On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Richard Fontana <font...@sharpeleven.org> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:17:07PM +0000, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US) wrote: >> >> Once again, liability isn't the only issue; there are also copyright issues >> (for contributors), and IP issues. If we could solve the problem via a >> simple >> disclaimer of liability, we would. We need to handle ALL the issues. > > Even if you were correct in the assertions you've made about ARL code, > why is a new license needed for contributors other than ARL?
I'm assuming it's because they (ARL) don't have section 5 otherwise. ARL OSL can apply to public domain works and have a clause 5 to point to why contributors' code is under AL2.0. While arguably unnecessary, I believe I see where they're coming from, it's not hurting, and it's better in a document that equally gives from USG all AL2.0-for-public-domain-works including patent grant. Just my understanding of the needs of the OP. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
