:59 PM
> To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army
> Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
>
> Something is certainly better than nothing, I agree, but I think many of us
Something is certainly better than nothing, I agree, but I think many of us
would rather have an express and broad license from all participants in a
project, including the government, than to have to rely on less than well
understood public domain dedications and waivers of patent rights that d
.
/Larry
From: Jim Wright [mailto:jim.wri...@oracle.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 4:19 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Cc: Larry Rosen ; cem.f.karan@mail.mil
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research
Laboratory Open Source License (AR
with OSI's approval of CC0. This WE can do now on our own on behalf of
> government open source.
>
>
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Jim Wright [mailto:jim.wri...@oracle.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 1, 2017 2:59 PM
> *To:* lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discus
ay, March 1, 2017 2:59 PM
To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research
Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
Something is certainly better than nothing, I agree, but I think many of us
woul
Jim Wright wrote:
> it seems odd to me to require a dedication to the public domain in any event
> - stuff is either in the public domain by law or isn’t, and to whatever
> extent it isn’t, we should have a copyright license, full stop. Similarly as
> to patents, I don’t want to have to look a
Of course, as Richard pointed out earlier, this would also be true as to the
ASL, etc., except to the extent that the government choosing to effectively
“waive" patent rights as Cem has said is not the same thing as a terminable
patent license in the ASL - the UPL thus arguably putting the gover
Indeed, if there’s no copyright in the US, there may be no need of a copyright
license from the government here, but in any event there *is* an OSI approved
permissive license that licenses both any applicable copyright rights (without
actually requiring that the government have any) and patent
> On Mar 1, 2017, at 4:17 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
>
> Quoting Lawrence Rosen (lro...@rosenlaw.com):
>
>> The question remains from many years of discussion here: What is wrong
>> with CC0 being approved by OSI as a license for components in other
>> open source software? Including for U.S. governm
Quoting Lawrence Rosen (lro...@rosenlaw.com):
> The question remains from many years of discussion here: What is wrong
> with CC0 being approved by OSI as a license for components in other
> open source software? Including for U.S. government works that may (or
> may not) be public domain?
For wh
ternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research
Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
A proposed solution, however, is that the U.S. government will distribute
software under CC0. I don't care if that is sensible. I don't care if that is
odd. I do care that CC0 be an OSI-approved
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 01:50:42PM -0500, Christopher Sean Morrison wrote:
> If I recall correctly, there were no objections to CC0 when it was
> submitted for OSI approval. It was withdrawn by the steward after
> prolonged patent clause commentary. considering what the
> implications of explici
> A proposed solution, however, is that the U.S. government will distribute
> software under CC0. I don't care if that is sensible. I don't care if that is
> odd. I do care that CC0 be an OSI-approved license, regardless of its flaws.
>
> That will reaffirm the authority in our community of th
Cc: Lawrence Rosen mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com>>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research
Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
Nigel Tzeng wrote:
> If DOSA explicitly defines the licensing authority I would prefer it be
> stated
Date: Wednesday, Mar 01, 2017, 11:53 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org <mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org>
mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org> >
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army
Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Vers
ce.org>>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research
Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
Certainly the approach code.mil spells out to contributions seems ok without
having to address the license issue at all, but these questions seem ortho
Certainly the approach code.mil spells out to contributions seems ok without
having to address the license issue at all, but these questions seem orthogonal
to me. Cem seems to be trying to ensure that all open source projects
operating using this process are under an OSI approved license, whic
half
Of Richard Fontana
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 8:30 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research
Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
Well the complication is mainly a response to Cem wanting the
Well the complication is mainly a response to Cem wanting the OSI to
bless his proposed approach. I think however that code.mil has already
rejected this sort of idea.
I think the code.mil approach is much more elegant without introducing
the use of CC0.
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 03:08:22PM +000
Richard,
It is very hard for me to take a complaint that CC0 not being OSI approved as a
significant issue vs continued feet dragging when the OSI won’t provide
guidance on license asymmetry, won’t vote on NOSA v2.0 and had the opportunity
to pass CC0 years ago.
CC0 is accepted as open source
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 09:37:13AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
> Strictly speaking, the use of
> CC0 assumes that you have copyright ownership.
I guess that's a bit of an overstatement, but still given the nature
of the angst I've heard from US government people over the years
concerning the us
Hi Richard,
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Richard Fontana
wrote:
> I really like the approach as it currently exists. But why is use of
> CC0 necessary? If some work of the US government is in the public
> domain by virtue of the Copyright Act, there is no need to use
> CC0. Indeed, I would th
I really like the approach as it currently exists. But why is use of
CC0 necessary? If some work of the US government is in the public
domain by virtue of the Copyright Act, there is no need to use
CC0. Indeed, I would think use of CC0 by the Government is just as
problematic, or non-problematic, a
Hi all, I want to keep this question at the forefront of discussion; the next
Federal Source Code Policy group meeting is this Thursday, and if this
solution is acceptable to OSI, then this can become a part of the Federal
policy going forwards.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
>
] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research
Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
FWIW, I have authored what I call a "plug-in" license intended to allow an
add-in patent license to licenses like CC0 that lack one (or disclaim them).
It's a bit of a WIP
nse-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf
Of Gervase Markham
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 9:17 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research
Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
On 2
On 28/02/17 17:09, Smith, McCoy wrote:
> You should consider the fact that CC0 has an express disclaimer of
> patent licenses (in Section 4.a). That may mean that it doesn't
> address one of the concerns that I think you had (i.e., that there
> might be USG patents covering the non-US copyrightabl
esday, February 28, 2017 8:23 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research
Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
All, the folks at code.mil came up with what may be a really, really good idea;
see
https://githu
All, the folks at code.mil came up with what may be a really, really good
idea; see
https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md.
The basic idea is simple; when the Government releases code, it's in the
public domain (likely CC0). The project owners select an
29 matches
Mail list logo