[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)]

Part of the internal process is that there is a scrub by legal to ensure that the ARL has the necessary rights to do the release.  If we can't procure the rights, then it isn't released.  My expectation is that other agencies would do something similar.  Note that I can't speak for other agencies, I'm only stating my personal opinion on this.

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 12:37 PM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org; Jim Wright <jwright at commsoft.com>
> 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.
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> For government owned patents and software that would be fine but research organizations often bring existing IP to the table funded
> through internal research and development funding. Some of which has limited government use rights rather than full rights.
> 
> A blanket waiver of patent right by ARL may work for ARL because of the way ARL contracts are negotiated but may not work for all DoD
> stakeholders working under DFARS.
> 
> 
> From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil < Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil > >
> Date: Wednesday, Mar 01, 2017, 12:21 PM
> To: Jim Wright <jwright at commsoft.com < Caution-mailto:jwright at commsoft.com > >, license-discuss at opensource.org <license-
> discuss at opensource.org < Caution-mailto: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
> 
> You've hit the nail on the head!  I personally want Government works to be Open Source, not open source.  That was the whole point of
> the ARL OSL being put forwards.  There are statutory and regulatory limits on what the Government can and cannot do; the lawyers I've
> talked with say that this is something we can do, which also protects Government interests (IP licensing, not getting sued for
> warranty/liability, etc.).
> 
> Is the concern that the **Government** is not licensing its patent rights?  ARL's internal process includes waiving any potential IP rights
> (including patent rights) in the software that is being released, so that should cover anyone downstream.
> 
> Thanks,
> Cem Karan
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jim Wright [Caution-mailto:jwright at commsoft.com <
> > Caution-mailto:jwright at commsoft.com > ]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 11:53 AM
> > To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> > Cc: Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven.org>; Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY
> > RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil>
> > 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
> >
> > 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.
> > >
> > >
> 

-------------- 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/20170301/233c6b0b/attachment.p7s>