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

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

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

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,

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

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

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

Maybe. But given that CC0 expressly does not convey patent rights, and I believe the intent here is to convey patent rights (via an express license, as in Apache 2.0), CC0 may not be an option the USG wants here. [although CC0 with a plug-in patent grant might work] From: 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 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

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

McCoy Smith wrote: > 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? Liability for commercial products (e.g., electronic devices and cars) cannot be entirely

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

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

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