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

Wed Mar 1 16:39:01 UTC 2017

I see your points about the Apache license vs. CC0, but the reason CC0 is more 
palatable is because we're not trying to make any restrictions based on 
copyright.  We're trying to meet the spirit of US law, and our lawyers believe 
that CC0 has the best chance of doing that.

As to your second point, that is PRECISELY what I'm proposing.  The material 
that has copyright attached will be accepted under the OSI-approved license 
that the project controllers wish to use, and all other material will be 
distributed under CC0.  This way the US Government is not claiming copyright 
where none exists.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Richard Fontana
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 11:25 AM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative 
> was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL
> OSL) Version 0.4.1
>
> 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 Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 03:45:06PM +0000, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL 
> (US) wrote:
> > Two reasons.  First is for the disclaimer of liability and warranty.
> > We can write our own notice, but that would be much less recognizable
> > than CC0, which is why we'd prefer to use it.
>
> But my point is that it is arguably inconsistent to say you can't use the 
> Apache License 2.0 but can use CC0, which, for example, contains a
> waiver and fallback copyright license. To put it another way, the public 
> domain that CC0 attempts to achieve is not the same thing as the
> public domain of US government civil servant works.
>
> Anyway looking at some of the closed issues for code.mil it seems they have 
> the same concerns about CC0 that you have about the
> Apache License.
>
> > Second, it solves the question of copyright in foreign jurisdictions;
> > as far as is possible, the work is in the public domain everywhere,
> > which means that someone in (for example) Canada can treat it the same way 
> > as someone in the US
> > would.   If you're wondering how this could be a problem, the issue is 
> > that
> > copyright is a grant by the State at the time of creation, but each
> > State has different rules about this.  As an example, works that I
> > create as a civil servant do not have copyright within the US, but may
> > have copyright protections in Canada unless specifically disclaimed.
> > This could lead to questions about whether or not the code could be
> > merged into a project if the project is being used world-wide, because
> > the license for the US Government furnished code is unclear.  CC0
> > settles the question as far as possible across all jurisdictions, and
> > as long as all external contributions are under the chosen
> > OSI-approved license, all material in a project will be covered by one
> > or the other, and decisions can be made by the courts in any jurisdiction 
> > on the project as a whole.
>
> The approach I understand code.mil to be taking is that a given project will 
> have an open source license and that license will cover
> anything that isn't statutory public domain, including both contributions 
> coming in through the DCO and code released by the US
> government that may be public domain in the US but not elsewhere.
>
> See: 
> Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md#1-license
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Note that I am not a lawyer, and none of this should be construed as
> > legal advice.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Cem Karan
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: License-discuss
> > > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of
> > > Richard Fontana
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 9:37 AM
> > > To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> > > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative 
> > > was:
> > > Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL
> > > OSL) Version 0.4.1
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----
> > >
> > > 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
> > > > Caution-Caution-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
> > > > Caution-Caution-https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Sour
> > > > ce-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
> > > > Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listi
> > > > nfo/license-
> > > > discuss
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > License-discuss mailing list
> > > License-discuss at opensource.org
> > > Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinf
> > > o/license-discuss
>
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > License-discuss mailing list
> > License-discuss at opensource.org
> > 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: 6419 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20170301/9d480237/attachment.p7s>