Jim Wright wrote: > in the absence of action on CC0 that would not be unanimously supported to > say the least
I know that is true but I don't know what it means for this license-discuss@ list. I haven't personally voted on a license in years. According to several government folks here, government departments and others are already using CC0 for software. Profusely. Please don't blame me; neither Creative Commons nor I ever recommended CC0 for software. But that happened, because of those damned software patents that interfered with normal open source licensing by government departments and universities. TO ANYONE AT OSI WHO ACTUALLY VOTES: Please vote to list CC0 as an OSI-approved open source license. Even Jim Wright said, and he's right, "Something is certainly better than nothing, I agree...." Deal with patents separately. /Larry From: Jim Wright [mailto:jim.wri...@oracle.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 4:19 PM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Cc: Larry Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com>; cem.f.karan....@mail.mil Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1 We do agree for the most part, but not entirely here. I was more looking back to Cem’s original question about whether CC0 would ensure their projects are Open Source today, which it would not, in the absence of action on CC0 that would not be unanimously supported to say the least. My take is that they could better attend to this problem right now by choosing any existing OSI license, preferably one with a clear patent license, and if Cem is looking to ensure that their projects are Open Source in the immediate term, this is a path that requires nothing of the rest of us and little to nothing of them either IMHO. Of course my view is obviously colored by my take that CC0 is *not* a good model for open source and that it would have been a bad thing for it to have been approved - a license that specifically reserves rights of the author to pursue infringement claims against users is not a license we want to encourage the use of, by the government or anyone else... Best, Jim On Mar 1, 2017, at 3:34 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com <mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com> > wrote: Jim Wright wrote: > Something is certainly better than nothing, I agree, but ... Jim, I'm on your side on this. :-) I'm hoping that a U.S. government open source policy, someday published in the Federal Register and bearing the force of law, will also include an express patent pledge that we can all rely on. Copyright isn't enough. Maybe even UPL? Such a pledge could become a model for other large patent-holding institutions, such as universities, to give open source users reassurance that they are not patent infringers. That's a bigger topic than for here. It is largely up to that public Federal Register process that eventually may ensue. It has nothing to do with OSI's approval of CC0. This WE can do now on our own on behalf of government open source. /Larry From: Jim Wright [mailto:jim.wri...@oracle.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 2:59 PM To: lro...@rosenlaw.com <mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com> ; license-discuss@opensource.org <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 Something is certainly better than nothing, I agree, but I think many of us would rather have an express and broad license from all participants in a project, including the government, than to have to rely on less than well understood public domain dedications and waivers of patent rights that do not apply to all participants. Something closer to symmetry and broad coverage should be achievable here IMHO - the perfect may sometimes be the enemy of the good, but in this case, we can, I think, do better than CC0. YMMV of course. Best, Jim On Mar 1, 2017, at 2:01 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com <mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com> > wrote: Jim Wright wrote: > it seems odd to me to require a dedication to the public domain in any event > - stuff is either in the public domain by law or isn’t, and to whatever > extent it isn’t, we should have a copyright license, full stop. Similarly as > to patents, I don’t want to have to look at some ostensible policy on waiving > patent rights, we should all have a clearly scoped patent license for the > project, government and private contributors alike, and there is an easy > vehicle to achieve this, use an OSI approved license. Jim, regardless of which OSI-approved license(s) the U.S. government chooses for its distributed software, neither the "public domain" question nor the "patent license" question will EVER be fully answered for any particular software simply by reading those licenses. You have to look at the software itself. Of course, we could all sue each other and let the courts decide.... I'll be grateful for a published government policy – perhaps posted in the Federal Register someday – that reassures us of a commitment by government agencies to open source using any OSI-approved license. Including CC0. /Larry _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org <mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org <mailto: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
