> -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of John Cowan > Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 10:05 AM > 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 > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > <cem.f.karan....@mail.mil < Caution- > mailto:cem.f.karan....@mail.mil > > wrote: > > > OK, thank you, I'll contact them and see what they think. > > > Note that the DFSG #1-#9 are verbatim the same as OSD #1-#9, but the > interpretations may differ. (#10 is separate and unrelated in the > two definitions.) Note also that debian-legal does not control what > actually gets into Debian; that decision is in the hands of the trusted > committers. > > -- > John Cowan Caution-http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan < > Caution-http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan > co...@ccil.org < Caution- > mailto:co...@ccil.org >
I understand, and appreciate the concern. I'm not worried about Debian including ARL code; I'm concerned about Debian being precluded from including code because of actions on ARL's part. Basically, I want to make sure they have the option of using ARL code; we have to earn the privilege to be included in there. :) Thanks, Cem Karan
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
