Re: [License-discuss] Using opensource in a company not in the software business
Nigel's list is biased towards paranoia. Paranoia is a healthy default But it is OK, for example, to ship useful standalone GPL tools to customers in a zip file that happens to also contain proprietary code of yours that does not use those tools. As always, if in doubt you should consult a lawyer and the license. And don't rely on opinions from a mailing list. One final note, I would recommend that it may be worth your while to find a lawyer with open source experience, and not just familiarity with intellectual property. Open source licenses are somewhat unusual, and there are common misunderstandings around, for instance, how the GPL works that a general lawyer is likely to spend time working through the first time. (Is this a contract? Does it apply if it is not a contract?) While lawyers are generally happy to research things on your dime, this is not always an efficient use of your money... On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: > Cindy advice is best but the quick and dirty answer for you given the two > things you stated: > >- We do not modify or enhance the open source code of the used >libraries. >- At last, our code must be kept as proprietary and we don’t consider >providing the source code using the opens source libraries. > > Good: Apache, BSD, MIT and other permissively licensed open source code. > > Maybe Good: LGPL, MPL and weak copyleft licensed open source code. > > Not Good: GPL and any strong copyleft licensed open source code. > > Review your code base and anything that used GPL source code in an > Android/iOS app or Windows/MacOS/Linux program is an issue. On your > internal server if you used any AGPL code it may be an issue. > > Your normal lawyer should be able to find you an IP lawyer but you might > as well start going over your code base. > > Regards, > > Nigel > > From: License-discuss on behalf > of Cinly Ooi > Reply-To: "c...@theiet.org" , License Discuss < > license-discuss@opensource.org> > Date: Monday, November 28, 2016 at 7:51 AM > To: License Discuss > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Using opensource in a company not in the > software business > > You _are_ in the software business. > > The correct person to evaluate your case is your lawyer. > > As Woolley said, regardless of which the license of the software you > choose uses, you still have responsibility under open source license, and > your customers have expectations as provided for by the license. > > It is the same whether it is open source license or close source license > > Your lawyer will look at each license you need to use and apply it to see > whether it meets your business objective. > > Another good place to start is to see is there any local people who can > talk you through it for the price of a coffee. However, your lawyer has the > final say. > > > Best Regards, > Cinly > > * > “There should not be an over-emphasis on what computers tell you, because > they only tell you what you tell them to tell you,” -- Joe Sutter, Boeing > 747 Chief Engineer. > > On 28 November 2016 at 10:23, FREJAVILLE Etienne < > etienne.frejavi...@coface.com> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> >> >> I'm sorry for asking a question that has probably been answered in the >> past, but I couldn't find a clear and precise answer on the subject on your >> website or any web resource. >> >> >> >> We are a private company and we wonder how to deal with developments >> using open source. >> >> >> >> First of all we are not a software company, and therefore we just provide >> software applications to our customers, so that they can use our >> services/buy our products. >> >> >> >> We develop with code that may use opensource, both: >> >> >> >> - 1. Pure internal software >> >> - 2. Software for our customers provided as Web applications (that >> obviously interacts with a part of our internal software). >> >> - 3. Software for our customers provided as mobile applications >> (IOS&Android apps) that interacts with a part of our internal software. >> >> >> >> The usage we make of opensource, is either use the opensource products as >> standalone products (e.g Maven, Kados..), or use them ‘as is’ as libraries >> (most java or javascript) (e.g POI, jQuery...). >> >> We do not modify or enhance the open source code of the used libraries. >> >> At last, our code must be kept as proprietary and we don’t consider >> providing the source code using the opens source libraries. >> >> >> >
Re: [License-discuss] Is OSI still alive?
Define alive. This mailing list works... On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: > Just curious as I get crickets in license-review. > > I guess it must still be alive as I got asked for a donation…but an update > on NOSA v2 and UCL would be nice. > > ___ > License-discuss mailing list > 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
[License-discuss] Is OSI still alive?
Just curious as I get crickets in license-review. I guess it must still be alive as I got asked for a donation...but an update on NOSA v2 and UCL would be nice. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Using opensource in a company not in the software business
Cindy advice is best but the quick and dirty answer for you given the two things you stated: * We do not modify or enhance the open source code of the used libraries. * At last, our code must be kept as proprietary and we don’t consider providing the source code using the opens source libraries. Good: Apache, BSD, MIT and other permissively licensed open source code. Maybe Good: LGPL, MPL and weak copyleft licensed open source code. Not Good: GPL and any strong copyleft licensed open source code. Review your code base and anything that used GPL source code in an Android/iOS app or Windows/MacOS/Linux program is an issue. On your internal server if you used any AGPL code it may be an issue. Your normal lawyer should be able to find you an IP lawyer but you might as well start going over your code base. Regards, Nigel From: License-discuss mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org>> on behalf of Cinly Ooi mailto:cinly@gmail.com>> Reply-To: "c...@theiet.org<mailto:c...@theiet.org>" mailto:c...@theiet.org>>, License Discuss mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org>> Date: Monday, November 28, 2016 at 7:51 AM To: License Discuss mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org>> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Using opensource in a company not in the software business You _are_ in the software business. The correct person to evaluate your case is your lawyer. As Woolley said, regardless of which the license of the software you choose uses, you still have responsibility under open source license, and your customers have expectations as provided for by the license. It is the same whether it is open source license or close source license Your lawyer will look at each license you need to use and apply it to see whether it meets your business objective. Another good place to start is to see is there any local people who can talk you through it for the price of a coffee. However, your lawyer has the final say. Best Regards, Cinly * “There should not be an over-emphasis on what computers tell you, because they only tell you what you tell them to tell you,” -- Joe Sutter, Boeing 747 Chief Engineer. On 28 November 2016 at 10:23, FREJAVILLE Etienne mailto:etienne.frejavi...@coface.com>> wrote: Hello, I'm sorry for asking a question that has probably been answered in the past, but I couldn't find a clear and precise answer on the subject on your website or any web resource. We are a private company and we wonder how to deal with developments using open source. First of all we are not a software company, and therefore we just provide software applications to our customers, so that they can use our services/buy our products. We develop with code that may use opensource, both: - 1. Pure internal software - 2. Software for our customers provided as Web applications (that obviously interacts with a part of our internal software). - 3. Software for our customers provided as mobile applications (IOS&Android apps) that interacts with a part of our internal software. The usage we make of opensource, is either use the opensource products as standalone products (e.g Maven, Kados..), or use them ‘as is’ as libraries (most java or javascript) (e.g POI, jQuery...). We do not modify or enhance the open source code of the used libraries. At last, our code must be kept as proprietary and we don’t consider providing the source code using the opens source libraries. I have read quite a few pages on the opensource.org<http://opensource.org> website, the FAQ and other external papers, but it seems that the licences discussions and restrictions, concern most of the time the usage of the open source in commercial products, or concern the distribution of open sources modifications. First of all, I would like to know if a software provided to our customers in our case, is considered in the open source terminology as a 'customer product'. Second, I would like to understand what 'distribution' stands for. Is distributing a web application or mobile application considered 'distribution' ? We provide some binary code that may contain usages of open source libraries, to some of our subsidiaries. Is it also considered as 'distribution' ? The idea behind these questions is to know if in fact we have to care about using Open source software or not in our situation.. If indeed we provide a commercial product and we are considering distributing software that may require the usage of opensource libraries for being able to work, indeed, I guess we are concerned by Open source usage. If it's the case, I will have more precise questions regarding the usage we make of these libraries, to understand what licences we may use and what we may not. Thank you. ** Le groupe Coface, un leader mondia
Re: [License-discuss] Using opensource in a company not in the software business
You _are_ in the software business. The correct person to evaluate your case is your lawyer. As Woolley said, regardless of which the license of the software you choose uses, you still have responsibility under open source license, and your customers have expectations as provided for by the license. It is the same whether it is open source license or close source license Your lawyer will look at each license you need to use and apply it to see whether it meets your business objective. Another good place to start is to see is there any local people who can talk you through it for the price of a coffee. However, your lawyer has the final say. Best Regards, Cinly * “There should not be an over-emphasis on what computers tell you, because they only tell you what you tell them to tell you,” -- Joe Sutter, Boeing 747 Chief Engineer. On 28 November 2016 at 10:23, FREJAVILLE Etienne < etienne.frejavi...@coface.com> wrote: > Hello, > > > > I'm sorry for asking a question that has probably been answered in the > past, but I couldn't find a clear and precise answer on the subject on your > website or any web resource. > > > > We are a private company and we wonder how to deal with developments using > open source. > > > > First of all we are not a software company, and therefore we just provide > software applications to our customers, so that they can use our > services/buy our products. > > > > We develop with code that may use opensource, both: > > > > - 1. Pure internal software > > - 2. Software for our customers provided as Web applications (that > obviously interacts with a part of our internal software). > > - 3. Software for our customers provided as mobile applications > (IOS&Android apps) that interacts with a part of our internal software. > > > > The usage we make of opensource, is either use the opensource products as > standalone products (e.g Maven, Kados..), or use them ‘as is’ as libraries > (most java or javascript) (e.g POI, jQuery...). > > We do not modify or enhance the open source code of the used libraries. > > At last, our code must be kept as proprietary and we don’t consider > providing the source code using the opens source libraries. > > > > I have read quite a few pages on the opensource.org website, the FAQ and > other external papers, but it seems that the licences discussions and > restrictions, concern most of the time the usage of the open source in > commercial products, or concern the distribution of open sources > modifications. > > > > First of all, I would like to know if a software provided to our customers > in our case, is considered in the open source terminology as a 'customer > product'. > > Second, I would like to understand what 'distribution' stands for. Is > distributing a web application or mobile application considered > 'distribution' ? > > We provide some binary code that may contain usages of open source > libraries, to some of our subsidiaries. Is it also considered as > 'distribution' ? > > > > The idea behind these questions is to know if in fact we have to care > about using Open source software or not in our situation.. > > > > If indeed we provide a commercial product and we are considering > distributing software that may require the usage of opensource libraries > for being able to work, indeed, I guess we are concerned by Open source > usage. > > If it's the case, I will have more precise questions regarding the usage > we make of these libraries, to understand what licences we may use and what > we may not. > > > > Thank you. > ** > Le groupe Coface, un leader mondial de l'assurance-crédit, propose aux > entreprises du monde entier des solutions pour les protéger contre le > risque de défaillance financière de leurs clients. Ses 4 400 collaborateurs > assurent un service de proximité dans 67 pays. > > The Coface Group, a worldwide leader in credit insurance, offers companies > around the globe solutions to protect them against the risk of financial > default of their clients. 4 400 staff in 67 countries provide a local > service worldwide. > > > Confidentialité/Internet disclaimer > > Ce message ainsi que les fichiers attachés sont exclusivement adressés aux > destinataires désignés et peuvent contenir des informations à caractère > confidentiel. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire désigné, merci de prendre > contact avec l'expéditeur et de détruire ce message, sans en faire un > quelconque usage ni en prendre aucune copie. > Les messages électroniques sur Internet peuvent être interc
Re: [License-discuss] Using opensource in a company not in the software business
On 28/11/16 10:23, FREJAVILLE Etienne wrote: Second, I would like to understand what 'distribution' stands for. Giving the software to your customer constitutes distribution, and will generally trigger any rights they have under the open source licence. _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
[License-discuss] Using opensource in a company not in the software business
Hello, I'm sorry for asking a question that has probably been answered in the past, but I couldn't find a clear and precise answer on the subject on your website or any web resource. We are a private company and we wonder how to deal with developments using open source. First of all we are not a software company, and therefore we just provide software applications to our customers, so that they can use our services/buy our products. We develop with code that may use opensource, both: - 1. Pure internal software - 2. Software for our customers provided as Web applications (that obviously interacts with a part of our internal software). - 3. Software for our customers provided as mobile applications (IOS&Android apps) that interacts with a part of our internal software. The usage we make of opensource, is either use the opensource products as standalone products (e.g Maven, Kados..), or use them 'as is' as libraries (most java or javascript) (e.g POI, jQuery...). We do not modify or enhance the open source code of the used libraries. At last, our code must be kept as proprietary and we don't consider providing the source code using the opens source libraries. I have read quite a few pages on the opensource.org website, the FAQ and other external papers, but it seems that the licences discussions and restrictions, concern most of the time the usage of the open source in commercial products, or concern the distribution of open sources modifications. First of all, I would like to know if a software provided to our customers in our case, is considered in the open source terminology as a 'customer product'. Second, I would like to understand what 'distribution' stands for. Is distributing a web application or mobile application considered 'distribution' ? We provide some binary code that may contain usages of open source libraries, to some of our subsidiaries. Is it also considered as 'distribution' ? The idea behind these questions is to know if in fact we have to care about using Open source software or not in our situation.. If indeed we provide a commercial product and we are considering distributing software that may require the usage of opensource libraries for being able to work, indeed, I guess we are concerned by Open source usage. If it's the case, I will have more precise questions regarding the usage we make of these libraries, to understand what licences we may use and what we may not. Thank you. ** Le groupe Coface, un leader mondial de l'assurance-crédit, propose aux entreprises du monde entier des solutions pour les protéger contre le risque de défaillance financière de leurs clients. Ses 4 400 collaborateurs assurent un service de proximité dans 67 pays. The Coface Group, a worldwide leader in credit insurance, offers companies around the globe solutions to protect them against the risk of financial default of their clients. 4 400 staff in 67 countries provide a local service worldwide. Confidentialité/Internet disclaimer Ce message ainsi que les fichiers attachés sont exclusivement adressés aux destinataires désignés et peuvent contenir des informations à caractère confidentiel. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire désigné, merci de prendre contact avec l'expéditeur et de détruire ce message, sans en faire un quelconque usage ni en prendre aucune copie. Les messages électroniques sur Internet peuvent être interceptés, modifiés, altérés, détruits, ou contenir des virus. L'expéditeur ne pourra être tenu responsable des erreurs ou omissions qui résulteraient de la transmission par voie électronique. This message and the attachments are exclusively addressed to their designated addresses. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete the message without making any use or copying it. E-Mail transmissions could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. ********** ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
[License-discuss] Tomorrow's PD: Identifying Comprehensive Science Curriculum
Dear Educator, I don't want you to miss our live PD webinar tomorrow. Join us for this free 1-hour discussion on Wednesday, October 26 at 1 p.m. EST/10 a.m. PST for: "Identifying Comprehensive Science Curriculum". https://www.knowatom.com/identifying-comprehensive-science-curriculum-webinar?utm_source=hs_automation&utm_medium=email&utm_content=36352335&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9FCoZssl0kRSsSFuzSUULq1JHYf6NzVyv5VojAlKHIXh_Gi_EJc62sONTRT2Xlo0Zseg5vuEGlBvHk0ibvKaG2-aw9hSVOOFhhwbNC4zWSJO93EQ4&_hsmi=36352335 Take-Aways: - Key differences between standards and curriculum - Analysis of "Next Generation Aligned" resources that fall short. - Define instructional elements that differentiate comprehensive NGSS curriculum and resources. We'll also share key resources for evaluating district curriculum and classroom-level units and lessons. Register now: Space is limited, RSVP today to save your seat https://www.knowatom.com/identifying-comprehensive-science-curriculum-webinar?utm_source=hs_automation&utm_medium=email&utm_content=36352335&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-906VY5WMHTbn7n2Elp9wbGZbOQaS6X3kDbI9j0phNChfHHBmiOth7LN3YR8oV_9OaQsgh3jipwXne57m9mLV3WoSIdsZEOUTvD_B_swAOeYuvs9FY&_hsmi=36352335 If you can't make it to this free live webinar, register anyway; I'll send you a recording after the event to watch on-demand. Best regards, Karen Karen Peake, STEM Curriculum Specialist KnowAtom D: 617-475-3475 x2010 KnowAtom, LLC45 Congress StreetSalem, MA01970 manage your email preferences (http://www.knowatom.com/hs/manage-preferences/unsubscribe?v=1&d=eyJlYSI6ImxpY2Vuc2UtZGlzY3Vzc0BvcGVuc291cmNlLm9yZyIsImVjIjozNjM1MjMzNSwic3Vic2NyaXB0aW9uSWQiOjg0ODI2MSwiZXQiOjE0Nzc0MDAwMDE0NzAsImV1IjoiZWEyMzlkYmYtM2MzMC00ZWNmLThlMmMtOTJiYTg5NGI5N2NlIn0%3D&utm_source=hs_automation&utm_medium=email&utm_content=36352335&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9crjdanLWyPpg97c4tc65SiWf-Vt4buT7Bfvx-7hhoG02c6rZnepqLRwdgnKJyzI3f3CPE5H4Uu767VV5fSgwWxWUzakrTjM3axwIxtzeNBS6elm8&_hsmi=36352335) unsubscribe (http://www.knowatom.com/hs/manage-preferences/unsubscribe-all?v=1&d=eyJlYSI6ImxpY2Vuc2UtZGlzY3Vzc0BvcGVuc291cmNlLm9yZyIsImVjIjozNjM1MjMzNSwic3Vic2NyaXB0aW9uSWQiOjg0ODI2MSwiZXQiOjE0Nzc0MDAwMDE0NzAsImV1IjoiZWEyMzlkYmYtM2MzMC00ZWNmLThlMmMtOTJiYTg5NGI5N2NlIn0%3D&utm_source=hs_automation&utm_medium=email&utm_content=36352335&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-89YPWd7GdyitEV2h_RQpLMyA3Oua4_xEHnBZMgW43DKafV8SoAN70BYbZ89-1KKOFYmq74h6UlsKNTvkcT1kSLsGPHXKG9hkPGc7x-EDNdv2aEF8s&_hsmi=36352335)___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Creative Commons vs private content
On 21/10/16 13:47, Stephen Paul Weber wrote: Any license that divides the world into groups of "these people may see this work, but those other people may not" That doesn't even sound like the job for a license, but for a privacy policy / terms of use. Licenses are terms of use! _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Creative Commons vs private content
> Any license that divides the world into groups of "these people may see this > work, but those other people may not" That doesn't even sound like the job for a license, but for a privacy policy / terms of use. _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Creative Commons vs private content
I'm not going to address whether or not this list is appropriate to discuss CC licenses, but I will offer a brief reply. The short version is: these are not the licenses you're looking for. Open source licenses always let me download a program to give to my neighbor. Similarly, Creative Commons licenses always let me download a cultural work (such as a photograph) and give it to my neighbor. Any license that divides the world into groups of "these people may see this work, but those other people may not" is not an open source license. Similarly, the Creative Commons licenses always let me share a photograph with my neighbor, not just an organization member. While I'm happy that you want to create a community for sharing culture, these licenses are about allowing everybody, not just your members, to share works freely. I certainly hope you find a way to encourage people to create and share free cultural works for the benefit of everybody. But for the portions of the site which you don't want people to share, you'll need another license. Also note that (for example) CC-BY-SA works cannot be used as part of the "restricted" portions; the authors of CC-BY-SA have decided to let you remix their works only if you agree that everyone may share the final product. (I'm summarizing; you can read the CC licenses for details.) Joel > On Oct 19, 2016, at 23:46, Richard Grevers wrote: > > Greetings from New Zealand, > > I've struggled somewhat to find a forum in which to discuss matters relating > to Creative Commons, so I hope this isn't Off-topic here. (If it is, feel > free to redirect me!) > > We are redeveloping a website (for a national permaculture organisation) with > user-contributed content and a CC-BY-SA license. naturally there are > restrictions on who can create content. > > 1) There is some content created by us which is members-only for various > reasons - privacy laws/confidentiality, or simply withheld as an incentive to > actually join the organisation. > > 2) There is also some interest from users in being able to limit the > visibility of content they contribute - just as, on other social media, you > can limit content visibility to friends, followers etc. For example, a member > might be happy to share a photo of a project in which their children feature > with other members, but not happy about it being available to the world on an > open license. > > > Are the two concepts above in conflict with the CC license? Is a different > license required for that specific content - or some rider attached to the > general license? > > Regards > Richard Grevers > _______ > License-discuss mailing list > 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
Re: [License-discuss] Creative Commons vs private content
Actually, you can limit the reuse of the pictures. For my kid pics I mark them CC-BY-NC-ND. If there are other kids in the pics I give their parents CC-BY-SA-NC so they can crop my kids out and use it a family photobook, christmas card, etc. which is precluded by the ND option if they want to give the photobook or card to grandma. Under ND they can repost the original photo to Flickr but not remix, transform or build upon it. If members (or the site) watermarks the photos, then CC-BY-NC-ND option may be good enough for your needs. You could batch watermark photos uploaded to your site and serve the watermarked version to non-members with a CC-BY-NC-ND license (or not at all) and the original version to members with a less restrictive CC license. You cannot AFAIK attach any additional restrictions as CC notes in the human readable license text: * No additional restrictions - You may not apply legal terms or technological measures<https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/#> that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. So dual licensing based on membership status may work for you as a solution. The caveat is if a member reposts those photos on Flickr then anyone that gets it from there has that less restrictive CC license. Depending on the goals of the organization CC-BY-SA-NC may or may not be a better default choice over plain CC-BY-SA. As a parent I don't want my kids to end up in an ad campaign without my express permission. I also don't want to get in trouble with other parents if their kids are in my photo. If a non-profit or company wants to use the photo they can ask for permission. IANAL, etc. Regards, Nigel From: License-discuss mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org>> on behalf of Maarten Zeinstra mailto:m...@kl.nl>> Reply-To: License Discuss mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org>> Date: Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 9:22 AM To: License Discuss mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org>> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Creative Commons vs private content Maarten Zeinstra from Creative Commons Netherlands here. You would have no problems limiting access to those files. However you have to understand that you cannot limit reuse of those files if they are licensed using a Creative Commons license. If a member of your community decided to download those images and post them on Flickr or another platform it would be impossible to use copyright arguments to stop them. A Creative Commons license gives permission for everyone in the world to use the work under the conditions of the license. The bare minimum of these conditions is that you give attribution, but they all allow for non-commercial distribution (e.g. placing them on Flickr). if you are looking for a more local forum to discuss this I recommend contacting CC NZ: http://creativecommons.org.nz/ Regards, Maarten Zeinstra -- Kennisland | www.kl.nl<http://www.kl.nl> | t +31205756720 | m +31643053919 | @mzeinstra On 20 Oct 2016, at 14:09, Stephen Paul Weber mailto:singpol...@singpolyma.net>> wrote: Are the two concepts above in conflict with the CC license? Is a different license required for that specific content - or some rider attached to the general license? One is copyright, one is privacy/visibility. Not even related, so there should be no conflict. ___________ 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
Re: [License-discuss] Creative Commons vs private content
Maarten Zeinstra from Creative Commons Netherlands here. You would have no problems limiting access to those files. However you have to understand that you cannot limit reuse of those files if they are licensed using a Creative Commons license. If a member of your community decided to download those images and post them on Flickr or another platform it would be impossible to use copyright arguments to stop them. A Creative Commons license gives permission for everyone in the world to use the work under the conditions of the license. The bare minimum of these conditions is that you give attribution, but they all allow for non-commercial distribution (e.g. placing them on Flickr). if you are looking for a more local forum to discuss this I recommend contacting CC NZ: http://creativecommons.org.nz/ <http://creativecommons.org.nz/> Regards, Maarten Zeinstra -- Kennisland | www.kl.nl <http://www.kl.nl/> | t +31205756720 | m +31643053919 | @mzeinstra > On 20 Oct 2016, at 14:09, Stephen Paul Weber > wrote: > >> Are the two concepts above in conflict with the CC license? Is a different >> license required for that specific content - or some rider attached to the >> general license? > > One is copyright, one is privacy/visibility. Not even related, so there > should be no conflict. > _______ > License-discuss mailing list > 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
Re: [License-discuss] Creative Commons vs private content
> Are the two concepts above in conflict with the CC license? Is a different > license required for that specific content - or some rider attached to the > general license? One is copyright, one is privacy/visibility. Not even related, so there should be no conflict. _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
[License-discuss] Creative Commons vs private content
Greetings from New Zealand, I've struggled somewhat to find a forum in which to discuss matters relating to Creative Commons, so I hope this isn't Off-topic here. (If it is, feel free to redirect me!) We are redeveloping a website (for a national permaculture organisation) with user-contributed content and a CC-BY-SA license. naturally there are restrictions on who can create content. 1) There is some content created by us which is members-only for various reasons - privacy laws/confidentiality, or simply withheld as an incentive to actually join the organisation. 2) There is also some interest from users in being able to limit the visibility of content they contribute - just as, on other social media, you can limit content visibility to friends, followers etc. For example, a member might be happy to share a photo of a project in which their children feature with other members, but not happy about it being available to the world on an open license. Are the two concepts above in conflict with the CC license? Is a different license required for that specific content - or some rider attached to the general license? Regards Richard Grevers _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
[License-discuss] Free Public License/0 Clause BSD License with Zlib Warranty Disclaimer
Hello All, I was looking at the Free Public License/Zero Clause BSD License, and I saw that its warranty disclaimer is a lot longer/more capitalized than the zlib warranty disclaimer. The Free Public License says: THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. and the zlib license says: This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages arising from the use of this software. So, I was wondering if it would be possible to use the Free Public License permission statement with the zlib license warranty disclaimer and still be equivalent to the original Free Public License's warranty disclaimer. The end result would be something like this, although I'm not sure if the warranty disclaimer would go before or after the permission statement, since it goes before the permission statement in the zlib license, but after the permission statement in the Free Public License. I'm not sure about the copyright statement either, since the Zero Clause BSD License and zlib license includes it, but the Free Public License does not. Copyright (c) This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages arising from the use of this software. Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted. If they are not equivalent, then does that mean that users of the zlib license are not adequately disclaiming their implied warranties? Since zlib's license is an OSI approved license, I would think that it *should* provide adequate warranty disclaiming, but I'm not a lawyer. As long as the warranty disclaimers are equivalent, I think there's some (small) advantage to this new form. It's easier to read because it's shorter, and doesn't have a long paragraph of capitalized text. There's also the license proliferation issue, but this license is so permissive that it has no requirements, and so shouldn't cause any confusion or incompatibility with other licenses. I'd love to hear what people on this list think about this. Best, Nate Craun ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] The License Talking-About List
We've used GitLab before, and we like it as well. Might be a good way to go too. Thanks, Cem Karan > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Rick Moen > Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 6:29 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] The License Talking-About > List > > 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. > > > > > > > [cross-post to license-review, snipped.] > > Quoting Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) (cem.f.karan@mail.mil): > > > What about GitHub? > > Using a proprietary hosting platform for outsourced tracking of open-source > licenses? Could work, but that risks punishment by the Gods > of Irony. > > > BTW, at $WORK, we found the open-source workalike platform GitLab to our > liking. Caution-https://about.gitlab.com/ > > -- > Cheers,"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a > rose > Rick Moen smells better than a cabbage, concludes that > it > r...@linuxmafia.commakes a better soup." > McQ! (4x80) -- H.L. Mencken, _A Book of > Burlesque_ > _______ > 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
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] The License Talking-About List
[cross-post to license-review, snipped.] Quoting Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) (cem.f.karan@mail.mil): > What about GitHub? Using a proprietary hosting platform for outsourced tracking of open-source licenses? Could work, but that risks punishment by the Gods of Irony. BTW, at $WORK, we found the open-source workalike platform GitLab to our liking. https://about.gitlab.com/ -- Cheers,"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose Rick Moen smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it r...@linuxmafia.commakes a better soup." McQ! (4x80)-- H.L. Mencken, _A Book of Burlesque_ _______ 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: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 5:02 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. > Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > 0.4.0 > > Caution-https://opensource.org/approval > > Yep, you get to start this all over again. :) > > A lot of folks do read both lists so it¹s probably not a huge deal. *WHEW!* :) 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
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] The License Talking-About List
What about GitHub? There have been suggestions on the Python-ideas list to do this for any new python ideas. The idea is simple; each license becomes its own project. Issues can then be tracked via the issue tracker, making it easy to segregate the issues into individual threads, and as issues are corrected or ended, the issue is closed and the git commit where the issue was dealt with can be noted in the issue itself. Finally, as long as we're dealing with a pure-text version of the license, we get all the power of git; diffs, forks, merges, etc., Would this work for everyone? Thanks, Cem Karan > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen > Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 5:51 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org; 'License submissions for OSI review' > > Cc: Lawrence Rosen > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] [License-discuss] The License Talking-About List > > 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 aware of the other list, but my understanding was that it had to be > > submitted to this list for discussion first, and then submitted to > license-review once there was some consensus; am I wrong about this? > > > > Cem, please don't feel bad about your confusion. I've been around these > lists for years and I still get confused about their differences. You > can't talk about license A without comparing it to license B, but those > discussions may involve different email lists, at OSI and at FSF and > at CC. And for additional confusion, lots of FOSS organizations like OSI > move discussions from list to list merely to discuss everything a > second time. It often permanently delays the decision (like the NASA and CC0 > licenses have been delayed here). That was also often my > email experience at Apache. > > > > Someone ought to invent a better solution than email lists to analyze > licenses and reach decisions. > > > > /Larry > > > > -Original Message- > From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > [Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil] > Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 1:46 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: > U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > 0.4.0 > > 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: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
OK, so it's the way I thought. First, propose a license on this list for discussion, but the actual review takes place on the license-review mailing list. Thanks, Cem Karan > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Richard Fontana > Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 5:04 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. > Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > 0.4.0 > > Yes, that is mistaken. This list plays no role in the OSI license approval > process, though it can be an appropriate place to discuss a license > that has not been submitted for OSI approval. > > Richard > > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 08:45:41PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US) wrote: > > I'm aware of the other list, but my understanding was that it had to be > > submitted to this list for discussion first, and then submitted to > license-review once there was some consensus; am I wrong about this? > > > > Thanks, > > Cem Karan > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: License-discuss > > > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of > > > Richard Fontana > > > Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 2:53 PM > > > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] > > > Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > > > 0.4.0 > > > > > > 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'm not sure if you're already aware but for several years this > > > mailing list has not been used for discussing licenses submitted for > > > OSI approval -- that is done on the license-review mailing list. The > > > license review process is described at Caution- Caution- > https://opensource.org/approval. > > > > > > I haven't followed this thread too closely but it is clear that the > > > ARL OSL is very different from NOSA 2.0. The only way to see whether it > > > would merit OSI approval (if that's what you are seeking) > would be to submit it for review. > > > > > > Richard > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 05:14:59PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM > > > ARL (US) wrote: > > > > OK, so assuming that the NOSA 2.0 license is dead in the water, > > > > what about the ARL OSL? Is it also, dead, and if so, why? Leave > > > > aside > > > the license proliferation aspect, and focus on what needs to be changed > > > with the ARL OSL to make it acceptable. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Cem Karan > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > > From: License-discuss > > > > > [Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] > > > > > On Behalf Of Richard Fontana > > > > > Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 10:21 AM > > > > > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > > > > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD > > > > > Source] > > > > > Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > > > > > 0.4.0 > > > > > > > > > > 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 Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 02:24:53AM +, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: > > > > > > My understanding then and now was that it had become clear to > > > > > > them that Richard and Bruce was going to stall approval for a > > > > > > long time/forever unless they took out the patent clause that > > > > > > the open data folks wanted. So they withdrew because they were > > > > > &
[License-discuss] The License Talking-About List
Cem Karan wrote: > I'm aware of the other list, but my understanding was that it had to be > submitted to this list for discussion first, and then submitted to > license-review once there was some consensus; am I wrong about this? Cem, please don't feel bad about your confusion. I've been around these lists for years and I still get confused about their differences. You can't talk about license A without comparing it to license B, but those discussions may involve different email lists, at OSI and at FSF and at CC. And for additional confusion, lots of FOSS organizations like OSI move discussions from list to list merely to discuss everything a second time. It often permanently delays the decision (like the NASA and CC0 licenses have been delayed here). That was also often my email experience at Apache. Someone ought to invent a better solution than email lists to analyze licenses and reach decisions. /Larry -Original Message- From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) [mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil] Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 1:46 PM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 _______ 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: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
Yes, that is mistaken. This list plays no role in the OSI license approval process, though it can be an appropriate place to discuss a license that has not been submitted for OSI approval. Richard On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 08:45:41PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: > I'm aware of the other list, but my understanding was that it had to be > submitted to this list for discussion first, and then submitted to > license-review once there was some consensus; am I wrong about this? > > Thanks, > Cem Karan > > > -Original Message- > > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > > Behalf Of Richard Fontana > > Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 2:53 PM > > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: > > U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > > 0.4.0 > > > > 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'm not sure if you're already aware but for several years this mailing > > list has not been used for discussing licenses submitted for OSI > > approval -- that is done on the license-review mailing list. The license > > review process is described at Caution- > > https://opensource.org/approval. > > > > I haven't followed this thread too closely but it is clear that the ARL OSL > > is very different from NOSA 2.0. The only way to see whether it > > would merit OSI approval (if that's what you are seeking) would be to > > submit it for review. > > > > Richard > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 05:14:59PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM > > ARL (US) wrote: > > > OK, so assuming that the NOSA 2.0 license is dead in the water, what > > > about the ARL OSL? Is it also, dead, and if so, why? Leave aside > > the license proliferation aspect, and focus on what needs to be changed > > with the ARL OSL to make it acceptable. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Cem Karan > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: License-discuss > > > > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of > > > > Richard Fontana > > > > Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 10:21 AM > > > > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > > > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] > > > > Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > > > > 0.4.0 > > > > > > > > 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 Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 02:24:53AM +, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: > > > > > My understanding then and now was that it had become clear to them > > > > > that Richard and Bruce was going to stall approval for a long > > > > > time/forever unless they took out the patent clause that the open > > > > > data folks wanted. So they withdrew because they were never going > > > > > to do that and the discussions were getting more and more heated. > > > > > > > > I'm assuming 'Richard' is me and 'Bruce' is Bruce Perens. Neither of > > > > us were on the OSI board at that time; we were just participants on > > > > a mailing list. Also, I don't recall Bruce Perens' involvement in > > > > the > > > > CC0 discussion at all, but my objective was to encourage the OSI > > > > take a consistent approach to the problem of nonstandard provisions > > > > dealing with patents, having remembered the discussion of the MXM > > > > license in ~2009, rather than an approach that would be > > explainable solely by attitudes towards the license steward. > > > > > > > > > If you don¹t believe that was a correct assessment on their part > > > > > then pray tell the status of NOSA v2 that was originally submitted > > > > >
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
https://opensource.org/approval Yep, you get to start this all over again. :) A lot of folks do read both lists so it¹s probably not a huge deal. On 8/22/16, 4:45 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" wrote: >I'm aware of the other list, but my understanding was that it had to be >submitted to this list for discussion first, and then submitted to >license-review once there was some consensus; am I wrong about this? > >Thanks, >Cem Karan ___________ 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: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
I'm aware of the other list, but my understanding was that it had to be submitted to this list for discussion first, and then submitted to license-review once there was some consensus; am I wrong about this? Thanks, Cem Karan > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Richard Fontana > Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 2:53 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. > Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > 0.4.0 > > 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'm not sure if you're already aware but for several years this mailing list > has not been used for discussing licenses submitted for OSI > approval -- that is done on the license-review mailing list. The license > review process is described at Caution- > https://opensource.org/approval. > > I haven't followed this thread too closely but it is clear that the ARL OSL > is very different from NOSA 2.0. The only way to see whether it > would merit OSI approval (if that's what you are seeking) would be to submit > it for review. > > Richard > > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 05:14:59PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US) wrote: > > OK, so assuming that the NOSA 2.0 license is dead in the water, what about > > the ARL OSL? Is it also, dead, and if so, why? Leave aside > the license proliferation aspect, and focus on what needs to be changed with > the ARL OSL to make it acceptable. > > > > Thanks, > > Cem Karan > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: License-discuss > > > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of > > > Richard Fontana > > > Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 10:21 AM > > > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] > > > Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > > > 0.4.0 > > > > > > 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 Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 02:24:53AM +, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: > > > > My understanding then and now was that it had become clear to them > > > > that Richard and Bruce was going to stall approval for a long > > > > time/forever unless they took out the patent clause that the open > > > > data folks wanted. So they withdrew because they were never going > > > > to do that and the discussions were getting more and more heated. > > > > > > I'm assuming 'Richard' is me and 'Bruce' is Bruce Perens. Neither of > > > us were on the OSI board at that time; we were just participants on > > > a mailing list. Also, I don't recall Bruce Perens' involvement in > > > the > > > CC0 discussion at all, but my objective was to encourage the OSI > > > take a consistent approach to the problem of nonstandard provisions > > > dealing with patents, having remembered the discussion of the MXM license > > > in ~2009, rather than an approach that would be > explainable solely by attitudes towards the license steward. > > > > > > > If you don¹t believe that was a correct assessment on their part > > > > then pray tell the status of NOSA v2 that was originally submitted > > > > for approval in 2013. > > > > > > That's a special, unfortunate case. With NOSA 2.0 I continued (and > > > sort of continue) to feel that the license was salvageable with a lot of > > > work, which no one (including me and I think including NASA) > seems to have the time or inclination to take on individually or collectively. > > > Possibly, in retrospect, the better approach with NOSA > > > 2.0 would have been to outright reject it as being way too complex > > > with a number of likely or actual fatal problems. An issue there was > > > that, until recently, I assumed that the OSI customarily does not > > > formally reject licenses, as oppose
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
I'm not sure if you're already aware but for several years this mailing list has not been used for discussing licenses submitted for OSI approval -- that is done on the license-review mailing list. The license review process is described at https://opensource.org/approval. I haven't followed this thread too closely but it is clear that the ARL OSL is very different from NOSA 2.0. The only way to see whether it would merit OSI approval (if that's what you are seeking) would be to submit it for review. Richard On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 05:14:59PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: > OK, so assuming that the NOSA 2.0 license is dead in the water, what about > the ARL OSL? Is it also, dead, and if so, why? Leave aside the license > proliferation aspect, and focus on what needs to be changed with the ARL OSL > to make it acceptable. > > Thanks, > Cem Karan > > > -Original Message- > > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > > Behalf Of Richard Fontana > > Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 10:21 AM > > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: > > U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > > 0.4.0 > > > > 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 Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 02:24:53AM +, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: > > > My understanding then and now was that it had become clear to them > > > that Richard and Bruce was going to stall approval for a long > > > time/forever unless they took out the patent clause that the open data > > > folks wanted. So they withdrew because they were never going to do > > > that and the discussions were getting more and more heated. > > > > I'm assuming 'Richard' is me and 'Bruce' is Bruce Perens. Neither of us > > were on the OSI board at that time; we were just participants on a > > mailing list. Also, I don't recall Bruce Perens' involvement in the > > CC0 discussion at all, but my objective was to encourage the OSI take a > > consistent approach to the problem of nonstandard provisions > > dealing with patents, having remembered the discussion of the MXM license > > in ~2009, rather than an approach that would be explainable > > solely by attitudes towards the license steward. > > > > > If you don¹t believe that was a correct assessment on their part then > > > pray tell the status of NOSA v2 that was originally submitted for > > > approval in 2013. > > > > That's a special, unfortunate case. With NOSA 2.0 I continued (and sort of > > continue) to feel that the license was salvageable with a lot of > > work, which no one (including me and I think including NASA) seems to have > > the time or inclination to take on individually or collectively. > > Possibly, in retrospect, the better approach with NOSA > > 2.0 would have been to outright reject it as being way too complex with a > > number of likely or actual fatal problems. An issue there was > > that, until recently, I assumed that the OSI customarily does not formally > > reject licenses, as opposed to just not approving those that are > > problematic (holding out the possibility of the license steward submitting > > revisions or improvements). I think that is actually true of > > licenses submitted in the past several years, but I recently learned that > > in the distant past there were licenses the OSI actually formally > > rejected. > > > > Even now, I still think NOSA 2.0 can be fixed without revising it beyond > > all recognition. However, I pointed out at least one significant > > problem (related, in fact, to the MXM/CC0 patent provisions issue) and it > > did not seem that Bryan was receptive to discussing it. Even if > > the OSI did have at least an earlier history of rejecting licenses, I > > believe it's true that revised versions of problematic submitted licenses > > have generally been prepared by the license steward rather than that task > > being taken on by the OSI itself. That is, it would be strange if > > the only way to get an acceptable version of NOSA 2.0 would be for the OSI > > to take on primary responsibility for drafting it. > > > > Richard > > __
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
OK, so assuming that the NOSA 2.0 license is dead in the water, what about the ARL OSL? Is it also, dead, and if so, why? Leave aside the license proliferation aspect, and focus on what needs to be changed with the ARL OSL to make it acceptable. Thanks, Cem Karan > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Richard Fontana > Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 10:21 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. > Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > 0.4.0 > > 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 Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 02:24:53AM +, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: > > My understanding then and now was that it had become clear to them > > that Richard and Bruce was going to stall approval for a long > > time/forever unless they took out the patent clause that the open data > > folks wanted. So they withdrew because they were never going to do > > that and the discussions were getting more and more heated. > > I'm assuming 'Richard' is me and 'Bruce' is Bruce Perens. Neither of us were > on the OSI board at that time; we were just participants on a > mailing list. Also, I don't recall Bruce Perens' involvement in the > CC0 discussion at all, but my objective was to encourage the OSI take a > consistent approach to the problem of nonstandard provisions > dealing with patents, having remembered the discussion of the MXM license in > ~2009, rather than an approach that would be explainable > solely by attitudes towards the license steward. > > > If you don¹t believe that was a correct assessment on their part then > > pray tell the status of NOSA v2 that was originally submitted for > > approval in 2013. > > That's a special, unfortunate case. With NOSA 2.0 I continued (and sort of > continue) to feel that the license was salvageable with a lot of > work, which no one (including me and I think including NASA) seems to have > the time or inclination to take on individually or collectively. > Possibly, in retrospect, the better approach with NOSA > 2.0 would have been to outright reject it as being way too complex with a > number of likely or actual fatal problems. An issue there was > that, until recently, I assumed that the OSI customarily does not formally > reject licenses, as opposed to just not approving those that are > problematic (holding out the possibility of the license steward submitting > revisions or improvements). I think that is actually true of > licenses submitted in the past several years, but I recently learned that in > the distant past there were licenses the OSI actually formally > rejected. > > Even now, I still think NOSA 2.0 can be fixed without revising it beyond all > recognition. However, I pointed out at least one significant > problem (related, in fact, to the MXM/CC0 patent provisions issue) and it did > not seem that Bryan was receptive to discussing it. Even if > the OSI did have at least an earlier history of rejecting licenses, I believe > it's true that revised versions of problematic submitted licenses > have generally been prepared by the license steward rather than that task > being taken on by the OSI itself. That is, it would be strange if > the only way to get an acceptable version of NOSA 2.0 would be for the OSI to > take on primary responsibility for drafting it. > > Richard > ___ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1, August 2016 http://no/URL/as/yet TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE, REPRODUCTION, AND DISTRIBUTION 1. Definitions. "License" shall mean the terms and conditions for use, reproduction, and distribution as defined by Sections 1 through 10 of this document. "Licensor" shall mean the project originator or entity authorized by the project originator that is granting the License. "Legal Entity" shall mean the union of the acting entity and all other entities that control, are controlled by, or are under common control with that entity. For the purposes of this definition, "control" means (i) the power, direct or
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 02:24:53AM +, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: > My understanding then and now was that it had become clear to them that > Richard and Bruce was going to stall approval for a long time/forever > unless they took out the patent clause that the open data folks wanted. So > they withdrew because they were never going to do that and the discussions > were getting more and more heated. I'm assuming 'Richard' is me and 'Bruce' is Bruce Perens. Neither of us were on the OSI board at that time; we were just participants on a mailing list. Also, I don't recall Bruce Perens' involvement in the CC0 discussion at all, but my objective was to encourage the OSI take a consistent approach to the problem of nonstandard provisions dealing with patents, having remembered the discussion of the MXM license in ~2009, rather than an approach that would be explainable solely by attitudes towards the license steward. > If you don¹t believe that was a correct assessment on their part then pray > tell the status of NOSA v2 that was originally submitted for approval in > 2013. That's a special, unfortunate case. With NOSA 2.0 I continued (and sort of continue) to feel that the license was salvageable with a lot of work, which no one (including me and I think including NASA) seems to have the time or inclination to take on individually or collectively. Possibly, in retrospect, the better approach with NOSA 2.0 would have been to outright reject it as being way too complex with a number of likely or actual fatal problems. An issue there was that, until recently, I assumed that the OSI customarily does not formally reject licenses, as opposed to just not approving those that are problematic (holding out the possibility of the license steward submitting revisions or improvements). I think that is actually true of licenses submitted in the past several years, but I recently learned that in the distant past there were licenses the OSI actually formally rejected. Even now, I still think NOSA 2.0 can be fixed without revising it beyond all recognition. However, I pointed out at least one significant problem (related, in fact, to the MXM/CC0 patent provisions issue) and it did not seem that Bryan was receptive to discussing it. Even if the OSI did have at least an earlier history of rejecting licenses, I believe it's true that revised versions of problematic submitted licenses have generally been prepared by the license steward rather than that task being taken on by the OSI itself. That is, it would be strange if the only way to get an acceptable version of NOSA 2.0 would be for the OSI to take on primary responsibility for drafting it. Richard ___ 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: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu): > He said that CC would consider when they had more timeŠback in 2012Šso I > guess either Creative Commons has been insanely busy the last four years > or that was a very polite way of saying ³yah whatever, the FSF already > recommends CC0 even WITH the patent statement. You came to us, not us to > you². Or they're _so_ short-staffed that the organisation was actually almost completely de-funded some time in 2014, closing its Mountain View office thus leaving it with a grand total of zero offices, and in some considerable disarray. > My understanding then and now was that it had become clear to them that > Richard and Bruce was going to stall approval for a long time/forever > unless they took out the patent clause that the open data folks wanted. So > they withdrew because they were never going to do that and the discussions > were getting more and more heated. I was part of the (public) discussions, and it is just not correct to assert that they were getting more and more heated. (For the record, I stated consistently, starting immediately upon its submission, that CC0 was manifestly open source on account of its fallback permissive licence.) You'll pardon me if I don't simply take your word on what you allege about behind-the-scenes plotting. I know only that what has been stated upthread is a misrepresentation of the 2012 discussion, which I remember quite well (and is also archived for the curious). Nor am I going to get derailed onto irrelevancies. Speaking of looking silly. > If you don¹t consider it was damaging then consider this: the White House > has told government agencies that "Thou Shall Open Source 20% of Your > Software Portfolio² and their first example was their own code.gov site > released under CC0*. Well, it _is_ open source. Endless variant forms of permissive licences are. _______ 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: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
On 8/19/16, 6:55 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Rick Moen" wrote: >Speaking for Creative Commons, Christopher Allan Webber appears to have >correctly understood this feedback to be _not_ at all a rejection of the >licence but rather suggestions for its revision, which he said (in his >note on Feb. 24, 2012 withdrawing the application) CC would consider >when the organisation has time. _He_ understood this, even though some >people on this mailing list today appear not to have. He said that CC would consider when they had more timeŠback in 2012Šso I guess either Creative Commons has been insanely busy the last four years or that was a very polite way of saying ³yah whatever, the FSF already recommends CC0 even WITH the patent statement. You came to us, not us to you². Christopher was exceedingly polite during that discussion and CC has also been publicly polite in general to the OSI. My understanding then and now was that it had become clear to them that Richard and Bruce was going to stall approval for a long time/forever unless they took out the patent clause that the open data folks wanted. So they withdrew because they were never going to do that and the discussions were getting more and more heated. The situation was immensely silly and damaging to the OSI. If you don¹t believe that was a correct assessment on their part then pray tell the status of NOSA v2 that was originally submitted for approval in 2013. If you don¹t consider it was damaging then consider this: the White House has told government agencies that "Thou Shall Open Source 20% of Your Software Portfolio² and their first example was their own code.gov site released under CC0*. So the idea that ³it¹s not really open source unless OSI approved² took a major hit because either the folks promoting Open Source at the highest level of government don¹t know who the OSI is or they simply don¹t care. * After going back and looking the eRegulations project from the CFPB that was cited as an example in the Federal Source Code Policy Memorandum is also CC0. ___________ 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: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
Quoting Richard Fontana (font...@opensource.org): > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 08:55:54PM +, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: > > If the USG is using CC0 for their new OSS initiative > > is this something that should be revisited? > > Yes, I think so. > > > Of course, you know I¹m of the opinion that is the OSI states a > > license is open source if it passes the OSD then we should either > > amend the OSD to require explicit patent grants moving forward or > > not block useful new licenses because of the lack of a patent grant. > > I'm inclined to agree with that. Note, though, the controversial issue > with CC0 was the explicit refusal to grant a patent license. More specifically, CCO's explicit claim that no patent rights shall be conveyed though means of the CC0 grant. It wasn't just a 'refusal to grant', which would have been fairly ordinary among open source licences. For clarification, nobody at OSI claimed the problematic clause would block moving forward. Several members of license-review (including, I'm pretty sure, you) merely asked Karl Fogel to consult with Creative Commons to see if they might consider removing that clause, and substituting one granting use of patent claims the licensor holds that are necessary to use the software in the form it was licensed or dedicated. (There were also other comments, which I've not reviewed today.) Speaking for Creative Commons, Christopher Allan Webber appears to have correctly understood this feedback to be _not_ at all a rejection of the licence but rather suggestions for its revision, which he said (in his note on Feb. 24, 2012 withdrawing the application) CC would consider when the organisation has time. _He_ understood this, even though some people on this mailing list today appear not to have. -- Cheers, Grossman's Law: "In time of crisis, people do not rise to Rick Moen the occasion. They fall to the level of their training." r...@linuxmafia.com http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/lexicon.html#grossman McQ! (4x80) ___ 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: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 08:55:54PM +, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: > If the USG is using CC0 for their new OSS initiative > is this something that should be revisited? Yes, I think so. > Of course, you know I¹m of the opinion that is the OSI states a license is > open source if it passes the OSD then we should either amend the OSD to > require explicit patent grants moving forward or not block useful new > licenses because of the lack of a patent grant. I'm inclined to agree with that. Note, though, the controversial issue with CC0 was the explicit refusal to grant a patent license. I don't think a license with a similar feature has been submitted for OSI approval since the CC0 event. The OSI has approved at least one license since that time that did not explicitly address patents. Richard ___ 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: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
> Ugh. I’m perfectly happy to give away my own code and patents when > I choose to do so but I would be very unhappy if I accidentally gave > away someone else’s work and cost them thousands of dollars of lost > royalties. This is a well-know problem with no solution for which all parties are happy in all cases. In addition to contributions to FOSS, this arises in connection with development of standards (the domain of the Rambus case, which I believe was mentioned earlier in this thread). In order to appreciate why there is no general solution, it is useful to try sitting on each of the opposing sides of the issue: the contributor and a consumer of the contribution. As pointed out, the contributor is troubled by the potential of impacting patents from a distant part of some larger world of which the contributor is a part. This can occur in companies of even modest size (see the IPO list below) and the challenge increases with the diversity of a company's overall business - in the extreme, consider a large diversified conglomerate. From the consumer perspective consider the following: A company X invests in use of software to which research lab Y contributed, only to later have a patent that covers that contribution asserted against it by the entity that owns lab Y. How OK is that? Perhaps different people will have different answers depending on the details. The likelihood such a patent situation actually arising is probably quite small. But, how does that cut? Should the contributor or the consumer take comfort in that speculative low probability? The IPO publishes annual lists of the assignees are large numbers of new US patents: http://www.ipo.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2015-Top-300-Patent-Owners.pdf I see the Navy at 104, the Army at 201, DHHS at 214. -- Scott - Original Message - From: "Nigel H. Tzeng" To: "Lawrence Rosen" , license-discuss@opensource.org Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 4:02:35 PM Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 From: License-discuss < license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org > on behalf of " lro...@rosenlaw.com " < lro...@rosenlaw.com > >There are other important reasons besides "aging out" why the claims of >copyright on parts of functional works like software are often denied. (See 17 >U.S.C. 102(b), for example.) Aging out isn't the only obstacle to copyright >claims >that make the copyright aspects of FOSS licenses unenforceable while >they remain contracts to disclaim warranties. So when several here suggested >that ALL FOSS WORKS probably contain public domain content, this is ANOTHER >>example not involving aging. >The USG and ARL are not unique. Public domain is what it is for software works >for everyone here (and probably abroad too). A unique FOSS license isn't >necessary to "protect copyrights" in public domain works. Almost any FOSS >>contract will work to protect the licensor. The point is that the code fond in other FOSS WORKS that are in the public domain is generally not significant enough to contain an implantation of a software patent. This is why your shakespeare example isn’t valid and why the USG and ARL could be unique. Software in the public domain have neither an implicit or explicit patent grant. Which should be a concern of ARL. OSS licenses that do not explicitly handle the public domain case does not apparently meet the needs of the ARL (and probably the rest of the USG) because there may be a issue when no copyright exists. That said, it occurs to me that ARL would not want to use an Apache style patent grant but a ECL v2 style grant. Otherwise someone at the DOE could release source code that implements a patent owned by ARL that they are licensing to industry for royalties. Or vice versa. Under 15 US Code § 3710c a.1.A.i The head of the agency or laboratory, or such individual’s designee, shall pay each year the first $2,000, and thereafter at least 15 percent, of the royalties or other payments, other than payments of patent costs as delineated by a license or assignment agreement, to the inventor or coinventors, if the inventor’s or coinventor’s rights are assigned to the United States. According to this site: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-9004.html It is estimated that the government has title to over 30,000 patents and annually files several thousand new applications. Ugh. I’m perfectly happy to give away my own code and patents when I choose to do so but I would be very unhappy if I accidentally gave away someone else’s work and cost them thousands of dollars of lost royalties. My assumption is that the USG is treated as a single legal entity for patent and copyright purposes which
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
From: License-discuss mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org>> on behalf of "lro...@rosenlaw.com<mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com>" mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com>> >There are other important reasons besides "aging out" why the claims of >copyright on parts of functional works like software are often denied. (See 17 >U.S.C. 102(b), for example.) Aging out isn't the only obstacle to copyright >claims >that make the copyright aspects of FOSS licenses unenforceable while >they remain contracts to disclaim warranties. So when several here suggested >that ALL FOSS WORKS probably contain public domain content, this is ANOTHER >>example not involving aging. >The USG and ARL are not unique. Public domain is what it is for software works >for everyone here (and probably abroad too). A unique FOSS license isn't >necessary to "protect copyrights" in public domain works. Almost any FOSS >>contract will work to protect the licensor. The point is that the code fond in other FOSS WORKS that are in the public domain is generally not significant enough to contain an implantation of a software patent. This is why your shakespeare example isn't valid and why the USG and ARL could be unique. Software in the public domain have neither an implicit or explicit patent grant. Which should be a concern of ARL. OSS licenses that do not explicitly handle the public domain case does not apparently meet the needs of the ARL (and probably the rest of the USG) because there may be a issue when no copyright exists. That said, it occurs to me that ARL would not want to use an Apache style patent grant but a ECL v2 style grant. Otherwise someone at the DOE could release source code that implements a patent owned by ARL that they are licensing to industry for royalties. Or vice versa. Under 15 US Code § 3710c a.1.A.i The head of the agency or laboratory, or such individual's designee, shall pay each year the first $2,000, and thereafter at least 15 percent, of the royalties or other payments, other than payments of patent costs as delineated by a license or assignment agreement, to the inventor or coinventors, if the inventor's or coinventor's rights are assigned to the United States. According to this site: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-9004.html It is estimated that the government has title to over 30,000 patents and annually files several thousand new applications. Ugh. I'm perfectly happy to give away my own code and patents when I choose to do so but I would be very unhappy if I accidentally gave away someone else's work and cost them thousands of dollars of lost royalties. My assumption is that the USG is treated as a single legal entity for patent and copyright purposes which may be incorrect. Even if not, one would assume that ARL would be treated as part of the Army and could impact any other Army lab, FFRDC, UARC or university and other organizations conducting research for the Army. ___ 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: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
Exactly. Anyone that gets something from the USG deserves to know that they won't be facing a patent lawsuit from any of the contributors. Thanks, Cem Karan > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Chris DiBona > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 6:12 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Cc: Lawrence Rosen > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. > Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > 0.4.0 > > 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. > > > > > > > > In military contracting , patent grants are key to the point where I wouldn't > consider a non patent granting license from, say, lockheed as > being open source at all. > > > On Aug 18, 2016 3:05 PM, "Tzeng, Nigel H." Caution-mailto:nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu > > wrote: > > > On 8/18/16, 3:57 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Lawrence Rosen" >Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org > on behalf of > lro...@rosenlaw.com < Caution-mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com > > > wrote: > > > >Nigel Tzeng wrote: > >> The issue here is for code that is potentially quite substantial. I > >>would think that would be a different scenario. > > > >If I include the works of Shakespeare in my software, it would of > course > >be substantial and yet still be public domain almost everywhere (?). > > If patents aren't a concern then okay. Copyright lasts longer than > patents so for anything that is in the public domain because of age then > no patents would still apply. > > There isn¹t a lot of code that has aged out. Only code written between > before 1963 and didn¹t get a renewal. > > ___ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org < > Caution-mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org > > > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > < 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
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
Nigel Tzeng correctly noted about U.S. public domain code: > There isn¹t a lot of code that has aged out. Only code written between > before 1963 and didn¹t get a renewal. There are other important reasons besides "aging out" why the claims of copyright on parts of functional works like software are often denied. (See 17 U.S.C. 102(b), for example.) Aging out isn't the only obstacle to copyright claims that make the copyright aspects of FOSS licenses unenforceable while they remain contracts to disclaim warranties. So when several here suggested that ALL FOSS WORKS probably contain public domain content, this is ANOTHER example not involving aging. The USG and ARL are not unique. Public domain is what it is for software works for everyone here (and probably abroad too). A unique FOSS license isn't necessary to "protect copyrights" in public domain works. Almost any FOSS contract will work to protect the licensor. /Larry -Original Message- From: Tzeng, Nigel H. [mailto:nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu] Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 2:59 PM To: Lawrence Rosen ; license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 On 8/18/16, 3:57 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Lawrence Rosen" < <mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org%20on%20behalf%20of%20lro...@rosenlaw.com> license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org on behalf of lro...@rosenlaw.com> wrote: >Nigel Tzeng wrote: >> The issue here is for code that is potentially quite substantial. I >>would think that would be a different scenario. > >If I include the works of Shakespeare in my software, it would of >course be substantial and yet still be public domain almost everywhere (?). If patents aren't a concern then okay. Copyright lasts longer than patents so for anything that is in the public domain because of age then no patents would still apply. There isn¹t a lot of code that has aged out. Only code written between before 1963 and didn¹t get a renewal. _______ License-discuss mailing list <mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org> License-discuss@opensource.org <https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss> 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
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
We apply for and are granted patents on a regular basis at ARL. In fact, part of how scientists and engineers are evaluated on their performance can include the number of patents they get, all of which are owned by the USG. Thanks, Cem Karan > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Brian Behlendorf > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 8:46 PM > To: ch...@dibona.com; license-discuss@opensource.org > Cc: Lawrence Rosen > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. > Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > 0.4.0 > > 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. > > > > > > > > Totally agree. But can the USG file patents? I suppose research > organizations can (MITRE, maybe even NASA?) so it's not that academic; > but presumably any place where this public domain arises, it applies to > patents too. Would be nice to get that sorted. > > Brian > > On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Chris DiBona wrote: > > In military contracting , patent grants are key to the point where I > > wouldn't consider a non patent granting license from, say, lockheed as > being open source at all. > > > > > > On Aug 18, 2016 3:05 PM, "Tzeng, Nigel H." wrote: > > On 8/18/16, 3:57 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Lawrence Rosen" > >> lro...@rosenlaw.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > >Nigel Tzeng wrote: > > >> The issue here is for code that is potentially quite substantial. > > I > > >>would think that would be a different scenario. > > > > > >If I include the works of Shakespeare in my software, it would of > > course > > >be substantial and yet still be public domain almost everywhere (?). > > > > If patents aren't a concern then okay. Copyright lasts longer than > > patents so for anything that is in the public domain because of age > > then > > no patents would still apply. > > > > There isn¹t a lot of code that has aged out. Only code written > > between > > before 1963 and didn¹t get a renewal. > > > > ___________ > > 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
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
USG patents aren't public domain, and USG can and does license them for royalties. I believe there are a handful of examples of USG filing infringement suits as well. > On Aug 18, 2016, at 8:26 PM, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > > > Do those follow the same rules as copyright? E.g., when done by a USG > employee, it's public domain in the US? > > Seems like those should get covered by whatever folks come up with. > > Brian > >> On Fri, 19 Aug 2016, Smith, McCoy wrote: >> Yes >> USG files patents all the time >> >>> On Aug 18, 2016, at 5:51 PM, Brian Behlendorf wrote: >>> >>> >>> Totally agree. But can the USG file patents? I suppose research >>> organizations can (MITRE, maybe even NASA?) so it's not that academic; but >>> presumably any place where this public domain arises, it applies to patents >>> too. Would be nice to get that sorted. >>> >>> Brian >>> >>>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Chris DiBona wrote: >>>> In military contracting , patent grants are key to the point where I >>>> wouldn't consider a non patent granting license from, say, lockheed as >>>> being open source at all. >>>> On Aug 18, 2016 3:05 PM, "Tzeng, Nigel H." wrote: >>>> On 8/18/16, 3:57 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Lawrence Rosen" >>>> >>> lro...@rosenlaw.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>Nigel Tzeng wrote: >>>>>> The issue here is for code that is potentially quite substantial. I >>>>>>would think that would be a different scenario. >>>>> >>>>>If I include the works of Shakespeare in my software, it would of >>>> course >>>>>be substantial and yet still be public domain almost everywhere (?). >>>> >>>> If patents aren't a concern then okay. Copyright lasts longer than >>>> patents so for anything that is in the public domain because of age >>>> then >>>> no patents would still apply. >>>> >>>> There isn¹t a lot of code that has aged out. Only code written between >>>> before 1963 and didn¹t get a renewal. >>>> >>>> ___ >>>> License-discuss mailing list >>>> 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 >> ___ >> License-discuss mailing list >> 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 ___ 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: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
Do those follow the same rules as copyright? E.g., when done by a USG
employee, it's public domain in the US?
Seems like those should get covered by whatever folks come up with.
Brian
On Fri, 19 Aug 2016, Smith, McCoy wrote:
Yes
USG files patents all the time
On Aug 18, 2016, at 5:51 PM, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
Totally agree. But can the USG file patents? I suppose research organizations
can (MITRE, maybe even NASA?) so it's not that academic; but presumably any
place where this public domain arises, it applies to patents too. Would be
nice to get that sorted.
Brian
On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Chris DiBona wrote:
In military contracting , patent grants are key to the point where I wouldn't
consider a non patent granting license from, say, lockheed as being open source
at all.
On Aug 18, 2016 3:05 PM, "Tzeng, Nigel H." wrote:
On 8/18/16, 3:57 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Lawrence Rosen"
wrote:
>Nigel Tzeng wrote:
>> The issue here is for code that is potentially quite substantial. I
>>would think that would be a different scenario.
>
>If I include the works of Shakespeare in my software, it would of course
>be substantial and yet still be public domain almost everywhere (?).
If patents aren't a concern then okay. Copyright lasts longer than
patents so for anything that is in the public domain because of age then
no patents would still apply.
There isn¹t a lot of code that has aged out. Only code written between
before 1963 and didn¹t get a renewal.
_______
License-discuss mailing list
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
_______
License-discuss mailing list
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
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
Yes USG files patents all the time > On Aug 18, 2016, at 5:51 PM, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > > > Totally agree. But can the USG file patents? I suppose research > organizations can (MITRE, maybe even NASA?) so it's not that academic; but > presumably any place where this public domain arises, it applies to patents > too. Would be nice to get that sorted. > > Brian > >> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Chris DiBona wrote: >> In military contracting , patent grants are key to the point where I >> wouldn't consider a non patent granting license from, say, lockheed as being >> open source at all. >> On Aug 18, 2016 3:05 PM, "Tzeng, Nigel H." wrote: >> On 8/18/16, 3:57 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Lawrence Rosen" >> > lro...@rosenlaw.com> >> wrote: >> >> >Nigel Tzeng wrote: >> >> The issue here is for code that is potentially quite substantial. I >> >>would think that would be a different scenario. >> > >> >If I include the works of Shakespeare in my software, it would of >> course >> >be substantial and yet still be public domain almost everywhere (?). >> >> If patents aren't a concern then okay. Copyright lasts longer than >> patents so for anything that is in the public domain because of age then >> no patents would still apply. >> >> There isn¹t a lot of code that has aged out. Only code written between >> before 1963 and didn¹t get a renewal. >> >> _______ >> License-discuss mailing list >> 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 ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
[License-discuss] Unsubscribe
Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 18, 2016, at 8:45 PM, license-discuss-requ...@opensource.org wrote: > > Send License-discuss mailing list submissions to >license-discuss@opensource.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >license-discuss-requ...@opensource.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at >license-discuss-ow...@opensource.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of License-discuss digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army > Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > (Tzeng, Nigel H.) > 2. Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army > Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > (Tzeng, Nigel H.) > 3. Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army > Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 (Chris DiBona) > 4. Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army > Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > (Brian Behlendorf) > > > ------ > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 21:31:20 + > From: "Tzeng, Nigel H." > To: "license-discuss@opensource.org" , >Lawrence Rosen > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] >Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > From: License-discuss > mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org>> > on behalf of "Smith, McCoy" > mailto:mccoy.sm...@intel.com>> > >>> "I don't believe that there is an OSD requirement that the lawyers on >>> License-Review/License-Discuss agree that the legal concern being addressed >>> by a new license submission is valid. *Especially when other lawyers >>> disagree.*" > >> The problem is, I think to many of us commenting here, is that those other >> lawyers are not part of this conversation. And for whatever reason have >> said they will not be. So we're hearing "I'm not a lawyer, but unnamed >> lawyers have >told me there is this problem, but have not explained their >> basis for finding that problem." > >> So there is likely some skepticism that there is a need at all for this >> license, as it seems to be just Apache 2.0, with clauses to address a >> problem that many (or all) of the lawyers on here are not even sure exists. > > I get that, but you won't be the ones that have to deal with any problems > that arise if the issue does exist. If approving ARL OSL and NOSA gives NASA > and ARL/Army the legal warm fuzzies to be more liberal in open sourcing code > then one new special purpose license doesn't hurt anyone even on the > proliferation front. Only one because NOSA 1.3 would get retired in favor of > NOSA 2.0. > > The White House can mandate 20% OSS release across all agencies but it's easy > for any agency uncomfortable with open sourcing their software to simply > decline. In many places it's as easy as writing a classification guide that > says all software developed for this agency is automatically FOUO or LES. > Then open sourcing anything becomes a royal pain in the rear and not open > sourcing anything is as simple as writing a disclaimer that points at the > class guide. > > And OSI's intransigence on CC0 may come around and bite it in the rear if a > significant FedGov OSS mandate starts off with CC0 as a default open source > license for the USG because that's what they did for code.gov and it's the > only one that fits the bill for public domain software. And I don't recall > that CC0 "contains any specific terms about distribution of source code" so > if CC0 is usable for software then so is CC-BY and perhaps CC-BY-SA. > -- next part ------ > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/attachments/20160818/475542c8/attachment-0001.html> > > -- > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 21:58:52 + > From: "Tzeng, Nigel H." > To: Lawrence Rosen , >"license-discuss@opensource.org" > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
Totally agree. But can the USG file patents? I suppose research organizations can (MITRE, maybe even NASA?) so it's not that academic; but presumably any place where this public domain arises, it applies to patents too. Would be nice to get that sorted. Brian On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Chris DiBona wrote: In military contracting , patent grants are key to the point where I wouldn't consider a non patent granting license from, say, lockheed as being open source at all. On Aug 18, 2016 3:05 PM, "Tzeng, Nigel H." wrote: On 8/18/16, 3:57 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Lawrence Rosen" wrote: >Nigel Tzeng wrote: >> The issue here is for code that is potentially quite substantial. I >>would think that would be a different scenario. > >If I include the works of Shakespeare in my software, it would of course >be substantial and yet still be public domain almost everywhere (?). If patents aren't a concern then okay. Copyright lasts longer than patents so for anything that is in the public domain because of age then no patents would still apply. There isn¹t a lot of code that has aged out. Only code written between before 1963 and didn¹t get a renewal. _______ License-discuss mailing list 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
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
In military contracting , patent grants are key to the point where I wouldn't consider a non patent granting license from, say, lockheed as being open source at all. On Aug 18, 2016 3:05 PM, "Tzeng, Nigel H." wrote: > On 8/18/16, 3:57 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Lawrence Rosen" > > wrote: > > > >Nigel Tzeng wrote: > >> The issue here is for code that is potentially quite substantial. I > >>would think that would be a different scenario. > > > >If I include the works of Shakespeare in my software, it would of course > >be substantial and yet still be public domain almost everywhere (?). > > If patents aren't a concern then okay. Copyright lasts longer than > patents so for anything that is in the public domain because of age then > no patents would still apply. > > There isn¹t a lot of code that has aged out. Only code written between > before 1963 and didn¹t get a renewal. > > ___ > License-discuss mailing list > 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
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
On 8/18/16, 3:57 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Lawrence Rosen" wrote: >Nigel Tzeng wrote: >> The issue here is for code that is potentially quite substantial. I >>would think that would be a different scenario. > >If I include the works of Shakespeare in my software, it would of course >be substantial and yet still be public domain almost everywhere (?). If patents aren't a concern then okay. Copyright lasts longer than patents so for anything that is in the public domain because of age then no patents would still apply. There isn¹t a lot of code that has aged out. Only code written between before 1963 and didn¹t get a renewal. ___________ 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: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
From: License-discuss mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org>> on behalf of "Smith, McCoy" mailto:mccoy.sm...@intel.com>> >>"I don't believe that there is an OSD requirement that the lawyers on >>License-Review/License-Discuss agree that the legal concern being addressed >>by a new license submission is valid. *Especially when other lawyers >>disagree.*" >The problem is, I think to many of us commenting here, is that those other >lawyers are not part of this conversation. And for whatever reason have said >they will not be. So we're hearing "I'm not a lawyer, but unnamed lawyers >have >told me there is this problem, but have not explained their basis for >finding that problem." >So there is likely some skepticism that there is a need at all for this >license, as it seems to be just Apache 2.0, with clauses to address a problem >that many (or all) of the lawyers on here are not even sure exists. I get that, but you won't be the ones that have to deal with any problems that arise if the issue does exist. If approving ARL OSL and NOSA gives NASA and ARL/Army the legal warm fuzzies to be more liberal in open sourcing code then one new special purpose license doesn't hurt anyone even on the proliferation front. Only one because NOSA 1.3 would get retired in favor of NOSA 2.0. The White House can mandate 20% OSS release across all agencies but it's easy for any agency uncomfortable with open sourcing their software to simply decline. In many places it's as easy as writing a classification guide that says all software developed for this agency is automatically FOUO or LES. Then open sourcing anything becomes a royal pain in the rear and not open sourcing anything is as simple as writing a disclaimer that points at the class guide. And OSI's intransigence on CC0 may come around and bite it in the rear if a significant FedGov OSS mandate starts off with CC0 as a default open source license for the USG because that's what they did for code.gov and it's the only one that fits the bill for public domain software. And I don't recall that CC0 "contains any specific terms about distribution of source code" so if CC0 is usable for software then so is CC-BY and perhaps CC-BY-SA. ___ 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: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
There likely will be some USG-only discussion beforehand, but since there are a lot of people to coordinate on this, the sooner I get started, the better. Thanks, Cem Karan > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 5:00 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: > [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open > Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > 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. > > > > > > > Why not limit it to USG lawyers? That may be an easier sell for a first > meeting. Especially if you can convince someone at the OMB to host > the telcon because of the new policy and get the relevant DOJ lawyers to > dial in. > > > It is too much to expect clear guidance (this is the government after all) > but it would at least be useful if the lawyers that approved the > release of code.gov under CC0 could tell your lawyers why they thought it > was sufficient. Especially if these are the same set of lawyers > providing legal guidance to the White House OMB 20% OSS mandate. > > On 8/18/16, 4:36 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY > RDECOM ARL (US)" boun...@opensource.org on behalf of cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote: > > >Larry, I agree with you completely about the need for all attorneys > >talking to one another, while us engineers sit back and listen. I'm > >going to try to talk the various attorneys in the USG that I've > >contacted into being part of a telecon. If I'm able to do so, are > >there any attorneys on this list who would be interested in taking part > >in that discussion? If you are, please email me directly; put "ARL OSL > >telecon" as the subject line, and tell me what times are best for you > >relative to the Eastern Time Zone. > > > >PLEASE NOTE! That telecon MUST be for attorneys ONLY! I may be able > >to convince the ARL attorneys to talk to outside attorneys, but they > >will be VERY unhappy if anyone else is coming in on the line. There > >are good legal reasons for this; please don't try to sneak in. > > > >Thanks, > >Cem Karan > > ___ > 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
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 4:26 PM > To: Lawrence Rosen ; license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. > Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > 0.4.0 > > >Cem Karan wrote: > > >> The only reason that the ARL OSL was proposed AT ALL is because there is a > >> strong concern that since USG code doesn't have copyright > [1], any license that relies exclusively on copyright may be invalidated by > the courts [2]. > > > > >We understand that strong concern. Most of us don't share it. > > > Well, if all lawyers agreed then IP cases would go a lot more quickly, no? > > Plaintiff’s lawyer: We think X! > Defendant’s lawyer: We agree! > > I don’t believe that there is an OSD requirement that the lawyers on > License-Review/License-Discuss agree that the legal concern being > addressed by a new license submission is valid. Especially when other > lawyers disagree. > > Given that NOSA is still in limbo, it might be fair (not really given how > long NOSA has been in limbo) to ask that ARL and NASA lawyers get > together and address their concerns in one special purpose license since both > are trying to address legal concerns they believe are valid for > USG OSS projects. Although, with the current white house interest, both NASA > and ARL could punt the issue up to the Tony Scott at the > OMB (or whomever Chris suggested) and say “here are our requirements…give us > a FedGov OSS license that address those needs and > submit it to the OSI". > > And then approve (or deny) that license quickly once submitted If it passes > the OSD and retire the existing NOSA license rather than sit on > it for three years without resolution. Hopefully, if the White House submits > a license to the OSI it is reviewed with a bit more alacrity. Actually, we ARE in talks with NASA; the attorney at ARL that is working on this used to work at NASA, and so knows the right people to talk to over 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
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
Why not limit it to USG lawyers? That may be an easier sell for a first meeting. Especially if you can convince someone at the OMB to host the telcon because of the new policy and get the relevant DOJ lawyers to dial in. It is too much to expect clear guidance (this is the government after all) but it would at least be useful if the lawyers that approved the release of code.gov under CC0 could tell your lawyers why they thought it was sufficient. Especially if these are the same set of lawyers providing legal guidance to the White House OMB 20% OSS mandate. On 8/18/16, 4:36 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" wrote: >Larry, I agree with you completely about the need for all attorneys >talking to >one another, while us engineers sit back and listen. I'm going to try to >talk >the various attorneys in the USG that I've contacted into being part of a >telecon. If I'm able to do so, are there any attorneys on this list who >would >be interested in taking part in that discussion? If you are, please >email me >directly; put "ARL OSL telecon" as the subject line, and tell me what >times >are best for you relative to the Eastern Time Zone. > >PLEASE NOTE! That telecon MUST be for attorneys ONLY! I may be able to >convince the ARL attorneys to talk to outside attorneys, but they will be >VERY >unhappy if anyone else is coming in on the line. There are good legal >reasons >for this; please don't try to sneak in. > >Thanks, >Cem Karan ___ 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: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
On 8/18/16, 4:24 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Richard Fontana" wrote: >On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 07:15:52PM +, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: >> From: License-discuss >>mailto:license-discuss-bounces@op >>ensource.org>> on behalf of "Smith, McCoy" >>mailto:mccoy.sm...@intel.com>> >> >> > Interestingly enough, the code of the code.gov site is licensed under >>CC0 1.0: >>https://github.com/presidential-innovation-fellows/code-gov-web/blob/mast >>er/LICENSE.md >> >> But but but...that's not an OSI approved software license! >> >> Why did that fail again? The person who submitted didn't have standing >>or something? > >The license steward withdrew the submission following negative >reaction on license-review to the "No ... patent rights held by >Affirmer are waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise >affected by this document" clause. Thank you Richard. If the USG is using CC0 for their new OSS initiative is this something that should be revisited? Of course, you know I¹m of the opinion that is the OSI states a license is open source if it passes the OSD then we should either amend the OSD to require explicit patent grants moving forward or not block useful new licenses because of the lack of a patent grant. _______ 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: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
Are you asking what happens in foreign jurisdictions if the license is invalidated within the USA? I have no idea; I don't even know what will happen within the USA in that case. Maybe one of the lawyers on the list could comment? Thanks, Cem Karan > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Diane Peters > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 3:28 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. > Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > 0.4.0 > > 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. > > > > > > > Copyright is not available for US government works as a matter of US > copyright law (section 105), but that does not mean those works > may not be restricted by copyright laws of other countries. Congress > contemplated that expressly. > > > “The prohibition on copyright protection for United States Government > works is not intended to have any effect on protection of > these works abroad. Works of the governments of most other countries are > copyrighted. There are no valid policy reasons for denying > such protection to United States Government works in foreign countries, or > for precluding the Government from making licenses for the > use of its works abroad.” > > Notes of Committee on the Judiciary (re Section 105), H.R. Rep. No. > 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 59 (1976) > > > Given this, it remains unclear how a license to the worldwide public would be > invalidated by a court? Please say more. > > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil > > wrote: > > > The only reason that the ARL OSL was proposed AT ALL is because there > is a > strong concern that since USG code doesn't have copyright [1], any > license > that relies exclusively on copyright may be invalidated by the courts > [2]. If > the USG had copyright, then I could stop pushing the ARL OSL entirely > as we > could use any of the OSI-supplied licenses. > > So to be 100% clear, we don't know if any copyright-based license will > stand > up in court for works that don't have copyright attached. The only > reason > that the ARL OSL was proposed was to deal with that particular > situation. If > you have case law where the USG won a lawsuit over material licensed > under one > of the copyright-based OSI licenses where there was no claim of > copyright, > please provide it. I can pass that to the ARL Legal team who can then > review > it. > > Thanks, > Cem Karan > > [1] I'm making the usual assumption that this was code created by USG > employees in the course of their duties; copyright can be assigned to > the USG > where and when it exists, but I'm ignoring that for right now. > > [2] My expectation is that it would be invalidated for the USG-supplied > portion, but not for any portion that had copyright attached. Note > that this > is just my opinion, and I have nothing to back it up. IANAL. > > > -----Original Message- > > From: License-discuss > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org < > Caution-mailto:license-discuss- > boun...@opensource.org > ] On > > Behalf Of Smith, McCoy > > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:54 PM > > To: license-discuss@opensource.org < > Caution-mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org > > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] > Re: > > U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > > 0.4.0 > > > > Or to put a finer point on it, the other issues you identify appear > to be > > ones that are explicitly addressed in many already-approved OSI > > licenses, including Apache 2.0, the one you are modeling your license > upon. > > > > I hope you're getting a sense that there are several lawyers on this > mailing > > list -- lawyers who have years of experience looking at, > > debating, and giving advice on the issues you identify in this > submission -- > > who think that your proposed license
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
Larry, I agree with you completely about the need for all attorneys talking to one another, while us engineers sit back and listen. I'm going to try to talk the various attorneys in the USG that I've contacted into being part of a telecon. If I'm able to do so, are there any attorneys on this list who would be interested in taking part in that discussion? If you are, please email me directly; put "ARL OSL telecon" as the subject line, and tell me what times are best for you relative to the Eastern Time Zone. PLEASE NOTE! That telecon MUST be for attorneys ONLY! I may be able to convince the ARL attorneys to talk to outside attorneys, but they will be VERY unhappy if anyone else is coming in on the line. There are good legal reasons for this; please don't try to sneak in. Thanks, Cem Karan > -----Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 2:15 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Cc: Lawrence Rosen > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: > [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source > License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > 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 only reason that the ARL OSL was proposed AT ALL is because there is a > > strong concern that since USG code doesn't have copyright > [1], any license that relies exclusively on copyright may be invalidated by > the courts [2]. > > > > We understand that strong concern. Most of us don't share it. > > > > Many of us have noted that NO FOSS LICENSE relies exclusively on copyright > law. That argument was made here on this list years ago. No > court anywhere has ever decided a FOSS case without also using CONTRACT > interpretation rules. > > > > We also noted that MOST FOSS SOFTWARE already contains public domain > components. Perhaps ALL FOSS SOFTWARE, considering that > engineers often claim copyright on more than they deserve. > > > > Our U.S. Army software is no different: Portions copyright; portions not. > > > > We attorneys here will try to convince your attorneys of that if they > consent to speak to us. You engineers should not volunteer to be > translators in that discussion, but listen in. And we attorneys should speak > candidly about copyright and contract law. Several of us are > specialists, and several here have already volunteered to have that legal > chat with your counsel. > > > > /Larry > > > > Lawrence Rosen > > Rosenlaw (Caution-www.rosenlaw.com) > > 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 > > Cell: 707-478-8932 > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > [Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil] > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 10:52 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: > U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > 0.4.0 > > > > The only reason that the ARL OSL was proposed AT ALL is because there is a > strong concern that since USG code doesn't have copyright > [1], any license that relies exclusively on copyright may be invalidated by > the courts [2]. If the USG had copyright, then I could stop > pushing the ARL OSL entirely as we could use any of the OSI-supplied > licenses. > > > > So to be 100% clear, we don't know if any copyright-based license will stand > up in court for works that don't have copyright attached. The > only reason that the ARL OSL was proposed was to deal with that particular > situation. If you have case law where the USG won a lawsuit > over material licensed under one of the copyright-based OSI licenses where > there was no claim of copyright, please provide it. I can pass > that to the ARL Legal team who can then review it. > > > > Thanks, > > Cem Karan > > > > [1] I'm making the usual assumption that this was code created by USG > employees in the course of their duties; copyright can be assigned > to the USG where and when it exists, but I'm ignoring that for right now. > > > > [2] My expectation is that it would be invalidated for the USG-supplied > portion, but not for any portion that had copyright attached. Note > that this is just my opinion, and I have nothing to
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
"I don't believe that there is an OSD requirement that the lawyers on License-Review/License-Discuss agree that the legal concern being addressed by a new license submission is valid. *Especially when other lawyers disagree.*" The problem is, I think to many of us commenting here, is that those other lawyers are not part of this conversation. And for whatever reason have said they will not be. So we're hearing "I'm not a lawyer, but unnamed lawyers have told me there is this problem, but have not explained their basis for finding that problem." So there is likely some skepticism that there is a need at all for this license, as it seems to be just Apache 2.0, with clauses to address a problem that many (or all) of the lawyers on here are not even sure exists. From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 1:26 PM To: Lawrence Rosen; license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 >Cem Karan wrote: >> The only reason that the ARL OSL was proposed AT ALL is because there is a >> strong concern that since USG code doesn't have copyright [1], any license >> that relies exclusively on copyright may be invalidated by the courts [2]. >We understand that strong concern. Most of us don't share it. Well, if all lawyers agreed then IP cases would go a lot more quickly, no? Plaintiff's lawyer: We think X! Defendant's lawyer: We agree! I don't believe that there is an OSD requirement that the lawyers on License-Review/License-Discuss agree that the legal concern being addressed by a new license submission is valid. Especially when other lawyers disagree. Given that NOSA is still in limbo, it might be fair (not really given how long NOSA has been in limbo) to ask that ARL and NASA lawyers get together and address their concerns in one special purpose license since both are trying to address legal concerns they believe are valid for USG OSS projects. Although, with the current white house interest, both NASA and ARL could punt the issue up to the Tony Scott at the OMB (or whomever Chris suggested) and say "here are our requirements...give us a FedGov OSS license that address those needs and submit it to the OSI". And then approve (or deny) that license quickly once submitted If it passes the OSD and retire the existing NOSA license rather than sit on it for three years without resolution. Hopefully, if the White House submits a license to the OSI it is reviewed with a bit more alacrity. ___ 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: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
>Cem Karan wrote: >> The only reason that the ARL OSL was proposed AT ALL is because there is a >> strong concern that since USG code doesn't have copyright [1], any license >> that relies exclusively on copyright may be invalidated by the courts [2]. >We understand that strong concern. Most of us don't share it. Well, if all lawyers agreed then IP cases would go a lot more quickly, no? Plaintiff's lawyer: We think X! Defendant's lawyer: We agree! I don't believe that there is an OSD requirement that the lawyers on License-Review/License-Discuss agree that the legal concern being addressed by a new license submission is valid. Especially when other lawyers disagree. Given that NOSA is still in limbo, it might be fair (not really given how long NOSA has been in limbo) to ask that ARL and NASA lawyers get together and address their concerns in one special purpose license since both are trying to address legal concerns they believe are valid for USG OSS projects. Although, with the current white house interest, both NASA and ARL could punt the issue up to the Tony Scott at the OMB (or whomever Chris suggested) and say "here are our requirements...give us a FedGov OSS license that address those needs and submit it to the OSI". And then approve (or deny) that license quickly once submitted If it passes the OSD and retire the existing NOSA license rather than sit on it for three years without resolution. Hopefully, if the White House submits a license to the OSI it is reviewed with a bit more alacrity. _______ 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: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 07:15:52PM +, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: > From: License-discuss > mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org>> > on behalf of "Smith, McCoy" > mailto:mccoy.sm...@intel.com>> > > > Interestingly enough, the code of the code.gov site is licensed under CC0 > > 1.0: > > https://github.com/presidential-innovation-fellows/code-gov-web/blob/master/LICENSE.md > > But but but...that's not an OSI approved software license! > > Why did that fail again? The person who submitted didn't have standing or > something? The license steward withdrew the submission following negative reaction on license-review to the "No ... patent rights held by Affirmer are waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this document" clause. Richard ___ 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: US Army Research Laboratory Open Source License proposal
> -Original Message- > From: Wheeler, David A [mailto:dwhee...@ida.org] > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 2:52 PM > To: legal-disc...@apache.org > Cc: Karl Fogel ; Lawrence Rosen ; > license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: RE: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License proposal > > William A Rowe Jr [Caution-mailto:wr...@rowe-clan.net]: > > Unsure how this news might apply but it sounds like changes in overall > > policy might gain some traction to address this... If OMB came up > with the rational of either approving AL 2.0 as is, or made a compelling > case for AL 2.1 clarifications. > Caution-https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/08/the-white-house-just-released-the-federal-source-code-policy-to-help-government-agencies- > go-open-source/ > > The detailed policy is here: > Caution-https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2016/m_16_21.pdf > > That new US federal government policy doesn't directly apply to many of > Cem's cases. The policy doesn't apply to National Security > Systems (NSS), and I expect that a lot of what the Army research labs do > would be classified as NSS. The policy certainly presses for the > release of open source software in general; it requires that a minimum of > 20% of custom-developed code be released as OSS in each year > for 3 years. It does note (in its definitions) that "custom developed code" > includes software developed by government officials as part of > their official duties. The policy itself does not delve into this kind of > legal analysis. The current lack of legal analysis is the problem. If they had complete analysis and full guidance about the license, we wouldn't be here at all! 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
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 2:35 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Cc: Lawrence Rosen > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: > [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source > License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > Cam Karan asked: > > > If you have case law where the USG won a lawsuit over material licensed > > under one of the copyright-based OSI licenses where there was > no claim of copyright, please provide it. > > > > A copyright lawsuit requires copyright, so that's impossible. > > > > A contract lawsuit requires damages and is usually fought in state (or small > claims?) court without even being published. Ask your own > attorneys if they have ever won a contract lawsuit in a state or federal > court without proof of damages because the USG or anyone else > merely distributed harmless public domain software. I can, but I suspect that the answer is 'no' because I believe that the DoJ is the one that handles defending the USG. And, considering that you are a lawyer and I'm not, I suspect that you're right about damages being necessary. ;) That said, what is being proposed is new ground for the USG. I suspect that there is very little if any case law regarding Open Source and the USG. I'd rather get all this right BEFORE there are any lawsuits. 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
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research Laboratory Open Source License proposal
The real trick is the DoJ; they have to defend the USG in court, as well as deal with any other legal aspects. If they are willing to accept the licenses as-is, then I suspect that rest of the USG would go along (note that I can't speak for the USG on this, someone with authority to sign off on the policy would have to make that decision). Thanks, Cem Karan > -Original Message- > From: William A Rowe Jr [mailto:wr...@rowe-clan.net] > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 2:26 PM > To: legal-disc...@apache.org > Cc: Karl Fogel ; Lawrence Rosen ; > license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: RE: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License proposal > > 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 Aug 3, 2016 08:51, "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" > mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil > > wrote: > > > > Hi all, Karl Fogel on the mil-oss (Caution-http://www.mil-oss.org/ < > > Caution-http://www.mil-oss.org/ > ) mailing list made a suggestion > > that might be the solution. Would the Apache foundation be willing to > > work on Apache 2.1, or maybe 3.0, incorporating changes as needed to > > cover works that don't have copyright attached to them? If that were > > possible, we wouldn't need the ARL OSL at all. > > > > Thanks, > > Cem Karan > > Unsure how this news might apply but it sounds like changes in overall > policy might gain some traction to address this... If OMB came up > with the rational of either approving AL 2.0 as is, or made a compelling > case for AL 2.1 clarifications. > > Caution-https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/08/the-white-house-just-released-the-federal-source-code-policy-to-help-government-agencies- > go-open-source/ < > Caution-https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/08/the-white-house-just-released-the-federal-source-code-policy-to-help- > government-agencies-go-open-source/ > 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: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
Diane Peters scripsit: > Given this, it remains unclear how a license to the worldwide public would > be invalidated by a court? Please say more. Because we don't know what law a foreign court would apply. It might apply the Berne Convention, and say "This work has a copyright term of zero years in its home country, so it has a copyright term of zero years here." Or it might apply its local law as if the work were a local work. Or it might do something else. Conflicts law is still rather primitive and unpredictable. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org If you understand, things are just as they are. if you do not understand, things are just as they are. _______ 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: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
Nigel Tzeng wrote: > The issue here is for code that is potentially quite substantial. I would > think that would be a different scenario. If I include the works of Shakespeare in my software, it would of course be substantial and yet still be public domain almost everywhere (?). I license my entire work to you under the Apache 2.0 license. [This is what you should do with ARL software!] If I also want to disclaim all warranties and liability against viruses and other malicious code, my Apache 2.0 contract will probably protect me in most jurisdictions. If Apple now takes my work and includes it in the next iPhone release, then Apple may become liable under commercial laws for electronic products in the U.S., and so perhaps Apple and I will eventually have a contract dispute or one of its customers may sue me for damages. I don't think that is a copyright lawsuit regardless of whether I own the copyright on the virus. And Shakespeare is still free and not liable. /Larry -Original Message- From: Tzeng, Nigel H. [mailto:nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu] Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 12:34 PM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 On 8/18/16, 11:03 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Richard Fontana" wrote: >As a few have pointed out, all code that is nominally licensed under >open source licenses will contain noncopyrighted portions. While true, that¹s because they were not significant enough to have copyright. The issue here is for code that is potentially quite substantial. I would think that would be a different scenario. _______ License-discuss mailing list 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
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Richard Fontana > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 11:04 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: > U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > 0.4.0 > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 02:50:18PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US) wrote: > > > > > > Even if you were correct in the assertions you've made about ARL > > > code, why is a new license needed for contributors other than ARL? > > > > Are you suggesting a dual license scheme, where all copyrighted > > portions are under Apache 2.0, and all non-copyrighted portions are under > > the ARL OSL? > > No, I'm just suggesting why not adopt a rule that all contributors (other > than ARL -- though for the reasons others have stated I think this > should also apply to ARL) license contributions under the Apache License > 2.0. > > As a few have pointed out, all code that is nominally licensed under open > source licenses will contain noncopyrighted portions. OK, so you're proposing that contributions that have copyright use the Apache 2.0 license, and contributions that don't have copyright use the ARL OSL, correct? I just want to make sure I fully understand what you're proposing. 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
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
On 8/18/16, 11:03 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Richard Fontana" wrote: >As a few have pointed out, all code that is nominally licensed under >open source licenses will contain noncopyrighted portions. While true, that¹s because they were not significant enough to have copyright. The issue here is for code that is potentially quite substantial. I would think that would be a different scenario. ___ 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: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
Copyright is not available for US government works as a matter of US copyright law (section 105), but that does not mean those works may not be restricted by copyright laws of other countries. Congress contemplated that expressly. “The prohibition on copyright protection for United States Government works is not intended to have any effect on protection of these works abroad. Works of the governments of most other countries are copyrighted. There are no valid policy reasons for denying such protection to United States Government works in foreign countries, or for precluding the Government from making licenses for the use of its works abroad.” Notes of Committee on the Judiciary (re Section 105), H.R. Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 59 (1976) Given this, it remains unclear how a license to the worldwide public would be invalidated by a court? Please say more. On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) < cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote: > The only reason that the ARL OSL was proposed AT ALL is because there is a > strong concern that since USG code doesn't have copyright [1], any license > that relies exclusively on copyright may be invalidated by the courts > [2]. If > the USG had copyright, then I could stop pushing the ARL OSL entirely as we > could use any of the OSI-supplied licenses. > > So to be 100% clear, we don't know if any copyright-based license will > stand > up in court for works that don't have copyright attached. The only reason > that the ARL OSL was proposed was to deal with that particular situation. > If > you have case law where the USG won a lawsuit over material licensed under > one > of the copyright-based OSI licenses where there was no claim of copyright, > please provide it. I can pass that to the ARL Legal team who can then > review > it. > > Thanks, > Cem Karan > > [1] I'm making the usual assumption that this was code created by USG > employees in the course of their duties; copyright can be assigned to the > USG > where and when it exists, but I'm ignoring that for right now. > > [2] My expectation is that it would be invalidated for the USG-supplied > portion, but not for any portion that had copyright attached. Note that > this > is just my opinion, and I have nothing to back it up. IANAL. > > > -Original Message- > > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > > Behalf Of Smith, McCoy > > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:54 PM > > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: > > U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > > 0.4.0 > > > > Or to put a finer point on it, the other issues you identify appear to be > > ones that are explicitly addressed in many already-approved OSI > > licenses, including Apache 2.0, the one you are modeling your license > upon. > > > > I hope you're getting a sense that there are several lawyers on this > mailing > > list -- lawyers who have years of experience looking at, > > debating, and giving advice on the issues you identify in this > submission -- > > who think that your proposed license is a variant of Apache 2.0 > > designed to solve a "problem" for USG users with Apache 2.0 that we are > > skeptical even exists. Perhaps the ARL lawyers can clarify what > > the problem is, and that we are missing something. But I think at least > I > > am having a hard time understanding how this license does > > anything that Apache 2.0 doesn't. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: License-discuss > > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of > Richard > > Fontana > > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:33 AM > > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: > > U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > > 0.4.0 > > > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:17:07PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM > ARL > > (US) wrote: > > > > > > Once again, liability isn't the only issue; there are also copyright > > > issues (for contributors), and IP issues. If we could solve the > > > problem via a simple disclaimer of liability, we would. We need to > handle > > > ALL the issues. > > > > Even if you were correct in the assertions you've made about ARL code, > why > > is a new license needed for contributors other than ARL? > > > > ___ > License-discuss mailing list > 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
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
From: License-discuss mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org>> on behalf of "Smith, McCoy" mailto:mccoy.sm...@intel.com>> > Interestingly enough, the code of the code.gov site is licensed under CC0 > 1.0: > https://github.com/presidential-innovation-fellows/code-gov-web/blob/master/LICENSE.md But but but...that's not an OSI approved software license! Why did that fail again? The person who submitted didn't have standing or something? ___________ 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: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
Lawrence Rosen scripsit: > We attorneys here will try to convince your attorneys of that if > they consent to speak to us. You engineers should not volunteer to > be translators in that discussion, but listen in. And we attorneys > should speak candidly about copyright and contract law. Several of > us are specialists, and several here have already volunteered to have > that legal chat with your counsel. If lawyers talked to other lawyers, they might end up changing their minds, and that would never do. "[M]uch enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an _attorney_'." --Boswell's Life of Johnson :-) -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org Being understandable rather than obscurantist poses certain risks, in that one's opinions are clear and therefore falsifiable in the light of new data, but it has the advantage of encouraging feedback from others. --James A. Matisoff ___________ 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: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
Cam Karan asked: > If you have case law where the USG won a lawsuit over material licensed under > one of the copyright-based OSI licenses where there was no claim of > copyright, please provide it. A copyright lawsuit requires copyright, so that's impossible. A contract lawsuit requires damages and is usually fought in state (or small claims?) court without even being published. Ask your own attorneys if they have ever won a contract lawsuit in a state or federal court without proof of damages because the USG or anyone else merely distributed harmless public domain software. /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw ( <http://www.rosenlaw.com/> www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 Cell: 707-478-8932 This email is licensed under <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/> CC-BY-4.0. Please copy freely. From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com] Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 11:15 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Cc: Lawrence Rosen Subject: RE: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 Cem Karan wrote: > The only reason that the ARL OSL was proposed AT ALL is because there is a > strong concern that since USG code doesn't have copyright [1], any license > that relies exclusively on copyright may be invalidated by the courts [2]. We understand that strong concern. Most of us don't share it. Many of us have noted that NO FOSS LICENSE relies exclusively on copyright law. That argument was made here on this list years ago. No court anywhere has ever decided a FOSS case without also using CONTRACT interpretation rules. We also noted that MOST FOSS SOFTWARE already contains public domain components. Perhaps ALL FOSS SOFTWARE, considering that engineers often claim copyright on more than they deserve. Our U.S. Army software is no different: Portions copyright; portions not. We attorneys here will try to convince your attorneys of that if they consent to speak to us. You engineers should not volunteer to be translators in that discussion, but listen in. And we attorneys should speak candidly about copyright and contract law. Several of us are specialists, and several here have already volunteered to have that legal chat with your counsel. /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw (www.rosenlaw.com <http://www.rosenlaw.com> ) 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 Cell: 707-478-8932 -Original Message- From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) [mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil] Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 10:52 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org <mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 The only reason that the ARL OSL was proposed AT ALL is because there is a strong concern that since USG code doesn't have copyright [1], any license that relies exclusively on copyright may be invalidated by the courts [2]. If the USG had copyright, then I could stop pushing the ARL OSL entirely as we could use any of the OSI-supplied licenses. So to be 100% clear, we don't know if any copyright-based license will stand up in court for works that don't have copyright attached. The only reason that the ARL OSL was proposed was to deal with that particular situation. If you have case law where the USG won a lawsuit over material licensed under one of the copyright-based OSI licenses where there was no claim of copyright, please provide it. I can pass that to the ARL Legal team who can then review it. Thanks, Cem Karan [1] I'm making the usual assumption that this was code created by USG employees in the course of their duties; copyright can be assigned to the USG where and when it exists, but I'm ignoring that for right now. [2] My expectation is that it would be invalidated for the USG-supplied portion, but not for any portion that had copyright attached. Note that this is just my opinion, and I have nothing to back it up. IANAL. > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [ <mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org> > mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] > On Behalf Of Smith, McCoy > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:54 PM > To: <mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org> license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: > U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > 0.4.0 > > Or to put a finer point on it, the other issues you identify appear to > be ones that are explicitly addressed in many already-approved OSI > licenses, including Apache 2.0, the one you are modeling your license upon. > &g
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
I suggest using the Apache contribution license agreements rather than Apache itself. -Original Message- From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Richard Fontana Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 8:04 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 02:50:18PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: > > > > Even if you were correct in the assertions you've made about ARL > > code, why is a new license needed for contributors other than ARL? > > Are you suggesting a dual license scheme, where all copyrighted > portions are under Apache 2.0, and all non-copyrighted portions are under the > ARL OSL? No, I'm just suggesting why not adopt a rule that all contributors (other than ARL -- though for the reasons others have stated I think this should also apply to ARL) license contributions under the Apache License 2.0. As a few have pointed out, all code that is nominally licensed under open source licenses will contain noncopyrighted portions. ___________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss Please consider the environment before printing this email. The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender and destroy all copies of the message. To contact us directly, send to postmas...@dlapiper.com. Thank you. ___________ 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: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
Cem Karan wrote: > The only reason that the ARL OSL was proposed AT ALL is because there is a > strong concern that since USG code doesn't have copyright [1], any license > that relies exclusively on copyright may be invalidated by the courts [2]. We understand that strong concern. Most of us don't share it. Many of us have noted that NO FOSS LICENSE relies exclusively on copyright law. That argument was made here on this list years ago. No court anywhere has ever decided a FOSS case without also using CONTRACT interpretation rules. We also noted that MOST FOSS SOFTWARE already contains public domain components. Perhaps ALL FOSS SOFTWARE, considering that engineers often claim copyright on more than they deserve. Our U.S. Army software is no different: Portions copyright; portions not. We attorneys here will try to convince your attorneys of that if they consent to speak to us. You engineers should not volunteer to be translators in that discussion, but listen in. And we attorneys should speak candidly about copyright and contract law. Several of us are specialists, and several here have already volunteered to have that legal chat with your counsel. /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw (www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 Cell: 707-478-8932 -Original Message- From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) [mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil] Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 10:52 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 The only reason that the ARL OSL was proposed AT ALL is because there is a strong concern that since USG code doesn't have copyright [1], any license that relies exclusively on copyright may be invalidated by the courts [2]. If the USG had copyright, then I could stop pushing the ARL OSL entirely as we could use any of the OSI-supplied licenses. So to be 100% clear, we don't know if any copyright-based license will stand up in court for works that don't have copyright attached. The only reason that the ARL OSL was proposed was to deal with that particular situation. If you have case law where the USG won a lawsuit over material licensed under one of the copyright-based OSI licenses where there was no claim of copyright, please provide it. I can pass that to the ARL Legal team who can then review it. Thanks, Cem Karan [1] I'm making the usual assumption that this was code created by USG employees in the course of their duties; copyright can be assigned to the USG where and when it exists, but I'm ignoring that for right now. [2] My expectation is that it would be invalidated for the USG-supplied portion, but not for any portion that had copyright attached. Note that this is just my opinion, and I have nothing to back it up. IANAL. > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [ <mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org> > mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] > On Behalf Of Smith, McCoy > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:54 PM > To: <mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org> license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: > U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > 0.4.0 > > Or to put a finer point on it, the other issues you identify appear to > be ones that are explicitly addressed in many already-approved OSI > licenses, including Apache 2.0, the one you are modeling your license upon. > > I hope you're getting a sense that there are several lawyers on this > mailing list -- lawyers who have years of experience looking at, > debating, and giving advice on the issues you identify in this > submission -- who think that your proposed license is a variant of > Apache 2.0 designed to solve a "problem" for USG users with Apache 2.0 > that we are skeptical even exists. Perhaps the ARL lawyers can > clarify what the problem is, and that we are missing something. But I > think at least I am having a hard time understanding how this license > does anything that Apache 2.0 doesn't. > > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of > Richard Fontana > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:33 AM > To: <mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org> license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: > U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > 0.4.0 > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:17:07PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY > RDECOM ARL > (US) wrote: > > > > Once aga
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Brian Behlendorf > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 4:25 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: > U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > 0.4.0 > > On Wed, 17 Aug 2016, Smith, McCoy wrote: > > I hope you're getting a sense that there are several lawyers on this > > mailing list -- lawyers who have years of experience looking at, > > debating, and giving advice on the issues you identify in this > > submission -- who think that your proposed license is a variant of > > Apache 2.0 designed to solve a "problem" for USG users with Apache 2.0 > > that we are skeptical even exists. Perhaps the ARL lawyers can > > clarify what the problem is, and that we are missing something. But I > > think at least I am having a hard time understanding how this license > > does anything that Apache 2.0 doesn't. > > Is there something that a non-governmental entity can do to help with this, > by simply redistributing under AL2.0 that which they obtained > from ARL by "contract" such as this license? E.g., if this license was used > as the contributor agreement to a project hosted at the Apache > Software Foundation, could it then be redistributed by the ASF under AL2.0, > with appropriate credit given in a Contributing.md? Being an > IP laundry service for government is an awful reason to be an Apache > project, but if there some other reason for ARL's code to be hosted > there or at a similar organization (whether NGO or for-profit company even) > that might solve the problem, and then doesn't have to > worry about being an "open source license". A government agency (or branch > of the U.S. military) isn't really a great home for the > governance of a code base and community anyways. Actually, this was one of the first things we looked into; not ASF directly, but by having a contractor take ownership, and then assign copyright back to the USG, or even release it on behalf of the USG. Unfortunately, it doesn't work legally as there is no copyright for the contractor (or anyone else) to take over, so nothing to launder. 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
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
The only reason that the ARL OSL was proposed AT ALL is because there is a strong concern that since USG code doesn't have copyright [1], any license that relies exclusively on copyright may be invalidated by the courts [2]. If the USG had copyright, then I could stop pushing the ARL OSL entirely as we could use any of the OSI-supplied licenses. So to be 100% clear, we don't know if any copyright-based license will stand up in court for works that don't have copyright attached. The only reason that the ARL OSL was proposed was to deal with that particular situation. If you have case law where the USG won a lawsuit over material licensed under one of the copyright-based OSI licenses where there was no claim of copyright, please provide it. I can pass that to the ARL Legal team who can then review it. Thanks, Cem Karan [1] I'm making the usual assumption that this was code created by USG employees in the course of their duties; copyright can be assigned to the USG where and when it exists, but I'm ignoring that for right now. [2] My expectation is that it would be invalidated for the USG-supplied portion, but not for any portion that had copyright attached. Note that this is just my opinion, and I have nothing to back it up. IANAL. > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Smith, McCoy > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:54 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: > U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > 0.4.0 > > Or to put a finer point on it, the other issues you identify appear to be > ones that are explicitly addressed in many already-approved OSI > licenses, including Apache 2.0, the one you are modeling your license upon. > > I hope you're getting a sense that there are several lawyers on this mailing > list -- lawyers who have years of experience looking at, > debating, and giving advice on the issues you identify in this submission -- > who think that your proposed license is a variant of Apache 2.0 > designed to solve a "problem" for USG users with Apache 2.0 that we are > skeptical even exists. Perhaps the ARL lawyers can clarify what > the problem is, and that we are missing something. But I think at least I > am having a hard time understanding how this license does > anything that Apache 2.0 doesn't. > > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Richard > Fontana > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:33 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: > U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > 0.4.0 > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:17:07PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US) wrote: > > > > Once again, liability isn't the only issue; there are also copyright > > issues (for contributors), and IP issues. If we could solve the > > problem via a simple disclaimer of liability, we would. We need to handle > > ALL the issues. > > Even if you were correct in the assertions you've made about ARL code, why > is a new license needed for contributors other than ARL? 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: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Engel Nyst > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:59 PM > To: license-discuss > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: > U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > 0.4.0 > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Richard Fontana > wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:17:07PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM > > ARL (US) wrote: > >> > >> Once again, liability isn't the only issue; there are also copyright > >> issues (for contributors), and IP issues. If we could solve the > >> problem via a simple disclaimer of liability, we would. We need to > >> handle ALL the issues. > > > > Even if you were correct in the assertions you've made about ARL code, > > why is a new license needed for contributors other than ARL? > > I'm assuming it's because they (ARL) don't have section 5 otherwise. > > ARL OSL can apply to public domain works and have a clause 5 to point to why > contributors' code is under AL2.0. > While arguably unnecessary, I believe I see where they're coming from, it's > not hurting, and it's better in a document that equally gives > from USG all AL2.0-for-public-domain-works including patent grant. > > Just my understanding of the needs of the OP. Precisely; copyright is just one form of IP. We want to make sure that all IP is covered as completely as possible. 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
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
I pleaded with the OSI board to provide formal feedback on the draft Federal Open Source Policy during the request for comment phase, but to my knowledge nobody did anything. Opportunity lost. Indeed, that promised licensing guidance is coming from Federal Source Code Policy [1] which was just established. It's part of the White House's Second Open Government National Action Plan, and was 2 years in the making (7 years if you count from Obama creating the Open Government Initiative). The Federal policy actually mandates 20% of all software development must be open source, which is unprecedented, albeit currently without measurement criteria or enforcement teeth. That's why I said the White House is prompting discussions; they're most definitely getting a lot of folks riled up from the highest level. One of the biggest issues with the policy timing is that they completely punted on licensing, copyright, and legal mechanics, merely saying guidance will be provided later on code.gov undoubtedly for all the complex reasons being discussed here. That means the clock is now ticking fast to November. Tony Scott (U.S. Chief Information Officer) could settle things by issuing clarifying guidance on copyright and licensing, but his support apparatus will not necessarily exist afterwards. It's most likely that there will not be legal agreement and guidance eventually published will amount to "using OSI licensing is a great idea, talk with your agency's lawyers on specifically how." That said, there are some really smart guys working these issues in OMB and DoD pressing for change, so the optimist in me remains hopeful. Cheers! Sean [1] https://sourcecode.cio.gov/ On Aug 18, 2016, at 11:47 AM, "Smith, McCoy" wrote: Given that the White House just released a memorandum on encouraging the USG to make more use of open source, and specifically said that it will be releasing licensing guidance on code.gov, perhaps the issues around 17 USC 105 and existing open source licenses will be resolved (or at least, the issues around existing open source licenses will be identified clearly) on behalf of all the USG: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2016/m_16_21.pdf -Original Message- From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 1:27 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 There is exceptional evidence that the status quo is wholly inadequate. OSI fails to recognize challenges faced within the Federal Government, and it hurts open source adoption. Statistically speaking as the largest producer of source code on the planet, the U.S. Federal Government *should* be one of the largest participants in open source yet there is barely a presence. Some people recognize NASA as one of the largest proponents in the Gov’t space, yet they are one of the smaller agencies with one of the smallest budgets. Federal R&D, which is predominantly computer science work, is more than double the size of NASA’s entire agency! There are more computer scientists writing code for the Gov’t than there are for any single company in existence, including the likes of Google and Microsoft. Let that sink in for a minute. Where is all the code? If it was simply a release issue, there would at least be lots of public domain code floating — there’s demonstrably not. [1] If even a measurable percentage of Government lawyers felt existing OSI licenses were apropos, there would be a ample evidence of agencies using MIT/Apache/LGPL/etc — there’s demonstrably not. [2] There has been presented here a position by at least two major federal agencies (DoD and NASA) that copyright-based licensing is specifically viewed as a problem by their respective lawyers. There is obvious disagreement and uncertainty, but therein lies a fundamental problem. Nobody’s opinion has been tested. Nobody can prove that their point is any more or less correct. Lacking case law evidence, all that remains is overwhelming industry evidence that what is currently available is not in any way viewed as adequate in the Federal space. At a minimum, there is enough uncertainty that there is zero-% penetration. You have agencies here trying their damnedest to find ways to support open source amidst ambiguous regulations, unique legal circumstances (copyright), notoriously risk-averse environments, and untested theories. You have specific representatives (for huge organizations) here saying “I would use this, it would help us”. That to me those make for pretty freaking compelling reasons to support any new open source licensing, if it will increase adoption of open source in the Federal space. I ra
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
Interestingly enough, the code of the code.gov site is licensed under CC0 1.0: https://github.com/presidential-innovation-fellows/code-gov-web/blob/master/LICENSE.md From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Chris DiBona Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 8:53 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 Cem, I'd be happy to put you in touch with Alvand in the white house if you are not already chatting. Email me off thread if so.. On Aug 18, 2016 8:47 AM, "Smith, McCoy" mailto:mccoy.sm...@intel.com>> wrote: Given that the White House just released a memorandum on encouraging the USG to make more use of open source, and specifically said that it will be releasing licensing guidance on code.gov<http://code.gov>, perhaps the issues around 17 USC 105 and existing open source licenses will be resolved (or at least, the issues around existing open source licenses will be identified clearly) on behalf of all the USG: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2016/m_16_21.pdf -Original Message- From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org>] On Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 1:27 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 There is exceptional evidence that the status quo is wholly inadequate. OSI fails to recognize challenges faced within the Federal Government, and it hurts open source adoption. Statistically speaking as the largest producer of source code on the planet, the U.S. Federal Government *should* be one of the largest participants in open source yet there is barely a presence. Some people recognize NASA as one of the largest proponents in the Gov’t space, yet they are one of the smaller agencies with one of the smallest budgets. Federal R&D, which is predominantly computer science work, is more than double the size of NASA’s entire agency! There are more computer scientists writing code for the Gov’t than there are for any single company in existence, including the likes of Google and Microsoft. Let that sink in for a minute. Where is all the code? If it was simply a release issue, there would at least be lots of public domain code floating — there’s demonstrably not. [1] If even a measurable percentage of Government lawyers felt existing OSI licenses were apropos, there would be a ample evidence of agencies using MIT/Apache/LGPL/etc — there’s demonstrably not. [2] There has been presented here a position by at least two major federal agencies (DoD and NASA) that copyright-based licensing is specifically viewed as a problem by their respective lawyers. There is obvious disagreement and uncertainty, but therein lies a fundamental problem. Nobody’s opinion has been tested. Nobody can prove that their point is any more or less correct. Lacking case law evidence, all that remains is overwhelming industry evidence that what is currently available is not in any way viewed as adequate in the Federal space. At a minimum, there is enough uncertainty that there is zero-% penetration. You have agencies here trying their damnedest to find ways to support open source amidst ambiguous regulations, unique legal circumstances (copyright), notoriously risk-averse environments, and untested theories. You have specific representatives (for huge organizations) here saying “I would use this, it would help us”. That to me those make for pretty freaking compelling reasons to support any new open source licensing, if it will increase adoption of open source in the Federal space. I ran on this platform for the 2016 OSI board election and missed it by fewer votes than I have fingers. This is a problem to a tremendous number of people. OSI licensing isn’t the only problem [3] faced by the Federal Government, but it is one of the most significant that has solutions being presented. NOSA 1.3 was offered but was then immediately shot down by FSF (for good reason, why is it even still on OSI's list??); NOSA 2.0 won’t likely be a solution without rework. ARL OSL aims to be so transparently compatible that it arguably limits proliferation (to the extent you can while creating a new agreement) and has much greater adoption potential with ASL’s rigor behind it. Dissenting won’t make agencies suddenly agree to just slap copyright-based licensing on their works or even releasing into PD. It will just continue to be lost opportunities for open source until there is congressional mandate, DoJ/DoC clarity, or case law clarity. White house
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
Cem, I'd be happy to put you in touch with Alvand in the white house if you are not already chatting. Email me off thread if so.. On Aug 18, 2016 8:47 AM, "Smith, McCoy" wrote: > Given that the White House just released a memorandum on encouraging the > USG to make more use of open source, and specifically said that it will be > releasing licensing guidance on code.gov, perhaps the issues around 17 > USC 105 and existing open source licenses will be resolved (or at least, > the issues around existing open source licenses will be identified clearly) > on behalf of all the USG: > https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/ > memoranda/2016/m_16_21.pdf > > > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 1:27 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: > U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > There is exceptional evidence that the status quo is wholly inadequate. > OSI fails to recognize challenges faced within the Federal Government, and > it hurts open source adoption. > > Statistically speaking as the largest producer of source code on the > planet, the U.S. Federal Government *should* be one of the largest > participants in open source yet there is barely a presence. Some people > recognize NASA as one of the largest proponents in the Gov’t space, yet > they are one of the smaller agencies with one of the smallest budgets. > Federal R&D, which is predominantly computer science work, is more than > double the size of NASA’s entire agency! There are more computer > scientists writing code for the Gov’t than there are for any single company > in existence, including the likes of Google and Microsoft. > > Let that sink in for a minute. > > Where is all the code? If it was simply a release issue, there would at > least be lots of public domain code floating — there’s demonstrably not. > [1] If even a measurable percentage of Government lawyers felt existing > OSI licenses were apropos, there would be a ample evidence of agencies > using MIT/Apache/LGPL/etc — there’s demonstrably not. [2] > > There has been presented here a position by at least two major federal > agencies (DoD and NASA) that copyright-based licensing is specifically > viewed as a problem by their respective lawyers. There is obvious > disagreement and uncertainty, but therein lies a fundamental problem. > Nobody’s opinion has been tested. Nobody can prove that their point is any > more or less correct. > > Lacking case law evidence, all that remains is overwhelming industry > evidence that what is currently available is not in any way viewed as > adequate in the Federal space. At a minimum, there is enough uncertainty > that there is zero-% penetration. > > You have agencies here trying their damnedest to find ways to support open > source amidst ambiguous regulations, unique legal circumstances > (copyright), notoriously risk-averse environments, and untested theories. > You have specific representatives (for huge organizations) here saying “I > would use this, it would help us”. That to me those make for pretty > freaking compelling reasons to support any new open source licensing, if it > will increase adoption of open source in the Federal space. > > I ran on this platform for the 2016 OSI board election and missed it by > fewer votes than I have fingers. This is a problem to a tremendous number > of people. OSI licensing isn’t the only problem [3] faced by the Federal > Government, but it is one of the most significant that has solutions being > presented. NOSA 1.3 was offered but was then immediately shot down by FSF > (for good reason, why is it even still on OSI's list??); NOSA 2.0 won’t > likely be a solution without rework. ARL OSL aims to be so transparently > compatible that it arguably limits proliferation (to the extent you can > while creating a new agreement) and has much greater adoption potential > with ASL’s rigor behind it. > > Dissenting won’t make agencies suddenly agree to just slap copyright-based > licensing on their works or even releasing into PD. It will just continue > to be lost opportunities for open source until there is congressional > mandate, DoJ/DoC clarity, or case law clarity. White house is currently > advocating and creating discussion, but we’ll see if that survives the > election. > > Cheers! > Sean > > [1] NIST, NASA, and 18F are outliers among hundreds of agencies. > [2] What you can find are works involving contractors where copyright gets > assigned. > [3] Cultural ignoranc
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
Given that the White House just released a memorandum on encouraging the USG to make more use of open source, and specifically said that it will be releasing licensing guidance on code.gov, perhaps the issues around 17 USC 105 and existing open source licenses will be resolved (or at least, the issues around existing open source licenses will be identified clearly) on behalf of all the USG: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2016/m_16_21.pdf -Original Message- From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 1:27 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 There is exceptional evidence that the status quo is wholly inadequate. OSI fails to recognize challenges faced within the Federal Government, and it hurts open source adoption. Statistically speaking as the largest producer of source code on the planet, the U.S. Federal Government *should* be one of the largest participants in open source yet there is barely a presence. Some people recognize NASA as one of the largest proponents in the Gov’t space, yet they are one of the smaller agencies with one of the smallest budgets. Federal R&D, which is predominantly computer science work, is more than double the size of NASA’s entire agency! There are more computer scientists writing code for the Gov’t than there are for any single company in existence, including the likes of Google and Microsoft. Let that sink in for a minute. Where is all the code? If it was simply a release issue, there would at least be lots of public domain code floating — there’s demonstrably not. [1] If even a measurable percentage of Government lawyers felt existing OSI licenses were apropos, there would be a ample evidence of agencies using MIT/Apache/LGPL/etc — there’s demonstrably not. [2] There has been presented here a position by at least two major federal agencies (DoD and NASA) that copyright-based licensing is specifically viewed as a problem by their respective lawyers. There is obvious disagreement and uncertainty, but therein lies a fundamental problem. Nobody’s opinion has been tested. Nobody can prove that their point is any more or less correct. Lacking case law evidence, all that remains is overwhelming industry evidence that what is currently available is not in any way viewed as adequate in the Federal space. At a minimum, there is enough uncertainty that there is zero-% penetration. You have agencies here trying their damnedest to find ways to support open source amidst ambiguous regulations, unique legal circumstances (copyright), notoriously risk-averse environments, and untested theories. You have specific representatives (for huge organizations) here saying “I would use this, it would help us”. That to me those make for pretty freaking compelling reasons to support any new open source licensing, if it will increase adoption of open source in the Federal space. I ran on this platform for the 2016 OSI board election and missed it by fewer votes than I have fingers. This is a problem to a tremendous number of people. OSI licensing isn’t the only problem [3] faced by the Federal Government, but it is one of the most significant that has solutions being presented. NOSA 1.3 was offered but was then immediately shot down by FSF (for good reason, why is it even still on OSI's list??); NOSA 2.0 won’t likely be a solution without rework. ARL OSL aims to be so transparently compatible that it arguably limits proliferation (to the extent you can while creating a new agreement) and has much greater adoption potential with ASL’s rigor behind it. Dissenting won’t make agencies suddenly agree to just slap copyright-based licensing on their works or even releasing into PD. It will just continue to be lost opportunities for open source until there is congressional mandate, DoJ/DoC clarity, or case law clarity. White house is currently advocating and creating discussion, but we’ll see if that survives the election. Cheers! Sean [1] NIST, NASA, and 18F are outliers among hundreds of agencies. [2] What you can find are works involving contractors where copyright gets assigned. [3] Cultural ignorance is so maligned that DoD CIO actually had to tell agencies it’s *illegal* to NOT consider open source. > On Aug 17, 2016, at 5:46 PM, Radcliffe, Mark > wrote: > > I agree with McCoy. As outside General Counsel of the OSI for more than 10 > years, the drafting of a new "open source" license requires strong reasons. > The reasons that I have seen in the list don't meet that standard. I > strongly recommend against trying to develop a new "open source" license. > > -Original Mess
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 02:50:18PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: > > > > Even if you were correct in the assertions you've made about ARL code, why > > is a new license needed for contributors other than ARL? > > Are you suggesting a dual license scheme, where all copyrighted portions are > under Apache 2.0, and all non-copyrighted portions are under the ARL OSL? No, I'm just suggesting why not adopt a rule that all contributors (other than ARL -- though for the reasons others have stated I think this should also apply to ARL) license contributions under the Apache License 2.0. As a few have pointed out, all code that is nominally licensed under open source licenses will contain noncopyrighted portions. ___________ 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: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Richard Fontana > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:33 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: > U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > 0.4.0 > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:17:07PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US) wrote: > > > > Once again, liability isn't the only issue; there are also copyright > > issues (for contributors), and IP issues. If we could solve the > > problem via a simple disclaimer of liability, we would. We need to handle > > ALL the issues. > > Even if you were correct in the assertions you've made about ARL code, why > is a new license needed for contributors other than ARL? Are you suggesting a dual license scheme, where all copyrighted portions are under Apache 2.0, and all non-copyrighted portions are under the ARL OSL? 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
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
There is exceptional evidence that the status quo is wholly inadequate. OSI fails to recognize challenges faced within the Federal Government, and it hurts open source adoption. Statistically speaking as the largest producer of source code on the planet, the U.S. Federal Government *should* be one of the largest participants in open source yet there is barely a presence. Some people recognize NASA as one of the largest proponents in the Gov’t space, yet they are one of the smaller agencies with one of the smallest budgets. Federal R&D, which is predominantly computer science work, is more than double the size of NASA’s entire agency! There are more computer scientists writing code for the Gov’t than there are for any single company in existence, including the likes of Google and Microsoft. Let that sink in for a minute. Where is all the code? If it was simply a release issue, there would at least be lots of public domain code floating — there’s demonstrably not. [1] If even a measurable percentage of Government lawyers felt existing OSI licenses were apropos, there would be a ample evidence of agencies using MIT/Apache/LGPL/etc — there’s demonstrably not. [2] There has been presented here a position by at least two major federal agencies (DoD and NASA) that copyright-based licensing is specifically viewed as a problem by their respective lawyers. There is obvious disagreement and uncertainty, but therein lies a fundamental problem. Nobody’s opinion has been tested. Nobody can prove that their point is any more or less correct. Lacking case law evidence, all that remains is overwhelming industry evidence that what is currently available is not in any way viewed as adequate in the Federal space. At a minimum, there is enough uncertainty that there is zero-% penetration. You have agencies here trying their damnedest to find ways to support open source amidst ambiguous regulations, unique legal circumstances (copyright), notoriously risk-averse environments, and untested theories. You have specific representatives (for huge organizations) here saying “I would use this, it would help us”. That to me those make for pretty freaking compelling reasons to support any new open source licensing, if it will increase adoption of open source in the Federal space. I ran on this platform for the 2016 OSI board election and missed it by fewer votes than I have fingers. This is a problem to a tremendous number of people. OSI licensing isn’t the only problem [3] faced by the Federal Government, but it is one of the most significant that has solutions being presented. NOSA 1.3 was offered but was then immediately shot down by FSF (for good reason, why is it even still on OSI's list??); NOSA 2.0 won’t likely be a solution without rework. ARL OSL aims to be so transparently compatible that it arguably limits proliferation (to the extent you can while creating a new agreement) and has much greater adoption potential with ASL’s rigor behind it. Dissenting won’t make agencies suddenly agree to just slap copyright-based licensing on their works or even releasing into PD. It will just continue to be lost opportunities for open source until there is congressional mandate, DoJ/DoC clarity, or case law clarity. White house is currently advocating and creating discussion, but we’ll see if that survives the election. Cheers! Sean [1] NIST, NASA, and 18F are outliers among hundreds of agencies. [2] What you can find are works involving contractors where copyright gets assigned. [3] Cultural ignorance is so maligned that DoD CIO actually had to tell agencies it’s *illegal* to NOT consider open source. > On Aug 17, 2016, at 5:46 PM, Radcliffe, Mark > wrote: > > I agree with McCoy. As outside General Counsel of the OSI for more than 10 > years, the drafting of a new "open source" license requires strong reasons. > The reasons that I have seen in the list don't meet that standard. I > strongly recommend against trying to develop a new "open source" license. > > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Smith, McCoy > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:54 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. > Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > Or to put a finer point on it, the other issues you identify appear to be > ones that are explicitly addressed in many already-approved OSI licenses, > including Apache 2.0, the one you are modeling your license upon. > > I hope you're getting a sense that there are several lawyers on this mailing > list -- lawyers who have years of experience looking at, debating, and giving > advice on the issues you identify in this submission -- who t
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
I agree with McCoy. As outside General Counsel of the OSI for more than 10 years, the drafting of a new "open source" license requires strong reasons. The reasons that I have seen in the list don't meet that standard. I strongly recommend against trying to develop a new "open source" license. -Original Message- From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Smith, McCoy Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:54 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 Or to put a finer point on it, the other issues you identify appear to be ones that are explicitly addressed in many already-approved OSI licenses, including Apache 2.0, the one you are modeling your license upon. I hope you're getting a sense that there are several lawyers on this mailing list -- lawyers who have years of experience looking at, debating, and giving advice on the issues you identify in this submission -- who think that your proposed license is a variant of Apache 2.0 designed to solve a "problem" for USG users with Apache 2.0 that we are skeptical even exists. Perhaps the ARL lawyers can clarify what the problem is, and that we are missing something. But I think at least I am having a hard time understanding how this license does anything that Apache 2.0 doesn't. -Original Message- From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Richard Fontana Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:33 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:17:07PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: > > Once again, liability isn't the only issue; there are also copyright > issues (for contributors), and IP issues. If we could solve the > problem via a simple disclaimer of liability, we would. We need to handle > ALL the issues. Even if you were correct in the assertions you've made about ARL code, why is a new license needed for contributors other than ARL? _______ License-discuss mailing list 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 Please consider the environment before printing this email. The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender and destroy all copies of the message. To contact us directly, send to postmas...@dlapiper.com. Thank you. _______ 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: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016, Smith, McCoy wrote: I hope you're getting a sense that there are several lawyers on this mailing list -- lawyers who have years of experience looking at, debating, and giving advice on the issues you identify in this submission -- who think that your proposed license is a variant of Apache 2.0 designed to solve a "problem" for USG users with Apache 2.0 that we are skeptical even exists. Perhaps the ARL lawyers can clarify what the problem is, and that we are missing something. But I think at least I am having a hard time understanding how this license does anything that Apache 2.0 doesn't. Is there something that a non-governmental entity can do to help with this, by simply redistributing under AL2.0 that which they obtained from ARL by "contract" such as this license? E.g., if this license was used as the contributor agreement to a project hosted at the Apache Software Foundation, could it then be redistributed by the ASF under AL2.0, with appropriate credit given in a Contributing.md? Being an IP laundry service for government is an awful reason to be an Apache project, but if there some other reason for ARL's code to be hosted there or at a similar organization (whether NGO or for-profit company even) that might solve the problem, and then doesn't have to worry about being an "open source license". A government agency (or branch of the U.S. military) isn't really a great home for the governance of a code base and community anyways. Brian _______ 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: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:17:07PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US) wrote: >> >> Once again, liability isn't the only issue; there are also copyright issues >> (for contributors), and IP issues. If we could solve the problem via a >> simple >> disclaimer of liability, we would. We need to handle ALL the issues. > > Even if you were correct in the assertions you've made about ARL code, > why is a new license needed for contributors other than ARL? I'm assuming it's because they (ARL) don't have section 5 otherwise. ARL OSL can apply to public domain works and have a clause 5 to point to why contributors' code is under AL2.0. While arguably unnecessary, I believe I see where they're coming from, it's not hurting, and it's better in a document that equally gives from USG all AL2.0-for-public-domain-works including patent grant. Just my understanding of the needs of the OP. ___ 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: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
Or to put a finer point on it, the other issues you identify appear to be ones that are explicitly addressed in many already-approved OSI licenses, including Apache 2.0, the one you are modeling your license upon. I hope you're getting a sense that there are several lawyers on this mailing list -- lawyers who have years of experience looking at, debating, and giving advice on the issues you identify in this submission -- who think that your proposed license is a variant of Apache 2.0 designed to solve a "problem" for USG users with Apache 2.0 that we are skeptical even exists. Perhaps the ARL lawyers can clarify what the problem is, and that we are missing something. But I think at least I am having a hard time understanding how this license does anything that Apache 2.0 doesn't. -Original Message- From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Richard Fontana Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:33 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:17:07PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: > > Once again, liability isn't the only issue; there are also copyright > issues (for contributors), and IP issues. If we could solve the > problem via a simple disclaimer of liability, we would. We need to handle > ALL the issues. Even if you were correct in the assertions you've made about ARL code, why is a new license needed for contributors other than ARL? ___________ License-discuss mailing list 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
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:17:07PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: > > Once again, liability isn't the only issue; there are also copyright issues > (for contributors), and IP issues. If we could solve the problem via a > simple > disclaimer of liability, we would. We need to handle ALL the issues. Even if you were correct in the assertions you've made about ARL code, why is a new license needed for contributors other than ARL? _______ 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: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Smith, McCoy > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:34 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. > Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > I find it odd that your lawyers are making you argue the legal issues here > even though you aren't a lawyer, and won't themselves join in to > the conversation. They have their reasons, but I'll try to get at least one on this list again. > Further on my point, the US DOJ (i.e., the top government lawyers in the > USA) website states that most of the material on their website is > public domain and freely usable by the public, yet still appends a > disclaimer of liability to that material: Caution- > https://www.justice.gov/legalpolicies That seems to me like a pretty > concrete example of the USG understanding that a disclaimer of > liability is not null and void just because the materials for which > liability is disclaimed is not licensable because it is in the public > domain. > The very problem the ARL lawyers are saying this new license proposal is > attempting to solve. Once again, liability isn't the only issue; there are also copyright issues (for contributors), and IP issues. If we could solve the problem via a simple disclaimer of liability, we would. We need to handle ALL the issues. 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
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
I find it odd that your lawyers are making you argue the legal issues here even though you aren't a lawyer, and won't themselves join in to the conversation. Further on my point, the US DOJ (i.e., the top government lawyers in the USA) website states that most of the material on their website is public domain and freely usable by the public, yet still appends a disclaimer of liability to that material: https://www.justice.gov/legalpolicies That seems to me like a pretty concrete example of the USG understanding that a disclaimer of liability is not null and void just because the materials for which liability is disclaimed is not licensable because it is in the public domain. The very problem the ARL lawyers are saying this new license proposal is attempting to solve. -Original Message----- From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 7:03 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] > On Behalf Of Smith, McCoy > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 4:51 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > I think what a lot of the lawyers on here are trying to say to you is > -- why not just use Apache 2.0 and be done with it? > > You appear to find Apache 2.0 wanting because some of the materials > that will be transmitted might not be copyrightable in some > jurisdictions. And you believe as a result, the entire Apache 2.0 > license (including the patent grants, and the disclaimer of > warranties) would be rendered null & void as a result. Perhaps the > lawyers from ARL are telling you that; if so, perhaps you could > invite them to the conversation. I have, but they've refused, and won't budge on it. > I think many people on here are skeptical of the latter part of your > analysis. In fact, I suspect that virtually every piece of code > licensed under Apache 2.0 has some parts that aren't subject to > copyright, since they don't satisfy the provisions of 17 USC 102 and > the various judicial tests to separate expressive vs. non-expressive content. Possibly true. If our management eventually says that they're willing to take the risk and go with it, I'll be willing to drop the ARL OSL. So far it hasn't happened, and so far our lawyers are convinced that the copyright is going to be a problem. Thanks, Cem Karan ___ 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) 0.4.0
> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Smith, McCoy > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 4:51 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > I think what a lot of the lawyers on here are trying to say to you is -- why > not just use Apache 2.0 and be done with it? > > You appear to find Apache 2.0 wanting because some of the materials that > will be transmitted might not be copyrightable in some > jurisdictions. And you believe as a result, the entire Apache 2.0 license > (including the patent grants, and the disclaimer of warranties) > would be rendered null & void as a result. Perhaps the lawyers from ARL are > telling you that; if so, perhaps you could invite them to the > conversation. I have, but they've refused, and won't budge on it. > I think many people on here are skeptical of the latter part of your > analysis. In fact, I suspect that virtually every piece of code licensed > under Apache 2.0 has some parts that aren't subject to copyright, since they > don't satisfy the provisions of 17 USC 102 and the various > judicial tests to separate expressive vs. non-expressive content. Possibly true. If our management eventually says that they're willing to take the risk and go with it, I'll be willing to drop the ARL OSL. So far it hasn't happened, and so far our lawyers are convinced that the copyright is going to be a problem. 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
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Engel Nyst > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 4:42 PM > To: license-discuss > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 9:43 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US) wrote: > > OK, I see where you're coming from now. I had to have the ARL Legal > > team explain this to me as well, but the ARL OSL is actually a > > contract, and the contract can apply even if there is no copyright. > > We release material to our collaborators on a regular basis under > > contract; we even do this with software, even though it is in the > > public domain. If they break the contract, we can sue them, but we > > can't sue anyone that they delivered the software to (it's in the > > public domain, so we don't have any copyright protections to sue > > over). The ARL OSL extends this as a chain; the USG releases the > > software to anyone that wants to download it, but by downloading it, > > they agree to the contract. That person in turn can hand off the > > software to another person, forming the chain. However, if the chain > > is broken, the USG only has the right to sue the first person that > > broke the chain; the others may be able to claim that they got the > > software in good faith. Since there is no copyright involved, and > > since they didn't break the contract, they are innocent; only the > > person that broke the chain originally is liable (note that I'm not a > > lawyer, and may have gotten some of this wrong; it's just my understanding > > from the ARL Legal team). This means that to sue, the USG > will need to prove that the person was the first one in the chain to break > the contract. > > > > Copyright is something entirely different from contract law. > > Copyright is a bundle of rights that an author gets by creating a > > work. The license allows a user to use the work without getting > > sued/stopped/etc. The trick is that since copyright attaches to a > > work AND since you can't copy/use/display/perform/etc. a work without > > permission from the copyright holders, you have to be able to point to > > the license that allows you to use the work without being sued. That > > means that a copyright holder doesn't need to follow a chain, it just > > needs to demonstrate that it has copyright on the work, and that its > > license is being violated. > > > > The closest analogy I can provide is that contract law is innocent > > until proven guilty, while copyright is guilty until proven innocent. > > I understand the intention, and I know it seems tempting to work via > contract, but here's the problem: > > Caution-https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/301 > > "On and after January 1, 1978, all legal or equitable rights that are > equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of > copyright as specified by section 106 in works of authorship that are fixed > in a tangible medium of expression and come within the subject > matter of copyright as specified by sections 102 and 103, whether created > before or after that date and whether published or > unpublished, are governed exclusively by this title. Thereafter, no person > is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work > under the common law or statutes of any State." > > Some claims of breaches of contract will fall squarely into what this > paragraph says: they would claim the same thing as the rights under > copyright. > > In other words: if A tries to make a contract with B, where A says "you > can't reproduce this work", that obligation lives or dies via > copyright alone. (if nothing else is involved) > > From what you say, you intend here exactly that: to recreate the rights to > reproduce, distribute, or make derivative works, or to put > obligations as if you had them, through contract. It seems to me that > copyright law already says USG can't do that. > > You can do a lot of contracts, to be sure; just not those who simulate > copyright. Got it; I'm going to forward your comments to the ARL Lawyer I'm working with to see what his opinion is. He's on vacation for another week though, so I won't be able to give you a good response until then. > Caselaw on this exact topic seems a mess. I don't know what would come of > this; without getting into it, here's my suggestion, considering > all I understand from your in
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
> The issue is the one that the Apache 2.0 license solves, and that the ARL OSL > is attempting to solve for works that don't have copyright attached. > Basically, clause 3 in each of the licenses means that you can't contribute > software that has patents on it, and then sue everyone for using said > contribution. Putting everything under CC0 doesn't protect the USG or anyone > that uses USG-sponsored projects from being sued, which at the very least > would be embarrassing, and in the worst-case, damaging to Open Source in > general. I want to avoid that issue entirely by having a license that will > stand up in court that makes it clear that contributors ARE licensing all > patents and other necessary IP rights when they contribute. Ah, thanks for your explanation. I now see the Rambus parallel: a patent-owning contributor asserting their patent against use of their contribution. I'm understanding that to be a concern about patent-owning non-governmental contributors, not about patents owned by the government. In that case, the code to which that patent license would relate would come from non-governmental contributors -- the government-specific copyright ownership concern would not seem relevant to that code. In any case, I'll add my voice to McCoy's: "why not just use Apache 2.0 and be done with it?" -- Scott _______ 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) 0.4.0
> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 4:36 PM > To: 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) 0.4.0 > > Keran, your description of the "chain" is not usually correct for FOSS. The > Apache and GPL and MPL licenses don't have to work that way > through sublicensing. Each licensee receives his or her license directly > from the licensor. There is no chain. The licensor (contractor) can > directly enforce that license -- including its warranties and liability > disclaimers -- against each of its licensees even if it is not a copyright > owner. > > In law, that means that privity [1] is not an enforcement problem for most > FOSS licenses because there are no contractual "third parties". > > > The closest analogy I can provide is that contract law is innocent > > until proven guilty, while copyright is guilty until proven innocent. > > No. I didn't say it was a *good* analogy! ;) You're right that normal licenses don't rely on chains; they have copyright to fall back on. If I have a piece of software licensed to me under the Apache 2.0 license, then I'm allowed to do certain things because the license protects me from the copyright holder's legal attacks; in their eyes, I'm 'guilty' until I can prove my innocence via the Apache 2.0 license (and my complying with its terms, of course!). Contract law and the principle of privity means that I can only sue the person I had a contract with. If the USG has a contract with A and A breaks the license in some way, and hands off the code to B, then B is an innocent party. The trick is that the USG has to prove that A was the guilty party. In a chain, the USG would have to follow the chain until it could find the guilty party (innocent until proven guilty). At that point the USG may be able to help the upstream party sue (I don't know if this is possible, I'm not a lawyer). So, given that the USG doesn't have copyright to fall back on in all cases (copyright can be assigned to the USG, so there are cases where copyright applies), it has to make do with contract law. This is why the ARL OSL is written as it is; it tries to use copyright whenever possible, but still provide protections when there is no copyright. Thanks, Cem Karan > /Larry > > [1] Privity: The doctrine of privity in the common law of contract provides > that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations > arising under it on any person or agent except the parties to it. > > > -Original Message- > From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > [Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil] > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 12:44 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > > -Original Message- > > From: License-discuss > > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] > > On Behalf Of Engel Nyst > > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 11:34 AM > > To: license-discuss > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > > (US) wrote: > > > OK, but wouldn't those changes mean that the license no longer > > > applies to the uncopyrightable portions? That would mean that > > > downstream users would no longer have any protection from being sued, > > > etc., right? > > > > The obligations (a)-(d) would not apply to the uncopyrightable portions. > > That's not the whole license/contract, only those particular > > obligations that try to put "restrictions" on the rights to reproduce, > > prepare derivative works, and distribute them. > > > > For example, (a) says "[you can reproduce this work], provided that > > ... you give other recipients a copy of this license". In other words, > > "you can't reproduce this work if you don't add a copy of this license". > > This obligation doesn't apply to a public domain work, I can reproduce > > it without. > > OK, I see where you're coming from now. I had to have the ARL Legal team > explain this to me as well, but the ARL OSL is actually a > contract, and the contract can apply even if there is no copyright. We > release material to our collaborator
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Scott K Peterson > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 4:35 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > > 2) Liability is only one part of the puzzle; as I mentioned in an > > earlier email, there are IP issues that need to be solved (e.g. > > Caution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambus#Lawsuits). That makes CC0 > > unattractive. > > > Rambus and free software? > > What about the Rambus patent litigation informs the software license choice > issues being discussed in this thread? > > I'm sorry. I clearly have not been paying enough attention to this thread. I > have been engaged in issues at the intersection of patents and > standards since before patent enforcement by Rambus attracted the attention > of the FTC. "Rambus". Now you have my attention. The issue is the one that the Apache 2.0 license solves, and that the ARL OSL is attempting to solve for works that don't have copyright attached. Basically, clause 3 in each of the licenses means that you can't contribute software that has patents on it, and then sue everyone for using said contribution. Putting everything under CC0 doesn't protect the USG or anyone that uses USG-sponsored projects from being sued, which at the very least would be embarrassing, and in the worst-case, damaging to Open Source in general. I want to avoid that issue entirely by having a license that will stand up in court that makes it clear that contributors ARE licensing all patents and other necessary IP rights when they contribute. Thanks, Cem Karan U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1, August 2016 http://no/URL/as/yet TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE, REPRODUCTION, AND DISTRIBUTION 1. Definitions. "License" shall mean the terms and conditions for use, reproduction, and distribution as defined by Sections 1 through 10 of this document. "Licensor" shall mean the project originator or entity authorized by the project originator that is granting the License. "Legal Entity" shall mean the union of the acting entity and all other entities that control, are controlled by, or are under common control with that entity. For the purposes of this definition, "control" means (i) the power, direct or indirect, to cause the direction or management of such entity, whether by contract or otherwise, or (ii) ownership of fifty percent (50%) or more of the outstanding shares, or (iii) beneficial ownership of such entity. "You" (or "Your") shall mean an individual or Legal Entity exercising permissions granted by this License. "Source" form shall mean the preferred form for making modifications, including but not limited to software source code, documentation source, and configuration files. "Object" form shall mean any form resulting from mechanical transformation or translation of a Source form, including but not limited to compiled object code, generated documentation, and conversions to other media types. "Work" shall mean the work of authorship, whether in Source or Object form, made available under the License, as indicated by a notice that is included in or attached to the work (an example is provided in the Appendix below). "Derivative Works" shall mean any work, whether in Source or Object form, that is based on (or derived from) the Work and for which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship. For the purposes of this License, Derivative Works shall not include works that remain separable from, or merely link (or bind by name) to the interfaces of, the Work and Derivative Works thereof. "Contribution" shall mean any work of authorship, including the original version of the Work and any modifications or additions to that Work or Derivative Works thereof, that is intentionally submitted to Licensor for inclusion in the Work by the author or by an individual or Legal Entity authorized to submit on behalf of the author. For the purposes of this definition, "submitted" means any form of electronic, verbal, or written communication sent to the Licensor or its representatives, including but not limited to communication on electronic mailing lists, source code control systems, and issue
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
I think what a lot of the lawyers on here are trying to say to you is -- why not just use Apache 2.0 and be done with it? You appear to find Apache 2.0 wanting because some of the materials that will be transmitted might not be copyrightable in some jurisdictions. And you believe as a result, the entire Apache 2.0 license (including the patent grants, and the disclaimer of warranties) would be rendered null & void as a result. Perhaps the lawyers from ARL are telling you that; if so, perhaps you could invite them to the conversation. I think many people on here are skeptical of the latter part of your analysis. In fact, I suspect that virtually every piece of code licensed under Apache 2.0 has some parts that aren't subject to copyright, since they don't satisfy the provisions of 17 USC 102 and the various judicial tests to separate expressive vs. non-expressive content. -Original Message- From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 1:43 PM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Cc: lro...@rosenlaw.com Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] > On Behalf Of Richard Fontana > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 4:10 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Cc: lro...@rosenlaw.com > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 08:03:18PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY > RDECOM ARL (US > > > As for 'license vs. contract', was that something discussed in > > relation to the ARL OSL? > > No, that's a much older topic of debate in open source. It's safe to > say from your previous remarks that ARL assumes that licenses are > contracts. :) As I understand it from ARL Legal, licenses ARE contracts. I am not a lawyer and don't know if they are the same or not. I'd really rather not open up a can of worms regarding what they are, I just want to make sure that the ARL OSL is interoperable with Apache 2.0, that it is as close to being legally identical to it as possible when applied to anything that has copyright attached, and that the OSI and Apache are happy with it. Thanks, Cem Karan ___ 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) 0.4.0
> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Richard Fontana > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 4:10 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Cc: lro...@rosenlaw.com > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 08:03:18PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US > > > As for 'license vs. contract', was that something discussed in > > relation to the ARL OSL? > > No, that's a much older topic of debate in open source. It's safe to say > from your previous remarks that ARL assumes that licenses are > contracts. :) As I understand it from ARL Legal, licenses ARE contracts. I am not a lawyer and don't know if they are the same or not. I'd really rather not open up a can of worms regarding what they are, I just want to make sure that the ARL OSL is interoperable with Apache 2.0, that it is as close to being legally identical to it as possible when applied to anything that has copyright attached, and that the OSI and Apache are happy with it. 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
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 9:43 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: > OK, I see where you're coming from now. I had to have the ARL Legal team > explain this to me as well, but the ARL OSL is actually a contract, and the > contract can apply even if there is no copyright. We release material to our > collaborators on a regular basis under contract; we even do this with > software, even though it is in the public domain. If they break the contract, > we can sue them, but we can't sue anyone that they delivered the software to > (it's in the public domain, so we don't have any copyright protections to sue > over). The ARL OSL extends this as a chain; the USG releases the software to > anyone that wants to download it, but by downloading it, they agree to the > contract. That person in turn can hand off the software to another person, > forming the chain. However, if the chain is broken, the USG only has the > right to sue the first person that broke the chain; the others may be able to > claim that they got the software in good faith. Since there is no copyright > involved, and since they didn't break the contract, they are innocent; only > the person that broke the chain originally is liable (note that I'm not a > lawyer, and may have gotten some of this wrong; it's just my understanding > from the ARL Legal team). This means that to sue, the USG will need to prove > that the person was the first one in the chain to break the contract. > > Copyright is something entirely different from contract law. Copyright is a > bundle of rights that an author gets by creating a work. The license allows a > user to use the work without getting sued/stopped/etc. The trick is that > since copyright attaches to a work AND since you can't > copy/use/display/perform/etc. a work without permission from the copyright > holders, you have to be able to point to the license that allows you to use > the work without being sued. That means that a copyright holder doesn't need > to follow a chain, it just needs to demonstrate that it has copyright on the > work, and that its license is being violated. > > The closest analogy I can provide is that contract law is innocent until > proven guilty, while copyright is guilty until proven innocent. I understand the intention, and I know it seems tempting to work via contract, but here's the problem: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/301 "On and after January 1, 1978, all legal or equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright as specified by section 106 in works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression and come within the subject matter of copyright as specified by sections 102 and 103, whether created before or after that date and whether published or unpublished, are governed exclusively by this title. Thereafter, no person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any State." Some claims of breaches of contract will fall squarely into what this paragraph says: they would claim the same thing as the rights under copyright. In other words: if A tries to make a contract with B, where A says "you can't reproduce this work", that obligation lives or dies via copyright alone. (if nothing else is involved) From what you say, you intend here exactly that: to recreate the rights to reproduce, distribute, or make derivative works, or to put obligations as if you had them, through contract. It seems to me that copyright law already says USG can't do that. You can do a lot of contracts, to be sure; just not those who simulate copyright. Caselaw on this exact topic seems a mess. I don't know what would come of this; without getting into it, here's my suggestion, considering all I understand from your intentions: The interesting thing with your intended license/contract is that preemption doesn't matter for malevolent contributors: you can STILL make it so that contributors will provide their (presumably copyrightable) work under it, in your projects. Because only clauses 2 and 4 would be affected by preemption, redrafting the license/contract so that the rest stands in all cases should give you the same effect (or close). Apache license is almost unique in the following respect: there are 2 explicit directions in which it works. Direction (1) - from USG/others to the world. Here you have the problem that if you start without copyright, and the license tries to usurp the domain of copyright rights, that can make it all fail. You said it yourself: the concern is that it depends on copyright, and thus may all be deemed invalid. Indeed, I'm just saying that recreating copyright-like rights via contract where title 17 clearly de
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
Keran, your description of the "chain" is not usually correct for FOSS. The Apache and GPL and MPL licenses don't have to work that way through sublicensing. Each licensee receives his or her license directly from the licensor. There is no chain. The licensor (contractor) can directly enforce that license -- including its warranties and liability disclaimers -- against each of its licensees even if it is not a copyright owner. In law, that means that privity [1] is not an enforcement problem for most FOSS licenses because there are no contractual "third parties". > The closest analogy I can provide is that contract law is innocent > until proven guilty, while copyright is guilty until proven innocent. No. /Larry [1] Privity: The doctrine of privity in the common law of contract provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person or agent except the parties to it. -Original Message- From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) [mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 12:44 PM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] > On Behalf Of Engel Nyst > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 11:34 AM > To: license-discuss > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US) wrote: > > OK, but wouldn't those changes mean that the license no longer > > applies to the uncopyrightable portions? That would mean that > > downstream users would no longer have any protection from being sued, etc., > > right? > > The obligations (a)-(d) would not apply to the uncopyrightable portions. > That's not the whole license/contract, only those particular > obligations that try to put "restrictions" on the rights to reproduce, > prepare derivative works, and distribute them. > > For example, (a) says "[you can reproduce this work], provided that > ... you give other recipients a copy of this license". In other words, > "you can't reproduce this work if you don't add a copy of this license". > This obligation doesn't apply to a public domain work, I can reproduce > it without. OK, I see where you're coming from now. I had to have the ARL Legal team explain this to me as well, but the ARL OSL is actually a contract, and the contract can apply even if there is no copyright. We release material to our collaborators on a regular basis under contract; we even do this with software, even though it is in the public domain. If they break the contract, we can sue them, but we can't sue anyone that they delivered the software to (it's in the public domain, so we don't have any copyright protections to sue over). The ARL OSL extends this as a chain; the USG releases the software to anyone that wants to download it, but by downloading it, they agree to the contract. That person in turn can hand off the software to another person, forming the chain. However, if the chain is broken, the USG only has the right to sue the first person that broke the chain; the others may be able to claim that they got the software in good faith. Since there is no copyright involved, and since they didn't break the contract, they are innocent; only the person that broke the chain originally is liable (note that I'm not a lawyer, and may have gotten some of this wrong; it's just my understanding from the ARL Legal team). This means that to sue, the USG will need to prove that the person was the first one in the chain to break the contract. Copyright is something entirely different from contract law. Copyright is a bundle of rights that an author gets by creating a work. The license allows a user to use the work without getting sued/stopped/etc. The trick is that since copyright attaches to a work AND since you can't copy/use/display/perform/etc. a work without permission from the copyright holders, you have to be able to point to the license that allows you to use the work without being sued. That means that a copyright holder doesn't need to follow a chain, it just needs to demonstrate that it has copyright on the work, and that its license is being violated. The closest analogy I can provide is that contract law is innocent until proven guilty, while copyright is guilty until proven innocent. > But I'm not sure what you're worried about, sue for what? These > (a)-(d) obligations have nothing to do with suing users, do they? ARL > OSL
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
> 2) Liability is only one part of the puzzle; as I mentioned in an earlier > email, there are IP issues that need to be solved (e.g. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambus#Lawsuits). That makes CC0 unattractive. Rambus and free software? What about the Rambus patent litigation informs the software license choice issues being discussed in this thread? I'm sorry. I clearly have not been paying enough attention to this thread. I have been engaged in issues at the intersection of patents and standards since before patent enforcement by Rambus attracted the attention of the FTC. "Rambus". Now you have my attention. -- Scott ___ 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) 0.4.0
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 08:03:18PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US > As for 'license vs. contract', was that something discussed in > relation to the ARL OSL? No, that's a much older topic of debate in open source. It's safe to say from your previous remarks that ARL assumes that licenses are contracts. :) _______ 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) 0.4.0
Here are the problems: 1) ARL doesn't know if it can use copyright-based licenses on public domain software. In particular, will the entire license be held invalid, including the disclaimers, if the copyright portions are held to be invalid? 2) Liability is only one part of the puzzle; as I mentioned in an earlier email, there are IP issues that need to be solved (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambus#Lawsuits). That makes CC0 unattractive. If the entire license is held to be invalid, then contributors may have standing to sue both the USG and anyone that uses USG code for patent violations. We're trying to have a license that will withstand legal scrutiny, and protect not just the USG, but also all innocent contributors and users of USG-sponsored projects. As for 'license vs. contract', was that something discussed in relation to the ARL OSL? Thanks, Cem Karan > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 12:57 PM > To: 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) 0.4.0 > > 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. > > > > > > > Regardless of whether a licensor owns the copyright, distribution of that > work is still a conveyance of a piece of software in commerce. > Among other things, that is a contractual act. Even public domain software > can cause harm. A disclaimer of warranty and liability -- even > for the public domain portion of a work, within the limitations of the > law -- can still be effective in a FOSS license. > > Why does the Army Research Laboratory confuse the distribution of a work > under a waiver of liability with the ownership (or not) of its > embedded copyrights? > > Is this a resurrection of the old "license vs. contract" dispute that we > buried long ago? > > /Larry > > > -Original Message- > From: Richard Fontana [Caution-mailto:font...@sharpeleven.org] > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 9:42 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 04:19:31PM +, Christopher Sean Morrison wrote: > > > > > > > > On Aug 16, 2016, at 11:43 AM, "Smith, McCoy" > > wrote: > > > > > > CC0 gives a complete (to the extent permissible by law) waiver of > > copyright rights, as well as a disclaimer of liability for the "Work" > (which is that which copyright has been waived). I believe that to be an > effective waiver of liability, despite the fact that there is not > copyright rights being conveyed. Does anyone believe that that waiver is > ineffective? > > > > > > Gee, if only legal-review had approved CC0 as an open source license, > > it would be a potential option. ;) > > > > > > > > As it stands, the board's public position to not recommend using CC0 on > > software [1] due to its patent clause makes it problematic. > > The point here though is the assumption ARL is apparently making, that an > effective warranty or liability disclaimer must be tied to a > (seemingly) contractual instrument. CC0 is evidence that some lawyers have > thought otherwise. > > Based on this whole thread, I imagine that even if CC0 were OSI-approved, > ARL would find fault with it given that it seems to assume that > the copyright-waiving entity actually does own copyright. (I have actually > found CC0 attractive in some situations where there is > acknowledged uncertainty about copyright ownership.) > > > Richard > > > _______ > 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
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
CC0 doesn't cover patent or other IP rights; if it did, it would be a way out. The concern is that an unscrupulous contributor would contribute software under CC0 that had patents covering it. Once the patented portions were rolled in and being used, the contributor would then sue everyone over patent violations. There are a few other, similar tricks that can be done that the Apache 2.0 license and the ARL OSL license attempt to avoid. If you think that this is a paranoid fear, read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambus#Lawsuits to see what we're trying to avoid. Thanks, Cem Karan > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Smith, McCoy > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 11:41 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > I haven't been following all of this thread, but it seems a lot of the > genesis of this license is the idea that there needs to be some sort of > contract for, or license to, the non-copyrightable elements of the > distributed code for the disclaimer of warranties and liability to be > effective (at least, with respect to the non-copyrightable parts of the > distributed code). I'm not sure that that premise is correct, legally, > although I can't say that with certainty (and I don't have the inclination > to do a research project). > > CC0 gives a complete (to the extent permissible by law) waiver of copyright > rights, as well as a disclaimer of liability for the "Work" (which > is that which copyright has been waived). I believe that to be an effective > waiver of liability, despite the fact that there is not copyright > rights being conveyed. Does anyone believe that that waiver is ineffective? > > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Karan, > Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US) > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 8:13 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > OK, but wouldn't those changes mean that the license no longer applies to > the uncopyrightable portions? That would mean that > downstream users would no longer have any protection from being sued, etc., > right? > > Thanks, > Cem Karan > > > -Original Message----- > > From: License-discuss > > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] > > On Behalf Of Engel Nyst > > Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 7:17 PM > > To: license-discuss > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > > > 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 Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > > (US) wrote: > > >> >4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the > > >> > Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without > > >> > modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You > > >> > meet the following conditions: > > >> > > >> I'd suggest to add in clause 4, or in its obligations a)-d), an "if > > >> copyright exists" or something similar. If copyright doesn't exist > > >> in the Work, can't put enforceable conditions on redistributions. > > > > > > What wording would you suggest? > > > > "4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the > > Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without > > modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that for > > Works subject to copyright You meet the following conditions:" > > Or, > > "4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the > > Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without > > modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You > > meet the following conditions for the copyrightable parts of the > > Work or Derivative Works:" > > Or, > > "4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Engel Nyst > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 11:34 AM > To: license-discuss > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US) wrote: > > OK, but wouldn't those changes mean that the license no longer applies > > to the uncopyrightable portions? That would mean that downstream > > users would no longer have any protection from being sued, etc., right? > > The obligations (a)-(d) would not apply to the uncopyrightable portions. > That's not the whole license/contract, only those particular > obligations that try to put "restrictions" on the rights to reproduce, > prepare derivative works, and distribute them. > > For example, (a) says "[you can reproduce this work], provided that ... you > give other recipients a copy of this license". In other words, > "you can't reproduce this work if you don't add a copy of this license". > This obligation doesn't apply to a public domain work, I can > reproduce it without. OK, I see where you're coming from now. I had to have the ARL Legal team explain this to me as well, but the ARL OSL is actually a contract, and the contract can apply even if there is no copyright. We release material to our collaborators on a regular basis under contract; we even do this with software, even though it is in the public domain. If they break the contract, we can sue them, but we can't sue anyone that they delivered the software to (it's in the public domain, so we don't have any copyright protections to sue over). The ARL OSL extends this as a chain; the USG releases the software to anyone that wants to download it, but by downloading it, they agree to the contract. That person in turn can hand off the software to another person, forming the chain. However, if the chain is broken, the USG only has the right to sue the first person that broke the chain; the others may be able to claim that they got the software in good faith. Since there is no copyright involved, and since they didn't break the contract, they are innocent; only the person that broke the chain originally is liable (note that I'm not a lawyer, and may have gotten some of this wrong; it's just my understanding from the ARL Legal team). This means that to sue, the USG will need to prove that the person was the first one in the chain to break the contract. Copyright is something entirely different from contract law. Copyright is a bundle of rights that an author gets by creating a work. The license allows a user to use the work without getting sued/stopped/etc. The trick is that since copyright attaches to a work AND since you can't copy/use/display/perform/etc. a work without permission from the copyright holders, you have to be able to point to the license that allows you to use the work without being sued. That means that a copyright holder doesn't need to follow a chain, it just needs to demonstrate that it has copyright on the work, and that its license is being violated. The closest analogy I can provide is that contract law is innocent until proven guilty, while copyright is guilty until proven innocent. > But I'm not sure what you're worried about, sue for what? These > (a)-(d) obligations have nothing to do with suing users, do they? ARL OSL > has all the other clauses, which apply fine regardless of whether > the underlying Work is copyrighted or not, like disclaimers of liability and > clause 5. No, the problem is that removing those terms suggests that you can strip out the ARL OSL from any part that is in the public domain. Once that happens, the material no longer has the ARL OSL protecting downstream users from predatory and unscrupulous individuals. That's all. 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
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
The point here though is the assumption ARL is apparently making, that an effective warranty or liability disclaimer must be tied to a (seemingly) contractual instrument. CC0 is evidence that some lawyers have thought otherwise. They have acknowledged as much. However, lacking precedent evidence to the contrary, ARL's lawyer believes recipients can be held to the contractual terms and this would give the Gov't (or some downstream contributor) standing to stop a bad actor. It's also been opined that the warranty and liability disclaimer could be lost if they use a copyright-based license (presumably that the whole license would be found invalid due to no copyright, not just the copyright statement bits). I don't agree that would happen as DoJ makes a determination of liability under their own tort/negligence criteria, but also not tested except for cases of gross negligence. Can anyone cite precedence for someone trying to put restrictions via contract/EULA on a public domain work such it was either upheld or shot down in court? All the various NOSA codes that have been released would be apropos... Based on this whole thread, I imagine that even if CC0 were OSI-approved, ARL would find fault with it given that it seems to assume that the copyright-waiving entity actually does own copyright. (I have actually found CC0 attractive in some situations where there is acknowledged uncertainty about copyright ownership.) No disagreement. It just goes from being strictly off the table without OSI-certification to necessary-but-not-sufficient. Cheers! Sean ___ 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) 0.4.0
Lawrence Rosen scripsit: > Is this a resurrection of the old "license vs. contract" dispute that > we buried long ago? That is not dead which can eternal lie (see .sig). -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org La mayyitan ma qadirun yatabaqqa sarmadi Fa idha yaji' al-shudhdhadh fa-l-maut qad yantahi. --Abdullah al-Hazred, Al-`Azif _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
