> -----Original Message----- > From: Wheeler, David A [mailto:dwhee...@ida.org] > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 2:52 PM > To: legal-disc...@apache.org > Cc: Karl Fogel <kfo...@red-bean.com>; Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com>; > license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: RE: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License proposal > > William A Rowe Jr [Caution-mailto:wr...@rowe-clan.net]: > > Unsure how this news might apply but it sounds like changes in overall > > policy might gain some traction to address this... If OMB came up > with the rational of either approving AL 2.0 as is, or made a compelling > case for AL 2.1 clarifications. > Caution-https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/08/the-white-house-just-released-the-federal-source-code-policy-to-help-government-agencies- > go-open-source/ > > The detailed policy is here: > Caution-https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2016/m_16_21.pdf > > That new US federal government policy doesn't directly apply to many of > Cem's cases. The policy doesn't apply to National Security > Systems (NSS), and I expect that a lot of what the Army research labs do > would be classified as NSS. The policy certainly presses for the > release of open source software in general; it requires that a minimum of > 20% of custom-developed code be released as OSS in each year > for 3 years. It does note (in its definitions) that "custom developed code" > includes software developed by government officials as part of > their official duties. The policy itself does not delve into this kind of > legal analysis.
The current lack of legal analysis is the problem. If they had complete analysis and full guidance about the license, we wouldn't be here at all! 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
