[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)]

THANK YOU!

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 1:51 PM
> To: License Discussion Mailing List <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
> 
> 
> 	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  It was withdrawn by the steward after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 but it was withdrawn regardless.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.
> 
> Cheers!
> Sean

-------------- 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/20170301/397aa5e9/attachment.p7s>