[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) cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil
Wed Mar 1 23:21:16 UTC 2017

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] 
> On Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 5:01 PM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>
> 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
> Jim Wright wrote:
> > it seems odd to me to require a dedication to the public domain in 
> > any event - stuff is either in the public domain by law or isn’t, 
> > and to
> whatever extent it isn’t, we should have a copyright license, full 
> stop.  Similarly as to patents, I don’t want to have to look at some 
> ostensible policy on waiving patent rights, we should all have a clearly scoped patent license for the project, government and private contributors alike, and there is an easy vehicle to achieve this, use an OSI approved license.
> Jim, regardless of which OSI-approved license(s) the U.S. government chooses for its distributed software, neither the "public domain"
> question nor the "patent license" question will EVER be fully answered 
> for any particular software simply by reading those licenses. You have to look at the software itself. Of course, we could all sue each other and let the courts decide....
> I'll be grateful for a published government policy – perhaps posted in 
> the Federal Register someday – that reassures us of a commitment by government agencies to open source using any OSI-approved license.
> Including CC0.

What would you want to see in such a policy that is different from what is on code.gov, or different from ARL's published policy?  I can bring this up at the Federal Source Code Policy meetings.  Note that if the Government takes that route, it will likely have to take the full Federal Register route, including comments, etc.  That means that any suggestions you make right now are only for me to gather preliminary information; nothing more.

Cem Karan

-------------- 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/f8d5ab8a/attachment.p7s>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list