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

Jim Wright jwright at commsoft.com
Wed Mar 1 16:52:44 UTC 2017

Certainly the approach code.mil spells out to contributions seems ok without having to address the license issue at all, but these questions seem orthogonal to me.  Cem seems to be trying to ensure that all open source projects operating using this process are under an OSI approved license, which appears to require them to pick one (or several) FOSS licenses to actually apply.  CC0 doesn’t work for that purpose because it’s not OSI approved anyway and also doesn’t have a patent license, but observing this doesn’t solve Cem’s problem of how to license this stuff in a way that *is* OSI approved, which I think is what he’s getting at.  (Feel free to correct me…)

> On Mar 1, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven.org> wrote:
> 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. 

More information about the License-discuss mailing list