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

Thu Mar 16 20:29:38 UTC 2017

Cool!  Would Fedora/Red Hat consider it to be Open Source?  

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Tom Callaway
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 3:31 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.
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> 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 < Caution-
> mailto: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 [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org < Caution-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 < Caution-mailto: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 < Caution-
> http://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 < Caution-mailto:bounces at opensource.org >  on behalf of cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil < Caution-
> mailto: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-Caution-https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions < 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-mailto:License-discuss at opensource.org >
> 	> Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss < Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-
> bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss >
> 
> 	_______________________________________________
> 	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/20170316/b2ba0705/attachment.p7s>