Then there would still need to be a disclaimer of warranty and liability, and there would still need be a way of settling the problems of foreign jurisdictions. The Government could write its own terms, but those terms would like not be widely recognized. CC0 is well-known, and acceptable to our lawyers. Public domain release without disclaimers of warranty and liability is not acceptable.
Thanks, Cem Karan > -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Richard Fontana > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 11:30 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] 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. > > > > > ---- > > Well the complication is mainly a response to Cem wanting the OSI to bless > his proposed approach. I think however that code.mil has > already rejected this sort of idea. > > I think the code.mil approach is much more elegant without introducing the > use of CC0. > > > > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 03:08:22PM +0000, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: > > Richard, > > > > It is very hard for me to take a complaint that CC0 not being OSI approved > > as a significant issue vs continued feet dragging when the OSI > won’t provide guidance on license asymmetry, won’t vote on NOSA v2.0 and had > the opportunity to pass CC0 years ago. > > > > CC0 is accepted as open source by the FSF and by the GSA (see Federal > > Source Code Policy examples). The fact that the OSI has not > approved CC0 is a “complication” of its own making. One easily solved with > an email from the OSI to CC requesting that CC resubmit CC0 > and then the OSI board approving it. > > > > Nigel > > > > On 3/1/17, 9:37 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Richard Fontana" > > <license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org on behalf of > font...@sharpeleven.org> wrote: > > > > I really like the approach as it currently exists. But why is use of > > CC0 necessary? If some work of the US government is in the public > > domain by virtue of the Copyright Act, there is no need to use > > CC0. Indeed, I would think use of CC0 by the Government is just as > > problematic, or non-problematic, as the use of any open source > > license, such as the Apache License 2.0. Strictly speaking, the use of > > CC0 assumes that you have copyright ownership. > > > > Only noting this because the fact that OSI has not approved CC0 makes > > this more complicated than the case where CC0 is not used at all. > > > > The code.mil folks discussed an earlier version of this approach with > > the OSI. But this is the first I've heard of using CC0. > > > > Richard > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 04:23:12PM +0000, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY > > RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: > > > All, the folks at code.mil came up with what may be a really, really > > good > > > idea; see > > > > > Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md. > > > > > > The basic idea is simple; when the Government releases code, it's in > > the > > > public domain (likely CC0). The project owners select an OSI-approved > > > license, and will only accept contributions to the project under > > their chosen > > > license[1]. Over time the code base becomes a mixture, some of which > > is under > > > CC0, and some of which is under the OSI-approved license. I've > > talked with > > > ARL's lawyers, and they are satisfied with this solution. Would OSI > > be happy > > > with this solution? That is, would OSI recognize the projects as > > being truly > > > Open Source, right from the start? The caveat is that some projects > > will be > > > 100% CC0 at the start, and can only use the chosen Open Source > > license on > > > those contributions that have copyright attached. Note that > > Government > > > projects that wish to make this claim would have to choose their > > license and > > > announce it on the project site so that everyone knows what they are > > licensing > > > their contributions under, which is the way that OSI can validate > > that the > > > project is keeping its end of the bargain at the start. > > > > > > If this will satisfy OSI, then I will gladly withdraw the ARL OSL from > > > consideration. If there are NASA or other Government folks on here, > > would > > > this solution satisfy your needs as well? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Cem Karan > > > > > > [1] There is also a form certifying that the contributor has the > > right to do > > > so, etc. The Army Research Laboratory's is at > > > > > Caution-https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions/blob/master/ARL%20Form%20- > %20266.pdf, > > > and is, unfortunately, only able to be opened in Adobe Acrobat. > > We're working > > > to fix that, but there are other requirements that will take some > > time. > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > License-discuss mailing list > > > License-discuss@opensource.org > > > > > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license- > > discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > > License-discuss mailing list > > License-discuss@opensource.org > > > > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license- > > discuss > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > License-discuss mailing list > > License-discuss@opensource.org > > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license- > > discuss > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
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
