On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:39:01PM +0000, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: > I see your points about the Apache license vs. CC0, but the reason CC0 is > more > palatable is because we're not trying to make any restrictions based on > copyright. We're trying to meet the spirit of US law, and our lawyers > believe > that CC0 has the best chance of doing that. > > As to your second point, that is PRECISELY what I'm proposing. The material > that has copyright attached will be accepted under the OSI-approved license > that the project controllers wish to use, and all other material will be > distributed under CC0. This way the US Government is not claiming copyright > where none exists.
So your proposal is: US government releases simultaneously under CC0 (for the US case) and some designated open source license (for the non-US case)? I like the code.mil approach better. (This doesn't have much to do with the fact that CC0 is not OSI-approved - I would have a similar reaction to, say, use of the Free Public License (aka Zero Clause BSD).) BTW, CC0 does not have a limitation of liability provision as far as I can tell (not counting the prefatory one that applies only to Creative Commons Corp.). > > The approach I understand code.mil to be taking is that a given project > > will > > have an open source license and that license will cover > > anything that isn't statutory public domain, including both contributions > > coming in through the DCO and code released by the US > > government that may be public domain in the US but not elsewhere. > > > > See: > > Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md#1-license > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note that I am not a lawyer, and none of this should be construed as > > > legal advice. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Cem Karan > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: License-discuss > > > > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of > > > > Richard Fontana > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 9:37 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > 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-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-Caution-https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Sour > > > > > ce-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-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listi > > > > > nfo/license- > > > > > discuss > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > License-discuss mailing list > > > > License-discuss@opensource.org > > > > Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinf > > > > o/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 > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss