >
> > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-
> > discuss
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > License-discuss mailing list
> > License-discuss at opensource.org
> > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-
> > discuss
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
-------------- 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/20170301/009f2fb1/attachment.p7s>