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

[Lawrence Rosen]

Nigel Tzeng wrote:

> If DOSA explicitly defines the licensing authority I would prefer it be
stated as any DOD approved open source license.

 

Isn't that already true for every software distributor, including the U.S.
government? Every distributor controls its own licensing strategies. Even
Google asserts that authority for itself, refusing AGPL software. I have no
problem with that level of independence. That is (perhaps unfortunately) why
there are so many FOSS licenses.

 

But the concern is yet another FOSS license for the U.S. Army Research
Laboratory.

 

A proposed solution, however, is that the U.S. government will distribute
software under CC0. I don't care if that is sensible. I don't care if that
is odd. I do care that CC0 be an OSI-approved license, regardless of its
flaws.

 

That will reaffirm the authority in our community of the OSI-approved open
source license list, regardless of the elegance of that solution for DOSA.

 

/Larry

 

 

From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On
Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 9:23 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

 

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 <mailto:jwright at commsoft.com> >

Date: Wednesday, Mar 01, 2017, 11:53 AM

To: license-discuss at opensource.org <mailto:license-discuss at opensource.org>
<license-discuss at opensource.org <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
<mailto: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 <mailto:License-discuss at opensource.org> 
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/20170301/8ff95540/attachment.html>