[License-review] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0 and Government licensing [was: moving to an issue tracker [was Re: Some notes for license submitters]]

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

From: License-review [license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org] on behalf of Bruce Perens [bruce at perens.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 2:02 PM
To: License submissions for OSI review
Subject: Re: [License-review] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0 and Government licensing [was: moving to an issue tracker [was Re: Some notes for license submitters]]


On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 9:53 AM, 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:

<<Cutting out a bunch of other stuff, see prior messages>>

>> """
>> Amendment to LICENSE.txt: If any clause in the LICENSE.txt file is declared
>> unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that clause shall be
>> severed from the LICENSE.txt, and all other clauses shall remain in full
>> force.
>> """
>
> So, here is the already-OSI-approved language in the GPL version 2:
>
> If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any
> particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and
> the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances.
>
>> 2) Can it be done?  E.g., the Apache 2.0 license has an END OF TERMS AND
>>    CONDITIONS line at the end; if I add in new text, then it isn't Apache 2.0
>>    anymore.  If I put it in a different file, can it be ignored because it is
>>    after the end of terms and conditions?
>
> You are able to create an Apache license derivative with your chosen language.
> License text is functional, so not generally held to be subject to copyright.
> That's one of the reasons some licenses have preambles, because that can be
> copyrighted.
>
>> 3) If 1 & 2 are OK, would the USG accept it?
>
> The OSI? I don't see why not.
>
>     Thanks
>
>     Bruce

OK, so just to be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, you would support this approach?  I know
that you haven't seen the final language yet, so you can't state the you would
vote for it without seeing the final language, but you're not opposed to the
general idea of a meta-license or general purpose amendment that OSI would
approve for use with all OSI-approved licenses?  If so, let me know ASAP, it
means that I need to start making a bunch of calls and getting things moving
on my end.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20180621/66edc8b8/attachment.html>