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:
> -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 Rese
> -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
> Laborator
> 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
icense-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
> -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 Rese
cuss@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
n-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 AR
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
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:
> 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
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 li
a [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
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
> -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
> L
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 evi
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
"license vs. contract" dispute that we buried
long ago?
/Larry
-Original Message-
From: Richard Fontana [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. Arm
[mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf
Of Christopher Sean Morrison
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 9:20 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 Aug 16, 2016
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 tha
have any protection from being sued, etc., right?
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [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-disc
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
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [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
>
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?
Th
nse-discuss [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 li
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 tha
Comments inline below.
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Engel Nyst
> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 4:56 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] U.S. Army Research
I've talked with the lawyer in the ARL legal office. He says he is in contact
with people up and down the chain of command, so that should be taken care of.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Tze
se-discuss@opensource.org
> 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
Awesome. You may wish to ask your tech transfer office if any of your
army UARCs care about apache vs ECL v2. The patent grants are slightly
different and ECL v2 is geared toward the odd needs of research
universities. I'm guessing not because very few projects actually use ECL
v2. On the other
I am working with ARL Legal counsel on the license continuously. There are
times when I'm slow in answering messages on this list because I have to run
down to their office and get their opinions. I've been working with our Tech
Transfer folks to make sure they are onboard with the proposed po
31 matches
Mail list logo