Exactly. Thanks, Cem Karan
> -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Richard Fontana > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 12:39 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: 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 see (I think). So you want to approximately harmonize the treatment of US > government works outside the US with the treatment inside > the US, but not harmonize the treatment of US government works with the > treatment of non-US-government works. > > > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 05:33:57PM +0000, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US) wrote: > > No. The material can always be separated into two piles; stuff that > > has copyright attached, and stuff that does not have copyright > > attached. The stuff that has copyright attached is always released > > under the chosen OSI-approved license; everything else is released > > under CC0. Within the US, that means that material that has no > > copyright attached is in the public domain. CC0 makes this the same for > > jurisdictions outside of the US. > > > > In general, if a contribution has copyright attached, then the > > contributor will retain copyright (unless they choose to assign it to > > the US Government for some reason). To contribute, the contributor > > must agree to license the contribution to the USG under that project's > > chosen OSI-approved license (e.g. > > Apache 2.0). From then on, when the USG redistributes **that > > particular contribution**, it will be under that license (e.g. Apache > > 2.0). However, material that does not have copyright will be > > redistributed under CC0. This will result in a mosaic of material in > > each project, where some portions are under CC0, and others are under > > the OSI-approved license. You will need to use the version control system > > to determine which is which. > > > > 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 12:10 PM > > > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > 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-Caution-Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mi > > > > > l/blob/maste r/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-Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss-bounces@open > > > > > > > source.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-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-Caution-Caution-https://github.com/USArmyR > > > > > > > > esearchLab/A > > > > > > > > RL-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-Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.o > > > > > > > > rg/cgi-bin/m > > > > > > > > ailman/listi > > > > > > > > nfo/license- > > > > > > > > discuss > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org > > > > > > > Caution-Caution-Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org > > > > > > > /cgi-bin/mai > > > > > > > lman/listinf > > > > > > > o/license-discuss > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > License-discuss mailing list > > > > > > License-discuss@opensource.org > > > > > > Caution-Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/m > > > > > > ailman/listi > > > > > > nfo/license- > > > > > > discuss > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > License-discuss mailing list > > > > > License-discuss@opensource.org > > > > > Caution-Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mai > > > > > lman/listinf > > > > > o/license-discuss > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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
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