[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 17:33:57 UTC 2017

No.  The material can always be separated into two piles; stuff that has 
copyright attached, and stuff that does not have copyright attached.  The 
stuff that has copyright attached is always released under the chosen 
OSI-approved license; everything else is released under CC0.  Within the US, 
that means that material that has no copyright attached is in the public 
domain.  CC0 makes this the same for jurisdictions outside of the US.

In general, if a contribution has copyright attached, then the contributor 
will retain copyright (unless they choose to assign it to the US Government 
for some reason).  To contribute, the contributor must agree to license the 
contribution to the USG under that project's chosen OSI-approved license (e.g. 
Apache 2.0).  From then on, when the USG redistributes **that particular 
contribution**, it will be under that license (e.g. Apache 2.0).  However, 
material that does not have copyright will be redistributed under CC0.  This 
will result in a mosaic of material in each project, where some portions are 
under CC0, and others are under the OSI-approved license.  You will need to 
use the version control system to determine which is which.

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 12:10 PM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: 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.
>
>
>
>
> ----
>
> 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-Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/maste
> > > r/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-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-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-Caution-https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/A
> > > > > > RL-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-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/m
> > > > > > ailman/listi
> > > > > > nfo/license-
> > > > > > discuss
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > License-discuss mailing list
> > > > > License-discuss at opensource.org
> > > > > Caution-Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mai
> > > > > lman/listinf
> > > > > o/license-discuss
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
-------------- 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/20170301/3185b0a9/attachment.p7s>