[License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil
Fri Mar 17 20:47:29 UTC 2017
That was what I was afraid of. OK, in that case I'll make the recommendation that ARL does what I was outlining before, and hope that CC0 will one day be considered Open Source as well.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Richard Fontana
> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 11:18 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.
>
>
>
>
> ----
>
> I don't see how you could convince OSI of this in any way that would not involve submission and approval of CC0.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 12:32:26PM +0000, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote:
> > OK, so different groups have different opinions. I'm glad Fedora views CC0 as meeting the OSD definitions though. I'd still like to
> convince OSI that the route I outlined earlier should be considered to be Open Source; I think it'll make things easier for a lot of the
> Government.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Cem Karan
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: License-discuss
> > > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of
> > > Tom Callaway
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 8:46 PM
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd think the only ones who get to apply the "Open Source" label to
> > > licenses would be the OSI. Fedora's opinion is that CC-0 meets the OSD.
> > >
> > > On Mar 16, 2017 4:31 PM, "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)"
> > > <cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil < Caution- Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Cool! Would Fedora/Red Hat consider it to be Open Source?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Cem Karan
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: License-discuss
> > > [Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org <
> > > Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss-
> > > bounces at opensource.org > ] On Behalf Of Tom Callaway
> > > > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 3:31 PM
> > > > To: license-discuss at opensource.org < Caution-Caution-mailto: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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Can't speak for Debian, but Fedora will happily take software licensed as you describe.
> > > >
> > > > On Mar 16, 2017 3:09 PM, "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL
> > > (US)" <cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil < Caution- Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil > < Caution-
> > > > Caution-Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil < Caution-Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I agree that the Government can release it as open source, but as I understand it, not as Open Source. The difference is
> > > whether
> > > > or not the code will be accepted into various journals (Journal
> > > of Open Source Software is one). It also affects whether or not various
> > > > distributions will accept the work (would Debian? I honestly don't know).
> > > >
> > > > And I'm not after plain vanilla CC0 code to be called Open Source, I'm after the method I outlined earlier. This side-steps the
> > > need
> > > > to have CC0 put forth by the license steward (I hope!). I know
> > > that is splitting hairs, but at this point I'm tearing my hair out over this, and
> > > > would like to put it to rest before I have to buy a wig.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Cem Karan
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: License-discuss [Caution-Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org < Caution-Caution-
> mailto:license-discuss-
> > > bounces at opensource.org > < Caution-Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss- < Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss- >
> > > > bounces at opensource.org < Caution-Caution-mailto:bounces at opensource.org > > ] On Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 2:48 PM
> > > > > To: license-discuss at opensource.org < Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss at opensource.org > < Caution-Caution-
> Caution-mailto:license-
> > > discuss at opensource.org < Caution-Caution-mailto: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.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----
> > > > >
> > > > > Cem,
> > > > >
> > > > > The USG does not need OSI’s approval to release code as open source under CC0. It has done so already on code.gov <
> > > Caution-Caution-http://code.gov > < Caution-
> > > > Caution-Caution-http://code.gov < Caution-Caution-http://code.gov > > . This includes the
> > > > > OPM, NASA, GSA, DOT, DOL, DOC and others. CC0 is compliant with the Federal Source Code Policy for open source
> > > release.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is unlikely that you can push CC0 through license review as you aren’t the license steward. It is up to CC to resubmit CC0
> > > for
> > > > approval.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Nigel
> > > > >
> > > > > On 3/16/17, 8:56 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" <license-discuss-
> > > > > bounces at opensource.org < Caution-Caution-mailto:bounces at opensource.org > < Caution-Caution-
> > > Caution-mailto:bounces at opensource.org <
> > > Caution-Caution-mailto:bounces at opensource.org > > on behalf of cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil < Caution- Caution-
> mailto:cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil > < Caution-
> > > > Caution-Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil < Caution-Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > All, I want to keep this alive as I haven't seen a conclusion yet. Earlier I
> > > > > asked if OSI would accept the US Government (USG) putting its non-copyrighted
> > > > > works out under CC0 as Open Source **provided** that the USG accepts and
> > > > > redistributes copyrighted contributions under an OSI-approved license. Is
> > > > > this acceptable to OSI? Should I move this discussion to the license-review
> > > > > list?
> > > > >
> > > > > To recap:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) This would only cover USG works that do not have copyright. Works that
> > > > > have copyright would be eligible to use copyright-based licenses, and to be
> > > > > OSI-approved as Open Source would need to use an OSI-approved license.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) The USG work/project would select an OSI-approved license that it accepted
> > > > > contributions under. The USG would redistribute the contributions under that
> > > > > license, but the portions of the work that are not under copyright would be
> > > > > redistributed under CC0. That means that for some projects (ones that have no
> > > > > copyrighted material at all initially), the only license that the works would
> > > > > have would be CC0.
> > > > >
> > > > > I can't speak to patents or other IP rights that the USG has, I can only
> > > > > comment on what the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) has done
> > > > > (Caution-Caution-Caution-Caution-https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-
> Instructions <
> > > Caution-Caution-https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions > < Caution-
> > > >
> > > Caution-Caution-https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions < Caution- Caution-
> https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions > > ),
> > > > > which includes a step to affirmatively waive any patent rights that ARL might
> > > > > have in the project before distributing it. I am hoping that other agencies
> > > > > will do something similar, but have no power or authority to say that they
> > > > > will.
> > > > >
> > > > > Given all this, is it time to move this to license-review, or otherwise get a
> > > > > vote? I'd like this solved ASAP.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Cem Karan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > License-discuss mailing list
> > > > > License-discuss at opensource.org < Caution-Caution-mailto:License-discuss at opensource.org > < Caution-Caution-Caution-
> mailto:License-
> > > discuss at opensource.org < Caution-Caution-mailto:License-discuss at opensource.org > >
> > > > > Caution-Caution-Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss < Caution-
> > > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/licens
> > > e-discuss > <
> > > Caution-Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi- < Caution-
> > > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi- >
> > > > bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > License-discuss mailing list
> > > > License-discuss at opensource.org < Caution-Caution-mailto:License-discuss at opensource.org > < Caution-Caution-Caution-
> mailto:License-
> > > discuss at opensource.org < Caution-Caution-mailto:License-discuss at opensource.org > >
> > > > Caution-Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss < Caution-
> > > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/licens
> > > e-discuss > <
> > > Caution-Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi- < Caution-
> > > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi- >
> > > > bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > License-discuss mailing list
> > > License-discuss at opensource.org < Caution-Caution-mailto:License-discuss at opensource.org >
> > >
> > > Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinf
> > > o/license-discuss <
> > > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170317/260afe9f/attachment.p7s>
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list