Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

2017-02-27 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
OK, I've pushed it forward to the guys in charge of code.gov and the Federal 
Source Code policy; I'll bring it up with them on Thursday as well.  I don't 
know if they'll support it, nor do I know if I'm allowed to point the list to 
where the comments are[1], but if I am, I'll aim everyone there.  My only 
request is that everyone tries to get **all** their points in on the first 
round; that way we can limit the number of rounds we have to go through on the 
Federal Register (each round takes months to complete).

Thanks,
Cem Karan

[1] I'd be **very** surprised if I wasn't allowed to tell people about 
something in the Federal Register, but the law can be... unexpected.

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 3:54 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] 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 Karan wrote:
>
> > The Federal Register process may be the best way forwards.  I'll bring it 
> > up in the next Federal Source Code policy meeting.
>
>
>
> That may be a good solution. The Federal Register process requires public 
> notice; public hearings; public feedback; written proposals
> based on legal reasoning; etc. It is not an in-house in-government 
> discussion. :-)
>
>
>
> /Larry



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

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

2017-02-27 Thread Lawrence Rosen 
Cem Karan wrote:

> The Federal Register process may be the best way forwards.  I'll bring it up 
> in the next Federal Source Code policy meeting.

 

That may be a good solution. The Federal Register process requires public 
notice; public hearings; public feedback; written proposals based on legal 
reasoning; etc. It is not an in-house in-government discussion. :-)

 

/Larry

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

2017-02-27 Thread Stephen Michael Kellat 
The problem is that I do get around a lot and have done work for a surprising 
number of people over the past couple of years.  I do kinda get lost 
remembering whose hat I'm wearing.  On occasion I meddle in tax law at work 
having to help taxpayers figure things out.  Disclaimers like that are the 
price I pay for having a pay check working for the US Treasury.  

Of course, while everybody was responding I was having a lovely chat with the 
Office of Special Counsel about the Hatch Act on my day off.  I have to get 
back to drafting an OSC-13 referral.

On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 11:57:03 -0800
"Lawrence Rosen" <lro...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:

> Stephen Michael Kellat referred to his standard disclaimer at
> <http://skellat.freeshell.org/blog/pages/about-this-blog.html>
> http://skellat.freeshell.org/blog/pages/about-this-blog.html:
> 
>  
> 
> About this blog
> 
> This site does not reflect the opinions, views, or official actions
> of any of the following entities:
> 
> The United States Government
> 
> Any agency or instrumentality of the United States Government
> 
> Canonical, Limited
> 
> The State of Ohio
> 
> Any agency or instrumentality of the State of Ohio
> 
> Lakeland Community College
> 
> West Avenue Church of Christ or any operational function thereof
> 
> The organizing team for the Music Along The River festival
> 
> The Ashtabula County Metroparks Board
> 
> Others potentially yet to be mentioned
> 
> The views herein are solely those of the author.
> 
>  
> 
> On the other hand, my emails are usually signed and "licensed under
> CC-BY-4.0" with permission to "please copy freely." 
> 
>  
> 
> If there is likely to be confusion that my words will be interpreted
> as attorney-advice rather than merely conversational like everyone
> else's words on this email list, I add the following brief disclaimer:
> 
>  
> 
> "If this were legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill."
> 
>  
> 
> I learned that email disclaimer from Mark Lemley, who knows more about
> intellectual property law than anyone on this list. Such is the
> discussion freedom of a college professor like Lemley or a small
> country lawyer like me from the backwoods of California. You
> government lawyers give up too much freedom to speak up.
> 
>  
> 
> Most of the rest of the attorney disclaimers on emails sent to most
> open source discussion lists are just words that attorneys recite in
> church. Such emails are effectively though not literally public
> domain, or at least their ideas are.
> 
>  
> 
> At your suggestion, Stephen, I won't bother with a FOIA request "to
> the government lawyers." :-)
> 
>  
> 
> /Larry
> 
>  
> 
> Lawrence Rosen
> 
> Rosenlaw (www.rosenlaw.com) 
> 
> 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
> 
> Cell: 707-478-8932 
> 
>  
> 
> This email is licensed under CC-BY-4.0. Please copy freely.  
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-
> From: Stephen Michael Kellat [mailto:smkel...@yahoo.com] 
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 11:11 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Cc: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research
> Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
> 
>  
> 
> I am off-duty from my job over at Treasury today so I guess I can say
> something.  Standard disclaimer incorporated by reference from
> presentation here:
> <http://skellat.freeshell.org/blog/pages/about-this-blog.html>
> http://skellat.freeshell.org/blog/pages/about-this-blog.html
> 
> []  
> 
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

2017-02-27 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
What you just said (the paragraph about the FOIA exemption) seems to be spot 
on.  Our legal counsel **will not** comment on this list.  Full stop.

The Federal Register process may be the best way forwards.  I'll bring it up 
in the next Federal Source Code policy meeting.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Stephen Michael Kellat
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 2:11 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Cc: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] 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 am off-duty from my job over at Treasury today so I guess I can say 
> something.  Standard disclaimer incorporated by reference from
> presentation here: 
> Caution-http://skellat.freeshell.org/blog/pages/about-this-blog.html
>
> One main exemption to FOIA is that internal pre-decisional work product of 
> lawyers is exempt from disclosure.  Any contribution on this
> list could be considered privileged communication by those lawyers.  I doubt 
> there would be enough caveats and disclaimers to keep any
> communication on-list from being considered possible official agency action 
> subject to the Administrative Procedures Act.  A lone non-
> lawyer might be able to skirt the APA barely but once the lawyers come in 
> then the machinery of government would kick in and things
> would need publishing in the Federal Register.
>
> For as long as this issue has been running, moving things over to actually 
> having the Army running an inquiry opened up in the Federal
> Register where the public can comment and attorneys for the Army can respond 
> probably will be worthwhile.  For as much as this list can
> be reactive, it is time for DoD and Army to put their cards on the table for 
> feedback.
>
> Stephen Michael Kellat
>
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 10:42:59 -0800
> "Lawrence Rosen" <lro...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>
> > Cem Karan wrote:
> >
> > > As for our legal counsel posting to this list directly, they've told
> > > me in the past that they won't do that because it violates some
> > > statute or contract clause[1].
> >
> > [1] I'm not sure what exactly, they've explained it to me, but I keep
> > forgetting the finer details.
> >
> >
> >
> > I apologize for again writing to you, Cem, since you are doing a great
> > job at this thread, but it is the only way I know to get my message to
> > your attorneys:
> >
> >
> >
> > Their behavior in funneling their license to this public list via a
> > non-lawyer is insulting to those of us on this list who are lawyers
> > and who well understand the law of copyright and open source. They are
> > also insulting the non-lawyers on this list who know more about open
> > source licenses than most lawyers in your government agency apparently
> > do. Please ask them to talk to us as professionals.
> >
> >
> >
> > As far as some "statute or contract clause" that would prevent a
> > lawyer from justifying his or her own submission of a license to this
> > public open source mail list, I doubt that!
> >
> >
> >
> > I am personally so frustrated at this unnecessary barrier that I might
> > file a FOIA request to force them to speak up publicly about their
> > public legal issue that concerns all of us who use the Apache license
> > with public domain components in our software. That's not the way the
> > open source community works out such issues.
> >
> >
> >
> > /Larry
> >
> >
> >
> > Lawrence Rosen
> >
> > Rosenlaw (Caution-www.rosenlaw.com)
> >
> > 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
> >
> > Cell: 707-478-8932
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: License-discuss
> > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org]
> > On Behalf Of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) Sent: Monday,
> > February 27, 2017 10:10 AM To: lro...@rosenlaw.com;
> > license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD
> > Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL
> > OSL) Version 0.4.1
> >
> >
> >
> > I've forwarded your question to

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

2017-02-27 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
I've already gotten in contact with her, and I'm hoping to have a face to face 
with either her or someone else from DDS (the people behind code.mil) on 
Thursday at the next Federal Source Code Policy meeting.  Thank you for looking 
her up though!

As for punting it upstairs, I've been pushing everyone I can on this.  My 
feeling is that ARL is leading most of the Government in terms of figuring it 
out at this point, and that means that our analysis is where we're at.  So, if 
you have case law or Federal law that I can look at that says we can **safely** 
use the standard OSI-approved licenses on works that don't have copyright 
attached, please let me know.  And remember that 'safely' in this context means 
that the license's terms remain valid even though the work is in the public 
domain.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: Tzeng, Nigel H. [mailto:nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu]
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 1:53 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org; Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
> <cem.f.karan@mail.mil>
> Cc: feedb...@dds.mil; sharon.wo...@dds.mil
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] 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, Sharon Woods is the counsel on the DDS.  That’s probably not her email 
> address above…it’s just a shot in the dark.  But maybe
> feedb...@dds.mil will get you the right email or she might join this 
> discussion.:)
> 
> 
> 
> I still say ARL should punt the problem upstairs and let OSD, DISA or 
> Department of Army create a suitable open source agreement for all
> of DoD.  On first reading I don’t think the Defense Open Source Agreement 
> meets your needs though.
> 
> 
> 
> From: License-discuss <license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org> on behalf of 
> "Smith, McCoy" <mccoy.sm...@intel.com>
> Reply-To: License Discuss <license-discuss@opensource.org>
> Date: Monday, February 27, 2017 at 1:01 PM
> To: "lro...@rosenlaw.com" <lro...@rosenlaw.com>, License Discuss 
> <license-discuss@opensource.org>, "'Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY
> RDECOM ARL (US)'" <cem.f.karan@mail.mil>
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research 
> Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
> 
> 
> 
> For what it’s worth (I think it is generally pretty relevant), the DoD 
> published a draft “Agreement” that is intended to address the issue of
> there being no US copyright in works authored by the US Government:
> 
> 
> Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/LICENSE-agreement.md#draft-defense-open-source-
> agreement < 
> Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/LICENSE-agreement.md#draft-defense-open-
> source-agreement >
> 
> 
> 
> I find that Agreement somewhat strange in that it says it is an Agreement 
> (and a license) and then refers back to an associated open
> source license appended to the software, but it seems to me that what they 
> are trying to get at is essentially converting the appended
> open source license into a contract to the extent that there is 
> non-copyrighted material distributed by the DoD, such that all the
> provisions of the open source license would apply to that material but not 
> via license but instead via contract.
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that it might be worth synching up the folks who are writing 
> the ARL OSL with the folks promulgating the draft DoD open
> source agreement, as they seem to be pursuing the same goal but in different 
> ways and through different channels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: License-discuss 
> [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org]On Behalf Of Lawrence 
> Rosen
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 9:50 AM
> To: 'Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)'; license-discuss@opensource.org
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research 
> Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
> 
> 
> 
> Cem Karan wrote:
> 
> > I'm not a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer, I don't pretend to be one on TV or 
> > anywhere else, and nothing I say should be construed as legal
> advice.
> 
> 
> 
> In that situation, it would be unfair to ask you my question directly, so 
> please forward my email directly to your lawyer(s). I'd like to hear
> f

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

2017-02-27 Thread Lawrence Rosen 
Stephen Michael Kellat referred to his standard disclaimer at
<http://skellat.freeshell.org/blog/pages/about-this-blog.html>
http://skellat.freeshell.org/blog/pages/about-this-blog.html:

 

About this blog

This site does not reflect the opinions, views, or official actions of any
of the following entities:

The United States Government

Any agency or instrumentality of the United States Government

Canonical, Limited

The State of Ohio

Any agency or instrumentality of the State of Ohio

Lakeland Community College

West Avenue Church of Christ or any operational function thereof

The organizing team for the Music Along The River festival

The Ashtabula County Metroparks Board

Others potentially yet to be mentioned

The views herein are solely those of the author.

 

On the other hand, my emails are usually signed and "licensed under
CC-BY-4.0" with permission to "please copy freely." 

 

If there is likely to be confusion that my words will be interpreted as
attorney-advice rather than merely conversational like everyone else's words
on this email list, I add the following brief disclaimer:

 

"If this were legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill."

 

I learned that email disclaimer from Mark Lemley, who knows more about
intellectual property law than anyone on this list. Such is the discussion
freedom of a college professor like Lemley or a small country lawyer like me
from the backwoods of California. You government lawyers give up too much
freedom to speak up.

 

Most of the rest of the attorney disclaimers on emails sent to most open
source discussion lists are just words that attorneys recite in church. Such
emails are effectively though not literally public domain, or at least their
ideas are.

 

At your suggestion, Stephen, I won't bother with a FOIA request "to the
government lawyers." :-)

 

/Larry

 

Lawrence Rosen

Rosenlaw (www.rosenlaw.com) 

3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482

Cell: 707-478-8932 

 

This email is licensed under CC-BY-4.0. Please copy freely.  

 

-Original Message-
From: Stephen Michael Kellat [mailto:smkel...@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 11:11 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Cc: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research
Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

 

I am off-duty from my job over at Treasury today so I guess I can say
something.  Standard disclaimer incorporated by reference from presentation
here:  <http://skellat.freeshell.org/blog/pages/about-this-blog.html>
http://skellat.freeshell.org/blog/pages/about-this-blog.html

[]  

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

2017-02-27 Thread Christopher Sean Morrison 

> One main exemption to FOIA is that internal pre-decisional work product of 
> lawyers is exempt from disclosure.  Any contribution on this list could be 
> considered privileged communication by those lawyers.  I doubt there would be 
> enough caveats and disclaimers to keep any communication on-list from being 
> considered possible official agency action subject to the Administrative 
> Procedures Act.  A lone non-lawyer might be able to skirt the APA barely but 
> once the lawyers come in then the machinery of government would kick in and 
> things would need publishing in the Federal Register.

Never hurts to file a FOIA.  Some agencies heavily frown on denying requests 
even when they are not obligated to disclose because it’s terrible PR.  Case 
point, numerous filings with NSA.

> For as long as this issue has been running, moving things over to actually 
> having the Army running an inquiry opened up in the Federal Register where 
> the public can comment and attorneys for the Army can respond probably will 
> be worthwhile.  For as much as this list can be reactive, it is time for DoD 
> and Army to put their cards on the table for feedback.

This is essentially what happened with the White House’s Federal Open Source 
Code Policy [1].  The problem is no case law on several key points and there 
probably won’t be much progress until at least one agency is burned or 
vindicated in court.  Until then, agencies are getting immense internal 
pressures to participate in open source without much of any official guidance 
because it’s entirely counter-culture.

If anything, it’s great to see efforts like ARL and White House pushing through 
formal guidance on CC0, and even the recent awkward code.mil effort saying 
“wrap it in a contract” because the devs sitting at desks need something, 
anything, yesterday. 

Cheers!
Sean


 [1] https://sourcecode.cio.gov 

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

2017-02-27 Thread Stephen Michael Kellat 
I am off-duty from my job over at Treasury today so I guess I can say 
something.  Standard disclaimer incorporated by reference from presentation 
here: http://skellat.freeshell.org/blog/pages/about-this-blog.html

One main exemption to FOIA is that internal pre-decisional work product of 
lawyers is exempt from disclosure.  Any contribution on this list could be 
considered privileged communication by those lawyers.  I doubt there would be 
enough caveats and disclaimers to keep any communication on-list from being 
considered possible official agency action subject to the Administrative 
Procedures Act.  A lone non-lawyer might be able to skirt the APA barely but 
once the lawyers come in then the machinery of government would kick in and 
things would need publishing in the Federal Register.

For as long as this issue has been running, moving things over to actually 
having the Army running an inquiry opened up in the Federal Register where the 
public can comment and attorneys for the Army can respond probably will be 
worthwhile.  For as much as this list can be reactive, it is time for DoD and 
Army to put their cards on the table for feedback.

Stephen Michael Kellat

On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 10:42:59 -0800
"Lawrence Rosen" <lro...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:

> Cem Karan wrote:
> 
> > As for our legal counsel posting to this list directly, they've
> > told me in the past that they won't do that because it violates
> > some statute or contract clause[1].  
> 
> [1] I'm not sure what exactly, they've explained it to me, but I keep
> forgetting the finer details.
> 
>  
> 
> I apologize for again writing to you, Cem, since you are doing a
> great job at this thread, but it is the only way I know to get my
> message to your attorneys:
> 
>  
> 
> Their behavior in funneling their license to this public list via a
> non-lawyer is insulting to those of us on this list who are lawyers
> and who well understand the law of copyright and open source. They
> are also insulting the non-lawyers on this list who know more about
> open source licenses than most lawyers in your government agency
> apparently do. Please ask them to talk to us as professionals.
> 
>  
> 
> As far as some "statute or contract clause" that would prevent a
> lawyer from justifying his or her own submission of a license to this
> public open source mail list, I doubt that! 
> 
>  
> 
> I am personally so frustrated at this unnecessary barrier that I
> might file a FOIA request to force them to speak up publicly about
> their public legal issue that concerns all of us who use the Apache
> license with public domain components in our software. That's not the
> way the open source community works out such issues.
> 
>  
> 
> /Larry 
> 
>  
> 
> Lawrence Rosen
> 
> Rosenlaw (www.rosenlaw.com) 
> 
> 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
> 
> Cell: 707-478-8932 
> 
>  
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org]
> On Behalf Of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) Sent: Monday,
> February 27, 2017 10:10 AM To: lro...@rosenlaw.com;
> license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss]
> [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source
> License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
> 
>  
> 
> I've forwarded your question to our internal counsel, and I'm hoping
> to get a message back in a day or two.  I'll post it when they get
> back to me.
> 
>  
> 
> As for our legal counsel posting to this list directly, they've told
> me in the past that they won't do that because it violates some
> statute or contract clause[1].  So, I apologize if I have to act as a
> filter, but that is the best I can do at the moment.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Cem Karan
> 
>  
> 
> [1] I'm not sure what exactly, they've explained it to me, but I keep
> forgetting the finer details.
> 
>  
> 
> > -Original Message-
> 
> > From: Lawrence Rosen [ <mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com>
> > mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com]
> 
> > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 12:50 PM
> 
> > To: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
> 
> > < <mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil> cem.f.karan@mail.mil>;
> > <mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org>
> > license-discuss@opensource.org
> 
> > Cc: Lawrence Rosen < <mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com>
> > lro...@rosenlaw.com>
> 
> > Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] U.S. Army
> > Research 
> 
> > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
> 
> > 
> 
> > All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please
> &g

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

2017-02-27 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
I've forwarded your frustrations onwards; I don't know what the response will 
be.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 1:43 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org; Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
> <cem.f.karan@mail.mil>
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
> Subject: RE: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] 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 Karan wrote:
>
> > As for our legal counsel posting to this list directly, they've told me in 
> > the past that they won't do that because it violates some statute
> or contract clause[1].
>
> [1] I'm not sure what exactly, they've explained it to me, but I keep 
> forgetting the finer details.
>
>
>
> I apologize for again writing to you, Cem, since you are doing a great job 
> at this thread, but it is the only way I know to get my message to
> your attorneys:
>
>
>
> Their behavior in funneling their license to this public list via a 
> non-lawyer is insulting to those of us on this list who are lawyers and who
> well understand the law of copyright and open source. They are also 
> insulting the non-lawyers on this list who know more about open
> source licenses than most lawyers in your government agency apparently do. 
> Please ask them to talk to us as professionals.
>
>
>
> As far as some "statute or contract clause" that would prevent a lawyer from 
> justifying his or her own submission of a license to this
> public open source mail list, I doubt that!
>
>
>
> I am personally so frustrated at this unnecessary barrier that I might file 
> a FOIA request to force them to speak up publicly about their
> public legal issue that concerns all of us who use the Apache license with 
> public domain components in our software. That's not the way
> the open source community works out such issues.
>
>
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
> Lawrence Rosen
>
> Rosenlaw (Caution-www.rosenlaw.com)
>
> 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
>
> Cell: 707-478-8932
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss 
> [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Karan, 
> Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL
> (US)
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 10:10 AM
> To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research 
> Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
>
>
>
> I've forwarded your question to our internal counsel, and I'm hoping to get 
> a message back in a day or two.  I'll post it when they get back
> to me.
>
>
>
> As for our legal counsel posting to this list directly, they've told me in 
> the past that they won't do that because it violates some statute or
> contract clause[1].  So, I apologize if I have to act as a filter, but that 
> is the best I can do at the moment.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Cem Karan
>
>
>
> [1] I'm not sure what exactly, they've explained it to me, but I keep 
> forgetting the finer details.
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
>
> > From: Lawrence Rosen [Caution-mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com < 
> > Caution-mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com > ]
>
> > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 12:50 PM
>
> > To: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
>
> > <cem.f.karan@mail.mil < Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil > >; 
> > license-discuss@opensource.org < Caution-mailto:license-
> disc...@opensource.org >
>
> > Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com < 
> > Caution-mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com > >
>
> > Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] 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 Karan wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > I'm

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

2017-02-27 Thread Tzeng, Nigel H. 
Cem, Sharon Woods is the counsel on the DDS.  That’s probably not her email 
address above…it’s just a shot in the dark.  But maybe feedb...@dds.mil will 
get you the right email or she might join this discussion. ☺

I still say ARL should punt the problem upstairs and let OSD, DISA or 
Department of Army create a suitable open source agreement for all of DoD.  On 
first reading I don’t think the Defense Open Source Agreement meets your needs 
though.

From: License-discuss <license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org> on behalf of 
"Smith, McCoy" <mccoy.sm...@intel.com>
Reply-To: License Discuss <license-discuss@opensource.org>
Date: Monday, February 27, 2017 at 1:01 PM
To: "lro...@rosenlaw.com" <lro...@rosenlaw.com>, License Discuss 
<license-discuss@opensource.org>, "'Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)'" 
<cem.f.karan....@mail.mil>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research 
Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

For what it’s worth (I think it is generally pretty relevant), the DoD 
published a draft “Agreement” that is intended to address the issue of there 
being no US copyright in works authored by the US Government:

https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/LICENSE-agreement.md#draft-defense-open-source-agreement

I find that Agreement somewhat strange in that it says it is an Agreement (and 
a license) and then refers back to an associated open source license appended 
to the software, but it seems to me that what they are trying to get at is 
essentially converting the appended open source license into a contract to the 
extent that there is non-copyrighted material distributed by the DoD, such that 
all the provisions of the open source license would apply to that material but 
not via license but instead via contract.

I would think that it might be worth synching up the folks who are writing the 
ARL OSL with the folks promulgating the draft DoD open source agreement, as 
they seem to be pursuing the same goal but in different ways and through 
different channels.


From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf 
Of Lawrence Rosen
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 9:50 AM
To: 'Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)'; license-discuss@opensource.org
Cc: Lawrence Rosen
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research 
Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1


Cem Karan wrote:

> I'm not a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer, I don't pretend to be one on TV or 
> anywhere else, and nothing I say should be construed as legal advice.



In that situation, it would be unfair to ask you my question directly, so 
please forward my email directly to your lawyer(s). I'd like to hear from them 
directly or on this list.



Cem Karan wrote:

. . . the truly serious issue is severability 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability).  The concern is that if the USG 
uses a license that depends on copyright (e.g., Apache 2.0), and those clauses 
are declared unenforceable by the courts, then it may be possible to declare 
the entire license unenforceable.



Larry Rosen asked:

Apache-licensed software also may (and frequently does) contain public domain 
components. Are you suggesting that "severability" is a potential problem with 
Apache software?



/Larry



Lawrence Rosen

Rosenlaw (www.rosenlaw.com<http://www.rosenlaw.com>)

3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482

Cell: 707-478-8932
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

2017-02-27 Thread Lawrence Rosen 
Cem Karan wrote:

> As for our legal counsel posting to this list directly, they've told me in 
> the past that they won't do that because it violates some statute or contract 
> clause[1].  

[1] I'm not sure what exactly, they've explained it to me, but I keep 
forgetting the finer details.

 

I apologize for again writing to you, Cem, since you are doing a great job at 
this thread, but it is the only way I know to get my message to your attorneys:

 

Their behavior in funneling their license to this public list via a non-lawyer 
is insulting to those of us on this list who are lawyers and who well 
understand the law of copyright and open source. They are also insulting the 
non-lawyers on this list who know more about open source licenses than most 
lawyers in your government agency apparently do. Please ask them to talk to us 
as professionals.

 

As far as some "statute or contract clause" that would prevent a lawyer from 
justifying his or her own submission of a license to this public open source 
mail list, I doubt that! 

 

I am personally so frustrated at this unnecessary barrier that I might file a 
FOIA request to force them to speak up publicly about their public legal issue 
that concerns all of us who use the Apache license with public domain 
components in our software. That's not the way the open source community works 
out such issues.

 

/Larry 

 

Lawrence Rosen

Rosenlaw (www.rosenlaw.com) 

3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482

Cell: 707-478-8932 

 

-Original Message-
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf 
Of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 10:10 AM
To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research 
Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

 

I've forwarded your question to our internal counsel, and I'm hoping to get a 
message back in a day or two.  I'll post it when they get back to me.

 

As for our legal counsel posting to this list directly, they've told me in the 
past that they won't do that because it violates some statute or contract 
clause[1].  So, I apologize if I have to act as a filter, but that is the best 
I can do at the moment.

 

Thanks,

Cem Karan

 

[1] I'm not sure what exactly, they've explained it to me, but I keep 
forgetting the finer details.

 

> -Original Message-

> From: Lawrence Rosen [ <mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com> 
> mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com]

> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 12:50 PM

> To: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 

> < <mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil> cem.f.karan@mail.mil>;  
> <mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org> license-discuss@opensource.org

> Cc: Lawrence Rosen < <mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com> lro...@rosenlaw.com>

> Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] 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 Karan wrote:

> 

> > I'm not a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer, I don't pretend to be one on 

> > TV or anywhere else, and nothing I say should be construed as legal

> advice.

> 

> 

> 

> In that situation, it would be unfair to ask you my question directly, 

> so please forward my email directly to your lawyer(s). I'd like to 

> hear from them directly or on this list.

> 

> 

> 

> Cem Karan wrote:

> 

> . . . the truly serious issue is severability 

> Caution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability < Caution- 

>  <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability > ).  The concern is that 

> if the USG uses a license that depends on copyright (e.g., Apache 

> 2.0), and those clauses are declared unenforceable by the courts, then 

> it may be possible to declare the entire license unenforceable.

> 

> 

> 

> Larry Rosen asked:

> 

> Apache-licensed software also may (and frequently does) contain public 

> domain components. Are you suggesting that "severability" is a 

> potential problem with Apache software?

> 

> 

> 

> /Larry

> 

> 

> 

> Lawrence Rosen

> 

> Rosenlaw (Caution-www.rosenlaw.com)

> 

> 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482

> 

> Cell: 707-478-8932

 

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

2017-02-27 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
I've read it.  I've gotten in contact with the code.mil folks, and we'll be 
discussing it in person shortly.  

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: Smith, McCoy [mailto:mccoy.sm...@intel.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 1:01 PM
> To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org; Karan, Cem F CIV 
> USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan@mail.mil>
> Subject: RE: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For what it’s worth (I think it is generally pretty relevant), the DoD 
> published a draft “Agreement” that is intended to address the issue of
> there being no US copyright in works authored by the US Government:
> 
> 
> Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/LICENSE-agreement.md#draft-defense-open-source-
> agreement < 
> Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/LICENSE-agreement.md#draft-defense-open-
> source-agreement >
> 
> 
> 
> I find that Agreement somewhat strange in that it says it is an Agreement 
> (and a license) and then refers back to an associated open
> source license appended to the software, but it seems to me that what they 
> are trying to get at is essentially converting the appended
> open source license into a contract to the extent that there is 
> non-copyrighted material distributed by the DoD, such that all the
> provisions of the open source license would apply to that material but not 
> via license but instead via contract.
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that it might be worth synching up the folks who are writing 
> the ARL OSL with the folks promulgating the draft DoD open
> source agreement, as they seem to be pursuing the same goal but in different 
> ways and through different channels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: License-discuss 
> [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org]On Behalf Of Lawrence 
> Rosen
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 9:50 AM
> To: 'Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)'; license-discuss@opensource.org
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research 
> Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
> 
> 
> 
> Cem Karan wrote:
> 
> > I'm not a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer, I don't pretend to be one on TV or 
> > anywhere else, and nothing I say should be construed as legal
> advice.
> 
> 
> 
> In that situation, it would be unfair to ask you my question directly, so 
> please forward my email directly to your lawyer(s). I'd like to hear
> from them directly or on this list.
> 
> 
> 
> Cem Karan wrote:
> 
> . . . the truly serious issue is 
> severabilityCaution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability < Caution-
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability > ).  The concern is that if the 
> USG uses a license that depends on copyright (e.g., Apache 2.0),
> and those clauses are declared unenforceable by the courts, then it may be 
> possible to declare the entire license unenforceable.
> 
> 
> 
> Larry Rosen asked:
> 
> Apache-licensed software also may (and frequently does) contain public domain 
> components. Are you suggesting that "severability" is a
> potential problem with Apache software?
> 
> 
> 
> /Larry
> 
> 
> 
> Lawrence Rosen
> 
> Rosenlaw (Caution-www.rosenlaw.com < Caution-http://www.rosenlaw.com > )
> 
> 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
> 
> Cell: 707-478-8932



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

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

2017-02-27 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
I've forwarded your question to our internal counsel, and I'm hoping to get a 
message back in a day or two.  I'll post it when they get back to me.

As for our legal counsel posting to this list directly, they've told me in the 
past that they won't do that because it violates some statute or contract 
clause[1].  So, I apologize if I have to act as a filter, but that is the best 
I can do at the moment.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

[1] I'm not sure what exactly, they've explained it to me, but I keep 
forgetting the finer details.

> -Original Message-
> From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 12:50 PM
> To: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) ; 
> license-discuss@opensource.org
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen 
> Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] 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 Karan wrote:
>
> > I'm not a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer, I don't pretend to be one on TV or 
> > anywhere else, and nothing I say should be construed as legal
> advice.
>
>
>
> In that situation, it would be unfair to ask you my question directly, so 
> please forward my email directly to your lawyer(s). I'd like to hear
> from them directly or on this list.
>
>
>
> Cem Karan wrote:
>
> . . . the truly serious issue is severability 
> Caution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability < Caution-
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability > ).  The concern is that if the 
> USG uses a license that depends on copyright (e.g., Apache 2.0),
> and those clauses are declared unenforceable by the courts, then it may be 
> possible to declare the entire license unenforceable.
>
>
>
> Larry Rosen asked:
>
> Apache-licensed software also may (and frequently does) contain public 
> domain components. Are you suggesting that "severability" is a
> potential problem with Apache software?
>
>
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
> Lawrence Rosen
>
> Rosenlaw (Caution-www.rosenlaw.com)
>
> 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
>
> Cell: 707-478-8932



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

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

2017-02-27 Thread Smith, McCoy 
For what it’s worth (I think it is generally pretty relevant), the DoD 
published a draft “Agreement” that is intended to address the issue of there 
being no US copyright in works authored by the US Government:

https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/LICENSE-agreement.md#draft-defense-open-source-agreement

I find that Agreement somewhat strange in that it says it is an Agreement (and 
a license) and then refers back to an associated open source license appended 
to the software, but it seems to me that what they are trying to get at is 
essentially converting the appended open source license into a contract to the 
extent that there is non-copyrighted material distributed by the DoD, such that 
all the provisions of the open source license would apply to that material but 
not via license but instead via contract.

I would think that it might be worth synching up the folks who are writing the 
ARL OSL with the folks promulgating the draft DoD open source agreement, as 
they seem to be pursuing the same goal but in different ways and through 
different channels.


From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf 
Of Lawrence Rosen
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 9:50 AM
To: 'Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)'; license-discuss@opensource.org
Cc: Lawrence Rosen
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research 
Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1


Cem Karan wrote:

> I'm not a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer, I don't pretend to be one on TV or 
> anywhere else, and nothing I say should be construed as legal advice.



In that situation, it would be unfair to ask you my question directly, so 
please forward my email directly to your lawyer(s). I'd like to hear from them 
directly or on this list.



Cem Karan wrote:

. . . the truly serious issue is severability 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability).  The concern is that if the USG 
uses a license that depends on copyright (e.g., Apache 2.0), and those clauses 
are declared unenforceable by the courts, then it may be possible to declare 
the entire license unenforceable.



Larry Rosen asked:

Apache-licensed software also may (and frequently does) contain public domain 
components. Are you suggesting that "severability" is a potential problem with 
Apache software?



/Larry



Lawrence Rosen

Rosenlaw (www.rosenlaw.com<http://www.rosenlaw.com>)

3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482

Cell: 707-478-8932
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

2017-02-27 Thread Lawrence Rosen 
Cem Karan wrote:

> I'm not a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer, I don't pretend to be one on TV or 
> anywhere else, and nothing I say should be construed as legal advice.

 

In that situation, it would be unfair to ask you my question directly, so 
please forward my email directly to your lawyer(s). I'd like to hear from them 
directly or on this list. 

 

Cem Karan wrote:

. . . the truly serious issue is severability  
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability).  The concern is that if the USG 
uses a license that depends on copyright (e.g., Apache 2.0), and those clauses 
are declared unenforceable by the courts, then it may be possible to declare 
the entire license unenforceable.  

 

Larry Rosen asked:

Apache-licensed software also may (and frequently does) contain public domain 
components. Are you suggesting that "severability" is a potential problem with 
Apache software?

 

/Larry

 

Lawrence Rosen

Rosenlaw (www.rosenlaw.com) 

3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482

Cell: 707-478-8932 

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

2017-02-27 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
There may be a difference between projects that had copyright initially and 
later on added in public domain components, and projects that never had 
copyright to begin with.  That said, I don't know if there is or isn't[1].  I 
don't want to find out that there **is** a difference, and have it bite 
everyone.  The lawyers I've worked with seem to think that there is a 
difference, and that we should account for it.  If you have case law or 
Federal laws that show that we don't have to worry about it, please show me, 
so I can pass it to our lawyers for review.  If they are convinced that we 
don't have to worry about it, I can drop the ARL OSL (which, to be honest, 
would make my life easier; it ain't fun getting yelled at by everyone on this 
list).  However, at this moment I have yet to find a Government lawyer that is 
100% comfortable with using a copyright-based license on projects that were 
originated by the USG and which don't have any copyright attached.  That's why 
we're currently suggesting CC0 for the ARL (see 
https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions);
 
right now, we think it has the best chance of standing up in court.  I'd much 
rather be proven wrong by US case law, or a Federal law, so we can go back to 
the standard OSI approved licenses.  Right now though, I'm stuck with CC0, or 
with pushing the ARL OSL and hoping it gets OSI approved.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

[1] I'm not a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer, I don't pretend to be one on TV or 
anywhere else, and nothing I say should be construed as legal advice.

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 12:22 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen 
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] 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 Karan wrote:
>
> . . . the truly serious issue is severability 
> Caution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability < Caution-
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability > ).  The concern is that if the 
> USG uses a license that depends on copyright (e.g., Apache 2.0),
> and those clauses are declared unenforceable by the courts, then it may be 
> possible to declare the entire license unenforceable.
>
>
>
> Apache-licensed software also may (and frequently does) contain public 
> domain components. Are you suggesting that "severability" is a
> potential problem with Apache software?
>
>
>
> The US government isn't special.
>
>
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss 
> [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Karan, 
> Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL
> (US)
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 9:01 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: [License-discuss] U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License 
> (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
>
>
>
> All, I've been asked to republish the U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open 
> Source License (ARL OSL) once again so that others can read it.
> This is the most current copy.  It is based off of the Apache 2.0 license 
> that can be found at Caution-
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt < 
> Caution-http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt > , and is intended 
> to make
> US Government (USG) works released under it completely interoperable with 
> the Apache 2.0 license, while still dealing with the fact that
> most USG works do not have copyright protections.  See further down this 
> message as to why this is necessary.
>
>
>
> The goals of the license are as follows:
>
>
>
> - Protect the USG, contributors, and users of all work licensed under the 
> license against lawsuits in the same manner that the Apache 2.0
> license protects those groups when works have copyright.
>
>
>
> - Be interoperable with Apache 2.0.  Ideally, there would be no airgap 
> between the ARL OSL and Apache 2.0, however because USG works
> don't have copyright, there will be some airgap.  For works that have 
> copyright, the Apache 2.0 license is preferable.  If a project is
> licensed under the ARL OSL, it should be able to accept works that are 
> licensed under the Apache 2.0 license, **and the contribution
> should be able to remain licensed under Apache 2.0**.  This will mean that 
> portions of the USG sponsored project will be relicensed under
> ARL OSL and other portions under Apache 2.0.  I don't know if the ARL OSL 
> meets those goals, if anyone sees a problem with this
> interpretation, please say so.
>
>
>
> - Protect Open Source.  That is, the ARL OSL should meet the Open