[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
Mon Mar 20 12:39:53 UTC 2017
OK, thank you, I'll contact them and see what they think.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Marc Jones
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 4:31 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.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> I also can't speak for Debian. But it is my understanding that Debian does not rely on OSI for determining if a license is free. They use their
> own Debian Free Software Guidelines. (Although they are very similar.) Someone at Debian maintains a FAQ on the DFSG [1]
>
> Debian also has a Licensing page that is not exactly on point but suggests that you might want to contact the Debian Legal Mailing list. [2]
>
> Warm regards,
>
> -Marc
>
> [1] Caution-https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq < Caution-https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq > [2] Caution-
> https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ < Caution-https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ >
>
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 3:32 PM Tom Callaway <tcallawa at redhat.com < Caution-mailto:tcallawa at redhat.com > > wrote:
>
>
> 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 < 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/20170320/eeaf37d7/attachment.p7s>
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list