[License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

[Tom Callaway]

Can't speak for Debian, but Fedora will happily take software licensed as
you describe.

On Mar 16, 2017 3:09 PM, "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" <
cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil> wrote:

> I agree that the Government can release it as open source, but as I
> understand it, not as Open Source.  The difference is whether or not the
> code will be accepted into various journals (Journal of Open Source
> Software is one).  It also affects whether or not various distributions
> will accept the work (would Debian?  I honestly don't know).
>
> And I'm not after plain vanilla CC0 code to be called Open Source, I'm
> after the method I outlined earlier.  This side-steps the need to have CC0
> put forth by the license steward (I hope!).  I know that is splitting
> hairs, but at this point I'm tearing my hair out over this, and would like
> to put it to rest before I have to buy a wig.
>
> Thanks,
> Cem Karan
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org]
> On Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 2:48 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,
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Nigel
> >
> > 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
> >     list?
> >
> >     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
> >     (Caution-https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-
> Source-Guidance-and-Instructions),
> >     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
> >     will.
> >
> >     Given all this, is it time to move this to license-review, or
> otherwise get a
> >     vote?  I'd like this solved ASAP.
> >
> >     Thanks,
> >     Cem Karan
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > License-discuss mailing list
> > License-discuss at opensource.org
> > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-
> discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20170316/82b386f0/attachment.html>