I understand; ARL's policy is LONG, and skimming is just about the only way to not have your brain fry. :) That said, does it address your concerns about the patent issues?
Thanks, Cem Karan > -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 1:28 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. > > > ________________________________ > > > > Cem, > > Thanks. I missed that when skimming before. :). I think your materials are > ahead of what I've seen in the DOSA repo. > > One of the concerns I have (not speaking for my organization) are the same > ones that prompted the patent changes to Apache for ECL > V2.0. > > Copyright is easy, I and my team wrote our code. Patent are harder because we > as developers or even program managers are not always > aware of all patents owned or in progress by the far flung parts of a large > research organization. As I've stated before, I don't mind giving > away my work. I don't want to accidentally give away someone else's work > (patent). > > ECL is my natural conservative inclination over Apache. Most of what you see > under my name approved for open sourcerelease is actually > under NOSA. > > Nigel > > From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan....@mail.mil < > Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan....@mail.mil > > > Date: Wednesday, Mar 01, 2017, 12:40 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org <license-discuss@opensource.org < > Caution-mailto: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 > > That is actually a part of ARL's policy. If you haven't looked at the policy > yet, go toCaution-https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL- > Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions < > Caution-https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions > > > and take a look. > > Thanks, > Cem Karan > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: License-discuss > > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org < > > Caution-mailto:license-discuss- > boun...@opensource.org > ] On Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 12:23 PM > > 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. > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > OSI approval is not explicitly required under DOSA. It just says open > > source license. > > > > If DOSA explicitly defines the licensing authority I would prefer it be > > stated as any DOD approved open source license. > > > > That would insure that any projects we develop for sponsors and > > released as open source will be under a license that has been reviewed and > > accepted by DOD legal from both from a security as well as > compliance standpoint. > > From: Jim Wright <jwri...@commsoft.com < > > Caution-Caution-mailto:jwri...@commsoft.com > > > > Date: Wednesday, Mar 01, 2017, 11:53 AM > > To: license-discuss@opensource.org <license-discuss@opensource.org < > > Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org > > > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army > > Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1 > > > > Certainly the approach code.mil spells out to contributions seems ok > > without having to address the license issue at all, but these > > questions seem orthogonal to me. Cem seems to be trying to ensure > > that all open source projects operating using this process are under > > an OSI approved license, which appears to require them to pick one (or > > several) FOSS licenses to actually apply. CC0 doesn’t work for that > > purpose because it’s not OSI approved anyway and also doesn’t have a > > patent license, but observing this doesn’t solve Cem’s problem of how > > to license this stuff in a way that *is* OSI approved, which I think > > is what he’s getting at. (Feel free to correct me…) > > > > > > > On Mar 1, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Richard Fontana <font...@sharpeleven.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > License-discuss mailing list > > License-discuss@opensource.org > > Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ > > license-discuss < Caution-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
