<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><a name="_MailEndCompose">Richard Fontana wrote:<o:p></o:p></a></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>> </span><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><span style='color:black'>I think the code.mil approach is much more elegant without introducing the use of CC0. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>Richard, I'm not as concerned with elegance as you are. Most FOSS licenses aren't elegant. Whatever code.mil is recommending has nothing to do with the elegance of its approach.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>The question remains from many years of discussion here: What is wrong with CC0 being approved by OSI as a <u>license</u> for components in other open source software? Including for U.S. government works that may (or may not) be public domain?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>The absence of an explicit patent provision applies equally to the BSD and MIT licenses. By <u>also</u> licensing U.S. government works under (e.g.) the Apache license, that problem is resolved, but not elegantly.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>/Larry<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'></span><p class=MsoPlainText>-----Original Message-----<br>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Richard Fontana<br>Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 8:30 AM<br>To: license-discuss@opensource.org<br>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1</p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Well the complication is mainly a response to Cem wanting the OSI to bless his proposed approach. I think however that code.mil has already rejected this sort of idea.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>I think the code.mil approach is much more elegant without introducing the use of CC0. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 03:08:22PM +0000, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> Richard,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> It is very hard for me to take a complaint that CC0 not being OSI approved as a significant issue vs continued feet dragging when the OSI won’t provide guidance on license asymmetry, won’t vote on NOSA v2.0 and had the opportunity to pass CC0 years ago.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> CC0 is accepted as open source by the FSF and by the GSA (see Federal Source Code Policy examples). The fact that the OSI has not approved CC0 is a “complication” of its own making. One easily solved with an email from the OSI to CC requesting that CC resubmit CC0 and then the OSI board approving it. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> Nigel<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> On 3/1/17, 9:37 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Richard Fontana" <<a href="mailto:license-discuss-bounces@opensource.org%20on%20behalf%20of%20fontana@sharpeleven.org"><span style='color:black;text-decoration:none'>license-discuss-bounces@opensource.org on behalf of fontana@sharpeleven.org</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> I really like the approach as it currently exists. But why is use of<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> CC0 necessary? If some work of the US government is in the public<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> domain by virtue of the Copyright Act, there is no need to use<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> CC0. Indeed, I would think use of CC0 by the Government is just as<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> problematic, or non-problematic, as the use of any open source<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> license, such as the Apache License 2.0. Strictly speaking, the use of<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> CC0 assumes that you have copyright ownership. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> Only noting this because the fact that OSI has not approved CC0 makes<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> this more complicated than the case where CC0 is not used at all. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> The code.mil folks discussed an earlier version of this approach with<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> the OSI. But this is the first I've heard of using CC0.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> Richard<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 04:23:12PM +0000, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > All, the folks at code.mil came up with what may be a really, really good <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > idea; see <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > <a href="https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md"><span style='color:black;text-decoration:none'>https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md</span></a>.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > The basic idea is simple; when the Government releases code, it's in the <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > public domain (likely CC0). The project owners select an OSI-approved <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > license, and will only accept contributions to the project under their chosen <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > license[1]. Over time the code base becomes a mixture, some of which is under <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > CC0, and some of which is under the OSI-approved license. I've talked with <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > ARL's lawyers, and they are satisfied with this solution. Would OSI be happy <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > with this solution? That is, would OSI recognize the projects as being truly <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > Open Source, right from the start? The caveat is that some projects will be <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > 100% CC0 at the start, and can only use the chosen Open Source license on <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > those contributions that have copyright attached. Note that Government <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > projects that wish to make this claim would have to choose their license and <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > announce it on the project site so that everyone knows what they are licensing <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > their contributions under, which is the way that OSI can validate that the <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > project is keeping its end of the bargain at the start.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > If this will satisfy OSI, then I will gladly withdraw the ARL OSL from <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > consideration. If there are NASA or other Government folks on here, would <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > this solution satisfy your needs as well?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > Cem Karan<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > [1] There is also a form certifying that the contributor has the right to do <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > so, etc. The Army Research Laboratory's is at <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > <a href="https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions/blob/master/ARL%20Form%20-%20266.pdf"><span style='color:black;text-decoration:none'>https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions/blob/master/ARL%20Form%20-%20266.pdf</span></a>, <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > and is, unfortunately, only able to be opened in Adobe Acrobat. We're working <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > to fix that, but there are other requirements that will take some time.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > _______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > License-discuss mailing list<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > <a href="mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org"><span style='color:black;text-decoration:none'>License-discuss@opensource.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss"><span style='color:black;text-decoration:none'>https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> _______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> License-discuss mailing list<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <a href="mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org"><span style='color:black;text-decoration:none'>License-discuss@opensource.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss"><span style='color:black;text-decoration:none'>https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> _______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> License-discuss mailing list<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <a href="mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org"><span style='color:black;text-decoration:none'>License-discuss@opensource.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss"><span style='color:black;text-decoration:none'>https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>License-discuss mailing list<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><a href="mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org"><span style='color:black;text-decoration:none'>License-discuss@opensource.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss"><span style='color:black;text-decoration:none'>https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss</span></a><o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>