ly flawed", would be great to get some feedback on how/why it's
> > flawed so I can improve it?
> >
> > System level package managers are in the pipeline for the end of the
> year,
> > but there are so fewer packages there that I can't see it moving the
> needle
&g
ider this https://enterprise.dejacode.com/licenses/
Every OSI licenses (and more) conditions have been carefully tagged as
seen here:
https://enterprise.dejacode.com/licenses/Demo/apache-2.0/#license-conditions
(disclosure: this is a product of my company)
--
Cordially
Phil
:54 AM, Andrew Nesbitt <and...@libraries.io> wrote:
> "inevitably flawed", would be great to get some feedback on how/why it's
> flawed so I can improve it?
>
> System level package managers are in the pipeline for the end of the year,
> but there are so fewer pack
project –
which is what I think Larry was suggesting might be helpful).
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf
Of Christopher Sean Morrison
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 11:32 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] notes
ses/tags/OSI-Approved
>
For people who like opinionated wizards, there's also mine, currently
hosted at
<http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan/floss/>. It asks you questions about what
you want your license to do, and then steers you to the 3-clause BSD, the
Apache 2.0, the GPL 2.0, or the LGPL 2.
gs/OSI-Approved>
Cheers!
Sean
___________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
What Larry is describing is similar to a project that at one point was being
put together in part by Professor Urban back when she was at USC law: A
licensing wizard for use in selecting an open source license from the existing
OSI list. That project is described in the licensing
cross ref with debsources.
--
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Richard Fontana wrote:
> Interesting but at first glance the data seems too unreliable to be of any
> use. I started checking the identified projects under the so-called Clear BSD
> license (the FSF-free, never-OSI-submitted BSD variant that explicitly
> excludes patent licenses)
Interesting but at first glance the data seems too unreliable to be of
any use. I started checking the identified projects under the so-called
Clear BSD license (the FSF-free, never-OSI-submitted BSD variant that
explicitly excludes patent licenses) and the ones I looked at were all
spurious
all-
> I promised some board members a summary of my investigation in '12-'13
> into updating, supplementing, or replacing the "popular licenses" list.
> Here goes.
>
>
> *tl;dr*
> I think OSI should have an data-driven short license list with a
> replicabl
Hello all,
I did a quick review of the recent list traffic and did not find any
mention of the OpenSSL license change:
https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2017/03/22/license/
In short, the appear to be attempting a clean-up of their license which
currently is largely permissive but includes
universities saw this as a potential issue I would
imagine it is worse for the USG.
Regards,
Nigel
From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
<cem.f.karan@mail.mil<mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil>>
Date: Tuesday, Mar 28, 2017, 10:24 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
<
of facts above,
except that NASA has entered into an exclusive license agreement. NASA’s
licensee finds out that ARL has been distributing code covered by the NASA
patent that they have exclusive rights to. Does the licensee have a “breach of
contract” action it can bring against the government? Does
nal Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2017 7:43 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org; lro...@rosenlaw.com
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights an
interest
in filing.
Perhaps not legal, but I don’t think it's unethical to give away something
someone else created if your work was created entirely independently without
knowledge of them or their patent status.
Cheers!
Sean
_______
License-discuss mai
> -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
Johnston
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
OK, thank you, I'll contact them and see what they think.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Marc Jones
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 4:31 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.or
else's, etc.
From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
<cem.f.karan@mail.mil<mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil>>
Date: Sunday, Mar 19, 2017, 6:42 AM
To: lro...@rosenlaw.com <lro...@rosenlaw.com<mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com>>,
license-discuss@opensource.org
<lic
Richard Fontana wrote:
> ... which would be more consistent with the ARL lawyers' apparent belief that
> some horrible disaster will occur if they put US published code under a
> copyright license. :)
Richard, what horrible disaster will come if OSI approves CC0 as an open source
salute and obey.
And until someone we CAN salute and obey gives us the OK, we have to follow the
more conservative approach).
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Richard Fontana
> Sent: F
a copyright license. :)
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017, at 04:47 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL
(US) wrote:
> That was what I was afraid of. OK, in that case I'll make the
> recommendation that ARL does what I was outlining before, and hope that
> CC0 will one day be considered Open Sourc
You're probably right. I don't **think** that there are any other journals
that will turn down code if it doesn't come with an OSI-approved license; can
anyone think of one?
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensour
That was what I was afraid of. OK, in that case I'll make the recommendation
that ARL does what I was outlining before, and hope that CC0 will one day be
considered Open Source as well.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discus
Other than JOSS I still don’t see how it makes a big difference for the
Government. And the ability to publish in JOSS seems like a rather secondary
consideration…and I say that as a software developer in an academic environment…
On 3/17/17, 8:32 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Karan,
eeting the OSD definitions though. I'd still like to convince OSI that
> the route I outlined earlier should be considered to be Open Source; I think
> it'll make things easier for a lot of the Government.
>
> Thanks,
> Cem Karan
>
> > -Original Message-
Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Tom Callaway
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 8:46 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Po
er case, is not a protected mark of the
OSI or anyone else. When someone misuses it, we generally ask them nicely
not to (if we find out about it). But only "OSI Certified" is or was
protected.
In particular, if for example a license were legally equivalent to the BSD
license, the OSI would p
ed Hat consider it to be Open Source?
>
> Thanks,
> Cem Karan
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org]
> On Behalf Of Tom Callaway
> > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 3:31 PM
> > To: license-discu
I also can't speak for Debian. But it is my understanding that Debian does
not rely on OSI for determining if a license is free. They use their own
Debian Free Software Guidelines. (Although they are very similar.) Someone
at Debian maintains a FAQ on the DFSG [1]
Debian also has a Licensing page
Cool! Would Fedora/Red Hat consider it to be Open Source?
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Tom Callaway
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 3:31 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensourc
I'm not after plain vanilla CC0 code to be called Open Source, I'm
> after the method I outlined earlier. This side-steps the need to have CC0
> put forth by the license steward (I hope!). I know that is splitting
> hairs, but at this point I'm tearing my hair out over this, and would like
the work (would
Debian? I honestly don't know).
And I'm not after plain vanilla CC0 code to be called Open Source, I'm after
the method I outlined earlier. This side-steps the need to have CC0 put forth
by the license steward (I hope!). I know that is splitting hairs, but at this
point I'm
CC0 through license review as you aren’t the
license steward. It is up to CC to resubmit CC0 for approval.
Regards,
Nigel
On 3/16/17, 8:56 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY
RDECOM ARL (US)" <license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org on behalf of
cem.f.karan
license. Is
this acceptable to OSI? Should I move this discussion to the license-review
list?
To recap:
1) This would only cover USG works that do not have copyright. Works that
have copyright would be eligible to use copyright-based licenses, and to be
OSI-approved as Open Source would need
gel H. [mailto:nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2017 12:33 PM
To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: RE: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD
Larry,
I read it and even with some vague knowledge of the domain I do
aw.com>>
Date: Wednesday, Mar 08, 2017, 3:08 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
<license-discuss@opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org>>
Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com<mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com>>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD S
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 12:11 PM Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <
cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org]
> On Behalf Of Luis Villa
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Luis Villa
> Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 2:51 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] code.mil update
>
Nigel Tzeng wrote:
> Using US7460689B1 System and method of detecting, recognizing, and tracking
> moving targets as an example it could be useful to have an open source
> copyright license to any USG developed MTI implementation of US7460689B1
> because the libraries and fu
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:03 AM Christopher Sean Morrison <brl...@mac.com>
wrote:
>
> > On Mar 8, 2017, at 9:32 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <
> cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote:
> >
> > You might want to re-read what they posted; the license
Cem,
To give them a more concrete example (hopefully not a flawed one ☺) I skimmed
ARLs patent portfolio.
Using US7460689B1 System and method of detecting, recognizing, and tracking
moving targets as an example it could be useful to have an open source
copyright license to any USG developed
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison
> Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 10:03 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Sourc
> On Mar 8, 2017, at 9:32 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
> <cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote:
>
> You might want to re-read what they posted; the license applies only to those
> portions of the code that have copyright attached, otherwise it's public
I can pass it through ARL's lawyers, as well as pass it to the code.gov
people.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Stephen Kellat
> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 10:41 PM
> To:
You might want to re-read what they posted; the license applies only to those
portions of the code that have copyright attached, otherwise it's public
domain. The trick is that while US Government (USG) works are ineligible for
copyright within the US, they may be eligible for copyright
I see your point. OK, so I'm going throw out a strawman here, just to see what
happens. Assume for the sake of argument that OSI decides to add a patent
grant/license/whatever as part of the requirements of the OSD. Will OSI then
re-evaluate all currently approved licenses using the new
that policy; I'm encouraging anyone
I run in to do so, but other agencies in theory could adopt very different
policies. Caveat emptor (or whatever the equivalent is in this case).
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensour
For large government systems significant software components could often be
> reused without the specific portions covered under patent.
>
> So just having a copyright license to the entire project would provide
> significant value to the community. There is code I wrote 30 years
the perspective of being able to
use the system as built it is less relevant from a code reuse perspective.
For large government systems significant software components could often be
reused without the specific portions covered under patent.
So just having a copyright license to the entire project would
gt;
> *From:* Ben Tilly [mailto:bti...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 7, 2017 4:27 PM
> *To:* Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com>; License Discuss <
> license-discuss@opensource.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [License-discuss] patent rights and the OSD
>
>
>
> *[]
On a rather unrelated note (apologies for the deluge of e-mails today!), the
folks behind code.mil have responded to public feedback and are proposing
significant changes to their approach.
Instead of wrapping an OSI license as before, they now propose to directly
utilize an existing
On Mar 07, 2017, at 07:15 PM, "Tzeng, Nigel H." <nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
I dislike this approach. If CC0 passes OSD then it should get approved as is.
If a patent grant is now a requirement to pass the OSD it should be added as a
criteria and a license passe
m: Ben Tilly [mailto:bti...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 4:27 PM
To: Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com>; License Discuss
<license-discuss@opensource.org>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] patent rights and the OSD
[]
IANALTINLA and all that.
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 3:57
n my view.
Cheers!
Sean
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
I dislike this approach. If CC0 passes OSD then it should get approved as is.
If a patent grant is now a requirement to pass the OSD it should be added as a
criteria and a license passes or fails based on the license text itself.
Not CC0 and some patent agreement that has not been written
they do a FOSS release.
From: Christopher Sean Morrison <brl...@mac.com<mailto:brl...@mac.com>>
Date: Tuesday, Mar 07, 2017, 5:57 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
<license-discuss@opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org>>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-D
e-code-policy/issues/149), I can agree
it is a complicated problem.
/Larry
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison
Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 3:10 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Cc: License Discuss <
From: Christopher Sean Morrison <brl...@mac.com<mailto:brl...@mac.com>>
Date: Tuesday, Mar 07, 2017, 5:57 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
<license-discuss@opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org>>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] p
On Mar 07, 2017, at 04:45 PM, Ben Tilly <bti...@gmail.com> wrote:
When we talk about whether a software license is OSD compliant, we are only
addressing the question of whether this license restricts software under
copyright law in a way that violates the OSD.
I hear you, but I don
'Clear BSD' license, which the FSF considers not only a
free software license but also GPL-compatible:
https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:ClearBSD
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#clearbsd
But I am not aware of this license ever having been submitted for OSI
approval.
It'
Richard Fontana suggested:
> So in other words, "this license is Open Source to the extent that, when
> used, it is accompanied by [a separate appropriate patent license grant]",
> for example?
Richard, that sounds like a great compromise that the government agencies mig
That is true, but OSI can make it clear that when software is licensed, then
the licensor is expected to license any necessary patents that the licensor
owns along with licensing the copyright. If there are patents that the
licensor is unaware of, then the licensor can't do anything about
describes. I may be unaware of or misinformed about any or all
these potential encumbrances.
When we talk about whether a software license is OSD compliant, we are only
addressing the question of whether this license restricts software under
copyright law in a way that violates the OSD
ts
> kind. If there ARE, then CC0 would not create a precedent situation
> any worse than currently exists and approval could move forward.
I'm not aware of any.
There is the 'Clear BSD' license, which the FSF considers not only a
free software license but also GPL-compatible:
https://directo
purposes) to anyone with a copy. UK law does require an
explicit use permission.
Because it is US-centric, there was no conception that you might need to
give an explicit permission to use.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison
> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 10:56 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] patent
On Mar 07, 2017, at 09:07 AM, "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" <cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote:I personally think that software that is distributed without a patent license or a waiver of patent claims is not Open Source (this is my opinion, and not a Government positi
I personally think that software that is distributed without a patent license
or a waiver of patent claims is not Open Source (this is my opinion, and not a
Government position). It prevents people from freely modifying the code. That
said, I don't have a problem with someone holding
porting/exporting their invention. The OSD clauses refer to “the
>> distribution terms” in rather license- and copyright-agnostic terms,
>> so here’s my basic layman analysis:
>>
>> 1) Exclusion (a) seems not problematic for the OSD as it precludes
>> others out
) importing/exporting their invention.
The OSD clauses refer to “the distribution terms” in rather license- and
copyright-agnostic terms, so here’s my basic layman analysis:
1) Exclusion (a) seems not problematic for the OSD as it precludes others
outside of licensing.
2) Certainly a problem
you can do the same - you can release the code under open source license,
but use the trademark to ensure certain policies are followed.
The community will probably ignore your code if they don't like the
policies.
Grahame
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 4:18 PM, John Cowan <co...@ccil.org>
On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Terrence Bull <terre...@woogloo.com> wrote:
I do wonder how Google makes Android open source yet requires everyone that
> makes ‘copies’ to be connected to the Play store. Do they have some sort of
> special open source license they use?
>
they have some sort of
special open source license they use?
Anyway, thanks for your help.
Kind Regards,
Terrence Bull
(aka: Bob Woofix)
CEO/Founder
NZ HB: 06-876 9201
M: 021-088 52 847
E: terre...@woogloo.com
W: www.woogloo.com
Skype: bob.woofix
Bob says: “Woogloo V3: the power to dream
rsal’ nature of
> the system.
>
I don't see that any sort of _public_ license, open-source or not, will
work. You will have to get every user to sign a contract to that effect,
along with preventing all redistribution, and there is of course no way to
do that consistently with the Open Source
to be considered in terms of what open
source license to use and if it needs some sort of modification to ensure the
system's longterm integrity?
Thanks for your help in advance.
Kind Regards,
Terrence Bull
(aka: Bob Woofix)
CEO/Founder
NZ HB: 06-876 9201
M: 021-088 52 847
E: terre...@woogloo.com
W
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
is that they
could better attend to this problem right now by choosing any existing OSI
license, preferably one with a clear patent license, and if Cem is looking to
ensure that their projects are Open Source in the immediate term, this is a
path that requires nothing of the rest of us and little
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
Jim Wright wrote:
> in the absence of action on CC0 that would not be unanimously supported to
> say the least
I know that is true but I don't know what it means for this license-discuss@
list. I haven't personally voted on a license in years.
According to several government folk
do
> 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; li
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
would rather have an expr
g his name, thought Caw."
Rick Moen -- Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey
r...@linuxmafia.com
McQ! (4x80)
___________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
> -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 <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
> Subject: [N
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
;*
*+1-415-938-4552*
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
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 pu
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 <r...@linuxmafia.com> 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
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 p
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 <license-discuss@opensou
I understand; ARL's policy is LONG, and skimming is just about the only way to
not have your brain fry. :) That said, does it address your concerns about the
patent issues?
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensour
implications of explicitly denying patent rights may have on the
> liberal licenses. That commentary was not grounds for disapproval
> and not a fault of CC0, it was primarily a social and license impact
> discussion, but it was withdrawn regardless. So …
I think it was withdrawn before the discu
> 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 i
gt;>
Date: Wednesday, Mar 01, 2017, 12:40 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
<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
agencies, I'm only
stating my personal opinion on this.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 12:37 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.
Nigel Tzeng wrote:
> If DOSA explicitly defines the licensing authority I would prefer it be
stated as any DOD approved open source license.
Isn't that already true for every software distributor, including the U.S.
government? Every distributor controls its own licensing strategies. E
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-discus
, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL
(US) wrote:
> No. The material can always be separated into two piles; stuff that has
> copyright attached, and stuff that does not have copyright attached. The
> stuff that has copyright attached is always released under the chosen
> OSI-approved license
101 - 200 of 4096 matches
Mail list logo
