[License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] patent rights and the OSD

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

Just to be clear, if you're talking about the US Army Research Laboratory 
(ARL) policy 
(https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions), 
that policy only applies to personnel at the US Army Research Laboratory. 
Other agencies are free to adopt and adapt that policy; I'm encouraging anyone 
I run in to do so, but other agencies in theory could adopt very different 
policies.  Caveat emptor (or whatever the equivalent is in this case).

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen
> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 4:57 PM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] patent rights and the OSD
>
> 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.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>
> Richard Fontana suggested:
>
> > So in other words, "this license is Open Source to the extent that, when 
> > used, it is accompanied by [a separate appropriate patent
> license grant]", for example?
>
>
>
> Richard, that sounds like a great compromise that the government agencies 
> might be able to live with. :-)  If I understand correctly, there
> is already an existing government policy that patent rights are granted to 
> all users of the software, albeit separately by policy rather than
> by license.
>
>
>
> And if I understand correctly, that is already the implied promise in 
> Europe?
>
>
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss 
> [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Richard 
> Fontana
> Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 1:09 PM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] patent rights and the OSD
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 03:55:37PM +0000, Christopher Sean Morrison wrote:
>
>
>
> > Of particular significance, it calls into question whether there are
>
> > any OSI-approved licenses that specifically exclude patent rights in
>
> > the current portfolio or whether CC0 would be the first of its kind.
>
> > If there ARE, then CC0 would not create a precedent situation any
>
> > worse than currently exists and approval could move forward.
>
>
>
> I'm not aware of any.
>
>
>
> There is the 'Clear BSD' license, which the FSF considers not only a free 
> software license but also GPL-compatible:
>
>
>
> Caution-https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:ClearBSD < 
> Caution-https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:ClearBSD >
>
> Caution-https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#clearbsd < 
> Caution-https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#clearbsd
> >
>
>
>
> But I am not aware of this license ever having been submitted for OSI 
> approval.
>
>
>
> I've also seen one or two companies engage in the practice of licensing code 
> under GPLv2 accompanied by a statement that no patent
> licenses are granted.
>
>
>
> > If there AREN'T, that begs under non-proliferation for any new licenses 
> > that explicitly disclaim patent rights to be found OSD-
> inadequate, particularly w.r.t. clauses #1 and #7.  Moreover, any license 
> approval for a new license containing a patent disclaimer (e.g.,
> CC0) would necessarily require modification or accompaniment by a required 
> patent grant mechanism (such as ARL's approach) in order
> to satisfy the OSD.
>
>
>
> So in other words, "this license is Open Source to the extent that, when 
> used, it is accompanied by [a separate appropriate patent license
> grant]", for example?
>
>
>
> Richard
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> License-discuss mailing list
>
> License-discuss at opensource.org < 
> Caution-mailto: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 --------------
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/20170308/acc65181/attachment.p7s>