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

Wed Mar 1 16:50:13 UTC 2017

Richard Fontana wrote:

> I think the code.mil approach is much more elegant without introducing the use of CC0. 

Richard, I'm not as concerned with elegance as you are. Most FOSS licenses aren't elegant. Whatever code.mil is recommending has nothing to do with the elegance of its approach.

The question remains from many years of discussion here: What is wrong with CC0 being approved by OSI as a license for components in other open source software? Including for U.S. government works that may (or may not) be public domain?

The absence of an explicit patent provision applies equally to the BSD and MIT licenses. By also licensing U.S. government works under (e.g.) the Apache license, that problem is resolved, but not elegantly.

/Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Richard Fontana
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 8:30 AM
To: license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

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" < <mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org%20on%20behalf%20of%20fontana at sharpeleven.org> 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 

>     >  <https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md> 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> 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

>     >  <mailto:License-discuss at opensource.org> License-discuss at opensource.org

>     > 

>  <https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

>     

>     _______________________________________________

>     License-discuss mailing list

>      <mailto:License-discuss at opensource.org> License-discuss at opensource.org

>     

>  <https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

>     

> 

> _______________________________________________

> License-discuss mailing list

>  <mailto:License-discuss at opensource.org> License-discuss at opensource.org

>  <https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

_______________________________________________

License-discuss mailing list

 <mailto:License-discuss at opensource.org> License-discuss at opensource.org

 <https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20170301/f045d253/attachment.html>