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

Fri Mar 17 00:45:34 UTC 2017

I'd think the only ones who get to apply the "Open Source" label to
licenses would be the OSI. Fedora's opinion is that CC-0 meets the OSD.

On Mar 16, 2017 4:31 PM, "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" <
cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil> wrote:

> 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 >
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170316/5d4232f5/attachment.html>