[License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil
Fri Mar 17 21:05:38 UTC 2017
I'd love to, but ARL's lawyers disagree with code.mil's interpretation, and neither the upper levels of the DoD nor the White House have given us an all clear to use copyright-based licenses on code that is in the public domain. (code.mil is not in ARL's chain of command, so we can't just salute and obey. And until someone we CAN salute and obey gives us the OK, we have to follow the more conservative approach).
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Richard Fontana
> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 4:56 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.
>
>
>
>
> ----
>
> I would just encourage you to consider instead recommending the enlightened approach being taken by your colleagues at
> github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil, which would be more consistent with the ARL lawyers' apparent belief that some horrible disaster
> will occur if they put US published code under a copyright license. :)
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017, at 04:47 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL
> (US) wrote:
> > That was what I was afraid of. OK, in that case I'll make the
> > recommendation that ARL does what I was outlining before, and hope
> > that
> > CC0 will one day be considered Open Source as well.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Cem Karan
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: License-discuss
> > > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of
> > > Richard Fontana
> > > Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 11:18 AM
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----
> > >
> > > I don't see how you could convince OSI of this in any way that would not involve submission and approval of CC0.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 12:32:26PM +0000, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote:
> > > > OK, so different groups have different opinions. I'm glad Fedora
> > > > views CC0 as meeting the OSD definitions though. I'd still like
> > > > to
> > > convince OSI that the route I outlined earlier should be considered
> > > to be Open Source; I think it'll make things easier for a lot of the Government.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Cem Karan
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: License-discuss
> > > > > [Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org]
> > > > > On Behalf Of Tom Callaway
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 8:46 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.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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 < Caution- Caution-Caution-mailto: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
> > > > > [Caution-Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensour
> > > > > ce.org <
> > > > > Caution-Caution-Caution-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 < Caution-Caution-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.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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- Caution-Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil > < Caution-
> > > > > > Caution-Caution-Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil < Caution-Caution-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-Caution-Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org < Caution-
> Caution-
> > > Caution-mailto:license-discuss-
> > > > > bounces at opensource.org > < Caution-Caution-Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss- < Caution-Caution-Caution-mailto:license-
> discuss- >
> > > > > > bounces at opensource.org < Caution-Caution-Caution-mailto: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-Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss at opensource.org > < Caution-
> Caution-
> > > Caution-Caution-mailto:license-
> > > > > discuss at opensource.org < Caution-Caution-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-Caution-Caution-http://code.gov > < Caution-
> > > > > > Caution-Caution-Caution-http://code.gov < Caution-Caution-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-Caution-Caution-mailto:bounces at opensource.org > < Caution-Caution-
> > > > > Caution-Caution-mailto:bounces at opensource.org <
> > > > > Caution-Caution-Caution-mailto:bounces at opensource.org > > on
> > > > > behalf of cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil < Caution- Caution-
> > > Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil > < Caution-
> > > > > > Caution-Caution-Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil < Caution-Caution-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-Caution-Caution-Caution-https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-
> > > Instructions <
> > > > > Caution-Caution-Caution-https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions > < Caution-
> > > > > >
> > > > > Caution-Caution-Caution-https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL
> > > > > -Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions < Caution- Caution-
> > > Caution-https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidanc
> > > e-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-Caution-Caution-mailto:License-discuss at opensource.org > < Caution-Caution-
> Caution-
> > > Caution-mailto:License-
> > > > > discuss at opensource.org < Caution-Caution-Caution-mailto:License-discuss at opensource.org > >
> > > > > > > Caution-Caution-Caution-Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss < Caution-
> > > > > Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/lis
> > > > > tinfo/licens
> > > > > e-discuss > <
> > > > > Caution-Caution-Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi
> > > > > - < Caution-
> > > > > Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi- >
> > > > > > bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > License-discuss mailing list
> > > > > > License-discuss at opensource.org < Caution-Caution-Caution-mailto:License-discuss at opensource.org > < Caution-Caution-
> Caution-
> > > Caution-mailto:License-
> > > > > discuss at opensource.org < Caution-Caution-Caution-mailto:License-discuss at opensource.org > >
> > > > > > Caution-Caution-Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss < Caution-
> > > > > Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/lis
> > > > > tinfo/licens
> > > > > e-discuss > <
> > > > > Caution-Caution-Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi
> > > > > - < Caution-
> > > > > Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi- >
> > > > > > bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > License-discuss mailing list
> > > > > License-discuss at opensource.org <
> > > > > Caution-Caution-Caution-mailto:License-discuss at opensource.org >
> > > > >
> > > > > Caution-Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mai
> > > > > lman/listinf
> > > > > o/license-discuss <
> > > > > Caution-Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-
> > > > > bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > License-discuss mailing list
> > > > License-discuss at opensource.org
> > > > Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listi
> > > > nfo/license-
> > > > discuss
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > License-discuss mailing list
> > > License-discuss at opensource.org
> > > Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinf
> > > o/license-discuss
> > _______________________________________________
> > License-discuss mailing list
> > License-discuss at opensource.org
> > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-
> > discuss
> > Email had 1 attachment:
> > + smime.p7s
> > 9k (application/pkcs7-signature)
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> 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/20170317/009dcf5b/attachment.p7s>
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list