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

Tzeng, Nigel H. Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu
Wed Mar 1 19:19:03 UTC 2017

There may have not been disagreement three years ago but we're coming up on the fourth anniversary of the NOSA 2.0 license submission in a few months without even an up or down vote.

Today, I think you will find disagreement that OSI approval is required given CC0 is already being used as Open Source even without OSI approval and even with OSI objection.

From: Christopher Sean Morrison <brlcad at mac.com<mailto:brlcad at mac.com>>
Date: Wednesday, Mar 01, 2017, 1:51 PM
To: License Discussion Mailing List <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

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.

I don't think you'll find any disagreement, even amongst USG developers and lawyers.  OSI is the established authority and many programs (e.g., Google Summer of Code) require that projects utilize an OSI-approved license.

If I recall correctly, there were no objections to CC0 when it was submitted for OSI approval.  It was withdrawn by the steward after prolonged patent clause commentary.  considering what the implications of explicitly denying patent rights may have on the liberal licenses.  That commentary was not grounds for disapproval and not a fault of CC0, it was primarily a social and license impact discussion, but it was withdrawn regardless.  So ...

The only question I have is whether the license steward is the only one eligible to formally submit CC0 for reconsideration?  If not, I will formally submit it myself as there is ample evidence of prolific use, niche utility that differentiates it from other licenses, and no known clauses that conflict with the OSD.

That way, we can all get past the distracting "it's not OSI-approved" rote.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20170301/6671f450/attachment.html>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list