<div dir="auto">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.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mar 16, 2017 4:31 PM, "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" <<a href="mailto:cem.f.karan.civ@mail.mil">cem.f.karan.civ@mail.mil</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Cool! Would Fedora/Red Hat consider it to be Open Source?<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Cem Karan<br>
<br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: License-discuss [mailto:<a href="mailto:license-discuss-bounces@opensource.org">license-discuss-<wbr>bounces@opensource.org</a>] On Behalf Of Tom Callaway<br>
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 3:31 PM<br>
> To: <a href="mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org">license-discuss@opensource.org</a><br>
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL<br>
> OSL) Version 0.4.1<br>
><br>
> All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links<br>
> contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser.<br>
><br>
><br>
> ______________________________<wbr>__<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Can't speak for Debian, but Fedora will happily take software licensed as you describe.<br>
><br>
> On Mar 16, 2017 3:09 PM, "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" <<a href="mailto:cem.f.karan.civ@mail.mil">cem.f.karan.civ@mail.mil</a> < Caution-<br>
> mailto:<a href="mailto:cem.f.karan.civ@mail.mil">cem.f.karan.civ@mail.<wbr>mil</a> > > wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> I agree that the Government can release it as open source, but as I understand it, not as Open Source. The difference is whether<br>
> or not the code will be accepted into various journals (Journal of Open Source Software is one). It also affects whether or not various<br>
> distributions will accept the work (would Debian? I honestly don't know).<br>
><br>
> 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<br>
> 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<br>
> would like to put it to rest before I have to buy a wig.<br>
><br>
> Thanks,<br>
> Cem Karan<br>
><br>
> > -----Original Message-----<br>
> > From: License-discuss [Caution-mailto:<a href="mailto:license-discuss-bounces@opensource.org">license-<wbr>discuss-bounces@opensource.org</a> < Caution-mailto:<a href="mailto:license-discuss-">license-<wbr>discuss-</a><br>
> <a href="mailto:bounces@opensource.org">bounces@opensource.org</a> > ] On Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.<br>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 2:48 PM<br>
> > To: <a href="mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org">license-discuss@opensource.org</a> < Caution-mailto:<a href="mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org">license-<wbr>discuss@opensource.org</a> ><br>
> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source<br>
> License (ARL<br>
> > OSL) Version 0.4.1<br>
> ><br>
> > All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all<br>
> links<br>
> > contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > ----<br>
> ><br>
> > Cem,<br>
> ><br>
> > The USG does not need OSI’s approval to release code as open source under CC0. It has done so already on <a href="http://code.gov" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">code.gov</a> < Caution-<br>
> <a href="http://code.gov" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://code.gov</a> > . This includes the<br>
> > OPM, NASA, GSA, DOT, DOL, DOC and others. CC0 is compliant with the Federal Source Code Policy for open source release.<br>
> ><br>
> > 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<br>
> approval.<br>
> ><br>
> > Regards,<br>
> ><br>
> > Nigel<br>
> ><br>
> > On 3/16/17, 8:56 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" <license-discuss-<br>
> > <a href="mailto:bounces@opensource.org">bounces@opensource.org</a> < Caution-mailto:<a href="mailto:bounces@opensource.org">bounces@<wbr>opensource.org</a> > on behalf of <a href="mailto:cem.f.karan.civ@mail.mil">cem.f.karan.civ@mail.mil</a> < Caution-<br>
> mailto:<a href="mailto:cem.f.karan.civ@mail.mil">cem.f.karan.civ@mail.<wbr>mil</a> > > wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > All, I want to keep this alive as I haven't seen a conclusion yet. Earlier I<br>
> > asked if OSI would accept the US Government (USG) putting its non-copyrighted<br>
> > works out under CC0 as Open Source **provided** that the USG accepts and<br>
> > redistributes copyrighted contributions under an OSI-approved license. Is<br>
> > this acceptable to OSI? Should I move this discussion to the license-review<br>
> > list?<br>
> ><br>
> > To recap:<br>
> ><br>
> > 1) This would only cover USG works that do not have copyright. Works that<br>
> > have copyright would be eligible to use copyright-based licenses, and to be<br>
> > OSI-approved as Open Source would need to use an OSI-approved license.<br>
> ><br>
> > 2) The USG work/project would select an OSI-approved license that it accepted<br>
> > contributions under. The USG would redistribute the contributions under that<br>
> > license, but the portions of the work that are not under copyright would be<br>
> > redistributed under CC0. That means that for some projects (ones that have no<br>
> > copyrighted material at all initially), the only license that the works would<br>
> > have would be CC0.<br>
> ><br>
> > I can't speak to patents or other IP rights that the USG has, I can only<br>
> > comment on what the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) has done<br>
> > (Caution-Caution-<a href="https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://<wbr>github.com/USArmyResearchLab/<wbr>ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-<wbr>Instructions</a> < Caution-<br>
> <a href="https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/<wbr>USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-<wbr>Source-Guidance-and-<wbr>Instructions</a> > ),<br>
> > which includes a step to affirmatively waive any patent rights that ARL might<br>
> > have in the project before distributing it. I am hoping that other agencies<br>
> > will do something similar, but have no power or authority to say that they<br>
> > will.<br>
> ><br>
> > Given all this, is it time to move this to license-review, or otherwise get a<br>
> > vote? I'd like this solved ASAP.<br>
> ><br>
> > Thanks,<br>
> > Cem Karan<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> > License-discuss mailing list<br>
> > <a href="mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org">License-discuss@opensource.org</a> < Caution-mailto:<a href="mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org">License-<wbr>discuss@opensource.org</a> ><br>
> > Caution-Caution-<a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.<wbr>opensource.org/cgi-bin/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/license-<wbr>discuss</a> < Caution-<a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.<wbr>opensource.org/cgi-</a><br>
> bin/mailman/listinfo/license-<wbr>discuss ><br>
><br>
> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> License-discuss mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org">License-discuss@opensource.org</a> < Caution-mailto:<a href="mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org">License-<wbr>discuss@opensource.org</a> ><br>
> Caution-<a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.<wbr>opensource.org/cgi-bin/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/license-<wbr>discuss</a> < Caution-<a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.<wbr>opensource.org/cgi-</a><br>
> bin/mailman/listinfo/license-<wbr>discuss ><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
License-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org">License-discuss@opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.opensource.org/<wbr>cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/<wbr>license-discuss</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div></div>