As a part of ARL's internal release process, the Lab waives all patent/IP
rights (except for the ARL trademarks). That only leaves the external
contributions, which would be done under one of the OSI-approved licenses.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mai
ARL's policy (see
https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions#433214A2C17C11E6952E003EE1B763F8)
cover this. External contributions would be covered by the OSI-approved
license, so the patent/IP terms in that license will cover those patent
rights.
Thanks,
C
Two reasons. First is for the disclaimer of liability and warranty. We can
write our own notice, but that would be much less recognizable than CC0, which
is why we'd prefer to use it.
Second, it solves the question of copyright in foreign jurisdictions; as far
as is possible, the work is in t
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 03:45:06PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL
(US) wrote:
> Two reasons. First is for the disclaimer of liability and warranty. We can
> write our own notice, but that would be much less recognizable than CC0,
> which
> is why we'd prefer to use it.
But my poin
ense-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative
> was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL
> OSL) Version 0.4.1
>
> All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the
> identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links
Then there would still need to be a disclaimer of warranty and liability, and
there would still need be a way of settling the problems of foreign
jurisdictions. The Government could write its own terms, but those terms would
like not be widely recognized. CC0 is well-known, and acceptable to o
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:39:01PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL
(US) wrote:
> I see your points about the Apache license vs. CC0, but the reason CC0 is
> more
> palatable is because we're not trying to make any restrictions based on
> copyright. We're trying to meet the spirit of
You've hit the nail on the head! I personally want Government works to be Open
Source, not open source. That was the whole point of the ARL OSL being put
forwards. There are statutory and regulatory limits on what the Government can
and cannot do; the lawyers I've talked with say that this is
oD Source] Re: Possible alternative
> was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL
> OSL) Version 0.4.1
>
> All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the
> identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links
> containe
ft.com>>,
license-discuss@opensource.org
mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org>>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative was:
Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
You've hit the nail on the head! I personall
I've forwarded the link to our lawyers, I'll ping them on Friday when I get
back in the office to see what they say.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Wright [mailto:jim.wri...@oracle.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 11:27 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
>
t; Behalf Of Richard Fontana
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 12:10 PM
> > To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative
> > was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL
> > OSL
That is actually a part of ARL's policy. If you haven't looked at the policy
yet, go to
https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions
and take a look.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@openso
-discuss@opensource.org; Jim Wright
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative was:
> Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL
> OSL) Version 0.4.1
>
> All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the
> id
Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative
> was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL
> OSL) Version 0.4.1
>
> All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the
> identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links
> c
te: Wednesday, Mar 01, 2017, 12:40 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org>>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative was:
Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
That is actually a
nsource.org] On
> Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 1:28 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative was:
> Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL
> OSL) Versio
THANK YOU!
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 1:51 PM
> To: License Discussion Mailing List
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-dis
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org]
> On Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 5:01 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] Possible alterna
ARL's policy is to waive its own potential patent rights before releasing the
software. If there are extra rights that we can't license/release for this
purpose, then our legal team will refuse to allow the software's release, so
anything ARL releases under our policy should be clean from an IP
All, I want to keep this alive as I haven't seen a conclusion yet. Earlier I
asked if OSI would accept the US Government (USG) putting its non-copyrighted
works out under CC0 as Open Source **provided** that the USG accepts and
redistributes copyrighted contributions under an OSI-approved licen
Cem,
The USG does not need OSI’s approval to release code as open source under CC0.
It has done so already on code.gov. This includes the OPM, NASA, GSA, DOT,
DOL, DOC and others. CC0 is compliant with the Federal Source Code Policy for
open source release.
It is unlikely that you can push C
h 16, 2017 2:48 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative was:
> Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL
> OSL) Version 0.4.1
>
> All active links contained in this email were disabled.
2017 2:48 PM
> > To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative
> was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL
> > OSL) Version 0.4.1
> >
> > All active links contained in this email wer
e.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative was:
> Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL
> OSL) Version 0.4.1
>
> All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the
> identity of the sender, an
, 2017 2:48 PM
> > To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative
> was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL
> > OSL) Version 0.4.1
> >
> > All active links contained in this email
> -Original Message-
> > > From: License-discuss [Caution-mailto:license-
> discuss-boun...@opensource.org < Caution-mailto:license-discuss-
> > boun...@opensource.org > ] On Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 2:48 PM
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 8:45 PM, Tom Callaway wrote:
I'd think the only ones who get to apply the "Open Source" label to
> licenses would be the OSI. Fedora's opinion is that CC-0 meets the OSD.
>
"Open source", whether upper or lower case, is not a protected mark of the
OSI or anyone else. Whe
lt; Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss- <
> Caution-mailto:license-discuss- >
> > boun...@opensource.org < Caution-mailto:boun...@opensource.org > > ]
> On Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 2:48 PM
> >
nks,
> > > Cem Karan
> > >
> > > > -Original Message-----
> > > > From: License-discuss
> > [Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org <
> > Caution-mailto:license-discuss-
> >
-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative
was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL
> OSL) Version 0.4.1
>
> All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the
identi
iscuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Richard Fontana
> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 11:18 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative was:
> Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL
> OSL)
oun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 1:16 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative was:
> Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL
> O
> > > Thanks,
> > > Cem Karan
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-
> > > > From: License-discuss
> > > > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of
> > > > Tom Callaway
> > > > Sent: T
hard Fontana
> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 4:56 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative was:
> Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL
> OSL) Version 0.4.1
>
> All active links co
t: Friday, March 17, 2017 1:56 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative was:
Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
I would just encourage you to consider instead recommending the en
ce.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative was:
> Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL
> OSL) Version 0.4.1
>
> All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the
> identity of the sender, and
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <
cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote:
> OK, thank you, I'll contact them and see what they think.
Note that the DFSG #1-#9 are verbatim the same as OSD #1-#9, but the
interpretations may differ. (#10 is separate and unrelated
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of John Cowan
> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 10:05 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternati
39 matches
Mail list logo
