[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 18:17:55 UTC 2017

Exactly.

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 12:39 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.
>
>
>
>
> ----
>
> I see (I think). So you want to approximately harmonize the treatment of US 
> government works outside the US with the treatment inside
> the US, but not harmonize the treatment of US government works with the 
> treatment of non-US-government works.
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 05:33:57PM +0000, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL 
> (US) wrote:
> > 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
> > > [Caution-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-Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mi
> > > > > l/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-Caution-mailto:license-discuss-bounces at open
> > > > > > > source.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-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-Caution-https://github.com/USArmyR
> > > > > > > > esearchLab/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-Caution-https://lists.opensource.o
> > > > > > > > rg/cgi-bin/m
> > > > > > > > ailman/listi
> > > > > > > > nfo/license-
> > > > > > > > discuss
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > License-discuss mailing list License-discuss at opensource.org
> > > > > > > Caution-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-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/20170301/49c3cca5/attachment.p7s>