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

[Radcliffe, Mark]

I agree with McCoy.  As outside General Counsel of the OSI for more than 10 years, the drafting of a new "open source" license requires strong reasons.  The reasons that I have seen in the list don't meet that standard.  I strongly recommend against trying to develop a new "open source" license. 

-----Original Message-----
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Smith, McCoy
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:54 AM
To: license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

Or to put a finer point on it, the other issues you identify appear to be ones that are explicitly addressed in many already-approved OSI licenses, including Apache 2.0, the one you are modeling your license upon.

I hope you're getting a sense that there are several lawyers on this mailing list -- lawyers who have years of experience looking at, debating, and giving advice on the issues you identify in this submission -- who think that your proposed license is a variant of Apache 2.0 designed to solve a "problem" for USG users with Apache 2.0 that we are skeptical even exists.  Perhaps the ARL lawyers can clarify what the problem is, and that we are missing something.  But I think at least I am having a hard time understanding how this license does anything that Apache 2.0 doesn't.

-----Original Message-----
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Richard Fontana
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:33 AM
To: license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:17:07PM +0000, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote:
> 
> Once again, liability isn't the only issue; there are also copyright 
> issues (for contributors), and IP issues.  If we could solve the 
> problem via a simple disclaimer of liability, we would.  We need to handle ALL the issues.

Even if you were correct in the assertions you've made about ARL code, why is a new license needed for contributors other than ARL?











_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss at opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss at opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Please consider the environment before printing this email.

The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender and destroy all copies of the message. To contact us directly, send to postmaster at dlapiper.com. Thank you.