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

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

That is actually a part of ARL's policy.  If you haven't looked at the policy yet, go to https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions and take a look.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 12:23 PM
> 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.
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> OSI approval is not explicitly required under DOSA. It just says open source license.
> 
> If DOSA explicitly defines the licensing authority I would prefer it be stated as any DOD approved open source license.
> 
> That would insure that any projects we develop for sponsors and released as open source will be under a license that has been reviewed
> and accepted by DOD legal from both from a security as well as compliance standpoint.
> From: Jim Wright <jwright at commsoft.com < Caution-mailto:jwright at commsoft.com > >
> Date: Wednesday, Mar 01, 2017, 11:53 AM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org <license-discuss at opensource.org < Caution-mailto: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
> 
> 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.
> >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss < 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/f3df9ce8/attachment.p7s>