[License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

Tue Aug 16 19:51:16 UTC 2016

CC0 doesn't cover patent or other IP rights; if it did, it would be a way out. 
The concern is that an unscrupulous contributor would contribute software 
under CC0 that had patents covering it.  Once the patented portions were 
rolled in and being used, the contributor would then sue everyone over patent 
violations.  There are a few other, similar tricks that can be done that the 
Apache 2.0 license and the ARL OSL license attempt to avoid.

If you think that this is a paranoid fear, read 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambus#Lawsuits to see what we're trying to 
avoid.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Smith, McCoy
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 11:41 AM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research 
> Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
>
> I haven't been following all of this thread, but it seems a lot of the 
> genesis of this license is the idea that there needs to be some sort of
> contract for, or license to, the non-copyrightable elements of the 
> distributed code for the disclaimer of warranties and liability to be
> effective (at least, with respect to the non-copyrightable parts of the 
> distributed code).  I'm not sure that that premise is correct, legally,
> although I can't say that with certainty (and I don't have the inclination 
> to do a research project).
>
> CC0 gives a complete (to the extent permissible by law) waiver of copyright 
> rights, as well as a disclaimer of liability for the "Work" (which
> is that which copyright has been waived).  I believe that to be an effective 
> waiver of liability, despite the fact that there is not copyright
> rights being conveyed.  Does anyone believe that that waiver is ineffective?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss 
> [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Karan, 
> Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL
> (US)
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 8:13 AM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research 
> Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
>
> OK, but wouldn't those changes mean that the license no longer applies to 
> the uncopyrightable portions?  That would mean that
> downstream users would no longer have any protection from being sued, etc., 
> right?
>
> Thanks,
> Cem Karan
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: License-discuss
> > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org]
> > On Behalf Of Engel Nyst
> > Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 7:17 PM
> > To: license-discuss <license-discuss at opensource.org>
> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research
> > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL
> > (US) <cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil> wrote:
> > >> >    4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the
> > >> >       Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without
> > >> >       modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You
> > >> >       meet the following conditions:
> > >>
> > >> I'd suggest to add in clause 4, or in its obligations a)-d), an "if
> > >> copyright exists" or something similar. If copyright doesn't exist
> > >> in the Work, can't put enforceable conditions on redistributions.
> > >
> > > What wording would you suggest?
> >
> > "4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the
> >       Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without
> >       modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that for
> >       Works subject to copyright You meet the following conditions:"
> > Or,
> > "4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the
> >       Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without
> >       modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You
> >       meet the following conditions for the copyrightable parts of the
> >       Work or Derivative Works:"
> > Or,
> > "4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the
> >       Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without
> >       modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You
> >       meet the following conditions:
> >
> >       (a) You must give any other recipients of the Work or
> >           Derivative Works a copy of this License, except when the Work
> >           or Derivative Work is not subject to copyright; and
> >
> >       (b) You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices
> >           stating that You changed the files, excluding those files that
> >           contained no copyrightable part; and"
> >
> > In the latter, (c) and (d) seem to already have applicable exclusions.
> >
> > The first seems cleanest to me.
> > _______________________________________________
> > License-discuss mailing list
> > License-discuss at opensource.org
> > Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/
> > license-
> > discuss
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> 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: 5559 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20160816/1c4b01b9/attachment.p7s>