[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 17:09:35 UTC 2017

On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:39:01PM +0000, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote:
> I see your points about the Apache license vs. CC0, but the reason CC0 is more 
> palatable is because we're not trying to make any restrictions based on 
> copyright.  We're trying to meet the spirit of US law, and our lawyers believe 
> that CC0 has the best chance of doing that.
> 
> As to your second point, that is PRECISELY what I'm proposing.  The material 
> that has copyright attached will be accepted under the OSI-approved license 
> that the project controllers wish to use, and all other material will be 
> distributed under CC0.  This way the US Government is not claiming copyright 
> where none exists.

So your proposal is: US government releases simultaneously under CC0
(for the US case) and some designated open source license (for the
non-US case)? 

I like the code.mil approach better. (This doesn't have much to do
with the fact that CC0 is not OSI-approved - I would have a similar
reaction to, say, use of the Free Public License (aka Zero Clause
BSD).)

BTW, CC0 does not have a limitation of liability provision as far as I
can tell (not counting the prefatory one that applies only to Creative
Commons Corp.).

> > The approach I understand code.mil to be taking is that a given project will 
> > have an open source license and that license will cover
> > anything that isn't statutory public domain, including both contributions 
> > coming in through the DCO and code released by the US
> > government that may be public domain in the US but not elsewhere.
> >
> > See: 
> > Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md#1-license
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Note that I am not a lawyer, and none of this should be construed as
> > > legal advice.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Cem Karan
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: License-discuss
> > > > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of
> > > > Richard Fontana
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 9:37 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----
> > > >
> > > > 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-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-Caution-https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Sour
> > > > > ce-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-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listi
> > > > > nfo/license-
> > > > > discuss
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > License-discuss mailing list
> > > > License-discuss at opensource.org
> > > > Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinf
> > > > o/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
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss