[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 19:20:56 UTC 2017

I understand; ARL's policy is LONG, and skimming is just about the only way to not have your brain fry. :)  That said, does it address your concerns about the patent issues?

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 1:28 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.
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> 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 < Caution-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 < 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
> 
> That is actually a part of ARL's policy.  If you haven't looked at the policy yet, go toCaution-https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-
> Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions < Caution-https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions >
> and take a look.
> 
> Thanks,
> Cem Karan
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: License-discuss [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org < Caution-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-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-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-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/
> > license-discuss < Caution-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/20170301/51bbe2b2/attachment.p7s>