Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 2:32 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and > the US

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

CC has to submit CC0 according to tradition/rules. For them to bother, since they won't amend CC0 itself, probably there needs to be some assurance it will at least get a vote at the next board meeting, if not assurance it would pass. Neither seems likely. Easier to just to shrug their

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 11:03 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source]

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

I'm on active duty at Treasury until the close of business on Thursday, myself. I wouldn't presume for either of us to lobby. Filtering issues up the chain for The President to lobby The Congress about is the rule for the two of us in many cases. The main problem I see in using licenses for

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Chris Travers > Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 9:14 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and > the US

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

I think that given that the USG is already saying that CC0 is a valid Open Source license for the purposes of open source release on Code.gov the CC0 train has already left the station without OSI approval. The FSF recommends it for public domain releases and states it is GPL compatible. CC

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On >> Behalf Of Thorsten Glaser >> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 4:33 PM >> To: Stephen

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Thorsten Glaser > Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 4:33 PM > To: Stephen Michael Kellat > Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss]

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

Since I'm a Federal employee, and since putting together an Open Source policy for the Army Research Laboratory is part of my job, I'm barred from directly lobbying Congress on this matter [1-3]. ARL's legal counsel have also told me that I'm not allowed to encourage or discourage anyone to