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

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

Cem,

Thanks. I missed that when skimming before. :). I think your materials are ahead of what I've seen in the DOSA repo.

One of the concerns I have (not speaking for my organization) are the same ones that prompted the patent changes to Apache for ECL V2.0.

Copyright is easy, I and my team wrote our code. Patent are harder because we as developers or even program managers are not always aware of all patents owned or in progress by the far flung parts of a large research organization. As I've stated before, I don't mind giving away my work. I don't want to accidentally give away someone else's work (patent).

ECL is my natural conservative inclination over Apache. Most of what you see under my name approved for open sourcerelease is actually under NOSA.

Nigel

From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil<mailto:cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil>>
Date: Wednesday, Mar 01, 2017, 12:40 PM
To: license-discuss at opensource.org <license-discuss at opensource.org<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

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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20170301/8715e751/attachment.html>