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

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

Exactly.  Anyone that gets something from the USG deserves to know that they won't be facing a patent lawsuit from any of the contributors.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Chris DiBona
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 6:12 PM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>
> 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
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In military contracting , patent grants are key to the point where I wouldn't consider a non patent granting license from, say, lockheed as
> being open source at all.
> 
> 
> On Aug 18, 2016 3:05 PM, "Tzeng, Nigel H." <Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu < Caution-mailto:Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu > > wrote:
> 
> 
> 	On 8/18/16, 3:57 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Lawrence Rosen"
> 	<license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org < Caution-mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org >  on behalf of
> lrosen at rosenlaw.com < Caution-mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com > >
> 	wrote:
> 
> 
> 	>Nigel Tzeng wrote:
> 	>> The issue here is for code that is potentially quite substantial.  I
> 	>>would think that would be a different scenario.
> 	>
> 	>If I include the works of Shakespeare in my software, it would of course
> 	>be substantial and yet still be public domain almost everywhere (?).
> 
> 	If patents aren't a concern then okay.  Copyright lasts longer than
> 	patents so for anything that is in the public domain because of age then
> 	no patents would still apply.
> 
> 	There isn¹t a lot of code that has aged out.  Only code written between
> 	before 1963 and didn¹t get a renewal.
> 
> 	_______________________________________________
> 	License-discuss mailing list
> 	License-discuss at opensource.org < Caution-mailto:License-discuss at opensource.org >
> 	Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss < 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/20160819/2a23dbb9/attachment.p7s>