[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