> -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Richard Fontana > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 4:10 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Cc: lro...@rosenlaw.com > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 08:03:18PM +0000, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US > > > As for 'license vs. contract', was that something discussed in > > relation to the ARL OSL? > > No, that's a much older topic of debate in open source. It's safe to say > from your previous remarks that ARL assumes that licenses are > contracts. :)
As I understand it from ARL Legal, licenses ARE contracts. I am not a lawyer and don't know if they are the same or not. I'd really rather not open up a can of worms regarding what they are, I just want to make sure that the ARL OSL is interoperable with Apache 2.0, that it is as close to being legally identical to it as possible when applied to anything that has copyright attached, and that the OSI and Apache are happy with it. Thanks, Cem Karan
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
