[License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: 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
Thu Mar 16 18:48:00 UTC 2017


The USG does not need OSI’s approval to release code as open source under CC0.  It has done so already on code.gov.  This includes the OPM, NASA, GSA, DOT, DOL, DOC and others. CC0 is compliant with the Federal Source Code Policy for open source release.

It is unlikely that you can push CC0 through license review as you aren’t the license steward.  It is up to CC to resubmit CC0 for approval.  



On 3/16/17, 8:56 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" <license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org on behalf of cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil> wrote:

    All, I want to keep this alive as I haven't seen a conclusion yet.  Earlier I 
    asked if OSI would accept the US Government (USG) putting its non-copyrighted 
    works out under CC0 as Open Source **provided** that the USG accepts and 
    redistributes copyrighted contributions under an OSI-approved license.  Is 
    this acceptable to OSI?  Should I move this discussion to the license-review 
    To recap:
    1) This would only cover USG works that do not have copyright.  Works that 
    have copyright would be eligible to use copyright-based licenses, and to be 
    OSI-approved as Open Source would need to use an OSI-approved license.
    2) The USG work/project would select an OSI-approved license that it accepted 
    contributions under.  The USG would redistribute the contributions under that 
    license, but the portions of the work that are not under copyright would be 
    redistributed under CC0.  That means that for some projects (ones that have no 
    copyrighted material at all initially), the only license that the works would 
    have would be CC0.
    I can't speak to patents or other IP rights that the USG has, I can only 
    comment on what the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) has done 
    which includes a step to affirmatively waive any patent rights that ARL might 
    have in the project before distributing it.  I am hoping that other agencies 
    will do something similar, but have no power or authority to say that they 
    Given all this, is it time to move this to license-review, or otherwise get a 
    vote?  I'd like this solved ASAP.
    Cem Karan

More information about the License-discuss mailing list