I've read it. I've gotten in contact with the code.mil folks, and we'll be discussing it in person shortly.
Thanks, Cem Karan > -----Original Message----- > From: Smith, McCoy [mailto:mccoy.sm...@intel.com] > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 1:01 PM > To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org; Karan, Cem F CIV > USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan....@mail.mil> > Subject: RE: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] 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. > > > ________________________________ > > > > > For what it’s worth (I think it is generally pretty relevant), the DoD > published a draft “Agreement” that is intended to address the issue of > there being no US copyright in works authored by the US Government: > > > Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/LICENSE-agreement.md#draft-defense-open-source- > agreement < > Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/LICENSE-agreement.md#draft-defense-open- > source-agreement > > > > > I find that Agreement somewhat strange in that it says it is an Agreement > (and a license) and then refers back to an associated open > source license appended to the software, but it seems to me that what they > are trying to get at is essentially converting the appended > open source license into a contract to the extent that there is > non-copyrighted material distributed by the DoD, such that all the > provisions of the open source license would apply to that material but not > via license but instead via contract. > > > > I would think that it might be worth synching up the folks who are writing > the ARL OSL with the folks promulgating the draft DoD open > source agreement, as they seem to be pursuing the same goal but in different > ways and through different channels. > > > > > > From: License-discuss > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org]On Behalf Of Lawrence > Rosen > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 9:50 AM > To: 'Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)'; license-discuss@opensource.org > Cc: Lawrence Rosen > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1 > > > > Cem Karan wrote: > > > I'm not a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer, I don't pretend to be one on TV or > > anywhere else, and nothing I say should be construed as legal > advice. > > > > In that situation, it would be unfair to ask you my question directly, so > please forward my email directly to your lawyer(s). I'd like to hear > from them directly or on this list. > > > > Cem Karan wrote: > > . . . the truly serious issue is > severabilityCaution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability < Caution- > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability > ). The concern is that if the > USG uses a license that depends on copyright (e.g., Apache 2.0), > and those clauses are declared unenforceable by the courts, then it may be > possible to declare the entire license unenforceable. > > > > Larry Rosen asked: > > Apache-licensed software also may (and frequently does) contain public domain > components. Are you suggesting that "severability" is a > potential problem with Apache software? > > > > /Larry > > > > Lawrence Rosen > > Rosenlaw (Caution-www.rosenlaw.com < Caution-http://www.rosenlaw.com > ) > > 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 > > Cell: 707-478-8932
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
