[License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

[Richard Fontana]

Well the complication is mainly a response to Cem wanting the OSI to
bless his proposed approach. I think however that code.mil has already
rejected this sort of idea.

I think the code.mil approach is much more elegant without introducing
the use of CC0. 



On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 03:08:22PM +0000, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> Richard,
> 
> It is very hard for me to take a complaint that CC0 not being OSI approved as a significant issue vs continued feet dragging when the OSI won’t provide guidance on license asymmetry, won’t vote on NOSA v2.0 and had the opportunity to pass CC0 years ago.
> 
> CC0 is accepted as open source by the FSF and by the GSA (see Federal Source Code Policy examples).  The fact that the OSI has not approved CC0 is a “complication” of its own making.  One easily solved with an email from the OSI to CC requesting that CC resubmit CC0 and then the OSI board approving it.  
> 
> Nigel
> 
> On 3/1/17, 9:37 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Richard Fontana" <license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org on behalf of fontana at sharpeleven.org> wrote:
> 
>     I really like the approach as it currently exists. But why is use of
>     CC0 necessary? If some work of the US government is in the public
>     domain by virtue of the Copyright Act, there is no need to use
>     CC0. Indeed, I would think use of CC0 by the Government is just as
>     problematic, or non-problematic, as the use of any open source
>     license, such as the Apache License 2.0. Strictly speaking, the use of
>     CC0 assumes that you have copyright ownership. 
>     
>     Only noting this because the fact that OSI has not approved CC0 makes
>     this more complicated than the case where CC0 is not used at all. 
>     
>     The code.mil folks discussed an earlier version of this approach with
>     the OSI. But this is the first I've heard of using CC0.
>     
>     Richard
>     
>     
>     
>     
>     On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 04:23:12PM +0000, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote:
>     > All, the folks at code.mil came up with what may be a really, really good 
>     > idea; see 
>     > https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md.
>     > 
>     > The basic idea is simple; when the Government releases code, it's in the 
>     > public domain (likely CC0).  The project owners select an OSI-approved 
>     > license, and will only accept contributions to the project under their chosen 
>     > license[1].  Over time the code base becomes a mixture, some of which is under 
>     > CC0, and some of which is under the OSI-approved license.  I've talked with 
>     > ARL's lawyers, and they are satisfied with this solution.  Would OSI be happy 
>     > with this solution?  That is, would OSI recognize the projects as being truly 
>     > Open Source, right from the start?  The caveat is that some projects will be 
>     > 100% CC0 at the start, and can only use the chosen Open Source license on 
>     > those contributions that have copyright attached.  Note that Government 
>     > projects that wish to make this claim would have to choose their license and 
>     > announce it on the project site so that everyone knows what they are licensing 
>     > their contributions under, which is the way that OSI can validate that the 
>     > project is keeping its end of the bargain at the start.
>     > 
>     > If this will satisfy OSI, then I will gladly withdraw the ARL OSL from 
>     > consideration.  If there are NASA or other Government folks on here, would 
>     > this solution satisfy your needs as well?
>     > 
>     > Thanks,
>     > Cem Karan
>     > 
>     > [1] There is also a form certifying that the contributor has the right to do 
>     > so, etc.  The Army Research Laboratory's is at 
>     > https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions/blob/master/ARL%20Form%20-%20266.pdf, 
>     > and is, unfortunately, only able to be opened in Adobe Acrobat.  We're working 
>     > to fix that, but there are other requirements that will take some time.
>     
>     
>     
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > 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
>     
> 
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss