Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 18, 2016, at 8:45 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > Send License-discuss mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of License-discuss digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army > Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > (Tzeng, Nigel H.) > 2. Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army > Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > (Tzeng, Nigel H.) > 3. Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army > Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 (Chris DiBona) > 4. Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army > Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > (Brian Behlendorf) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 21:31:20 +0000 > From: "Tzeng, Nigel H." <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, > Lawrence Rosen <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] > Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > Message-ID: <d3db9a2c.2f60c%[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > From: License-discuss > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > on behalf of "Smith, McCoy" > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > >>> "I don't believe that there is an OSD requirement that the lawyers on >>> License-Review/License-Discuss agree that the legal concern being addressed >>> by a new license submission is valid. *Especially when other lawyers >>> disagree.*" > >> The problem is, I think to many of us commenting here, is that those other >> lawyers are not part of this conversation. And for whatever reason have >> said they will not be. So we're hearing "I'm not a lawyer, but unnamed >> lawyers have >told me there is this problem, but have not explained their >> basis for finding that problem." > >> So there is likely some skepticism that there is a need at all for this >> license, as it seems to be just Apache 2.0, with clauses to address a >> problem that many (or all) of the lawyers on here are not even sure exists. > > I get that, but you won't be the ones that have to deal with any problems > that arise if the issue does exist. If approving ARL OSL and NOSA gives NASA > and ARL/Army the legal warm fuzzies to be more liberal in open sourcing code > then one new special purpose license doesn't hurt anyone even on the > proliferation front. Only one because NOSA 1.3 would get retired in favor of > NOSA 2.0. > > The White House can mandate 20% OSS release across all agencies but it's easy > for any agency uncomfortable with open sourcing their software to simply > decline. In many places it's as easy as writing a classification guide that > says all software developed for this agency is automatically FOUO or LES. > Then open sourcing anything becomes a royal pain in the rear and not open > sourcing anything is as simple as writing a disclaimer that points at the > class guide. > > And OSI's intransigence on CC0 may come around and bite it in the rear if a > significant FedGov OSS mandate starts off with CC0 as a default open source > license for the USG because that's what they did for code.gov and it's the > only one that fits the bill for public domain software. And I don't recall > that CC0 "contains any specific terms about distribution of source code" so > if CC0 is usable for software then so is CC-BY and perhaps CC-BY-SA. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/attachments/20160818/475542c8/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 21:58:52 +0000 > From: "Tzeng, Nigel H." <[email protected]> > To: Lawrence Rosen <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] > Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > Message-ID: <d3dba181.2f651%[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > On 8/18/16, 3:57 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Lawrence Rosen" > <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> > wrote: > > >> Nigel Tzeng wrote: >>> The issue here is for code that is potentially quite substantial. I >>> would think that would be a different scenario. >> >> If I include the works of Shakespeare in my software, it would of course >> be substantial and yet still be public domain almost everywhere (?). > > If patents aren't a concern then okay. Copyright lasts longer than > patents so for anything that is in the public domain because of age then > no patents would still apply. > > There isn¹t a lot of code that has aged out. Only code written between > before 1963 and didn¹t get a renewal. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 15:11:30 -0700 > From: Chris DiBona <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: Lawrence Rosen <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] > Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > Message-ID: > <caeq5uwmkkwhyv-ycv9rf13r8dhxrqze+68b4idaqjussjh1...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > In military contracting , patent grants are key to the point where I > wouldn't consider a non patent granting license from, say, lockheed as > being open source at all. > >> On Aug 18, 2016 3:05 PM, "Tzeng, Nigel H." <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 8/18/16, 3:57 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Lawrence Rosen" >> <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >>> Nigel Tzeng wrote: >>>> The issue here is for code that is potentially quite substantial. I >>>> would think that would be a different scenario. >>> >>> If I include the works of Shakespeare in my software, it would of course >>> be substantial and yet still be public domain almost everywhere (?). >> >> If patents aren't a concern then okay. Copyright lasts longer than >> patents so for anything that is in the public domain because of age then >> no patents would still apply. >> >> There isn¹t a lot of code that has aged out. Only code written between >> before 1963 and didn¹t get a renewal. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> License-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/attachments/20160818/37523046/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 17:45:35 -0700 (PDT) > From: Brian Behlendorf <[email protected]> > To: [email protected], [email protected] > Cc: Lawrence Rosen <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] > Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0 > Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1608181744030.4804@flooz> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"; Format="flowed" > > > Totally agree. But can the USG file patents? I suppose research > organizations can (MITRE, maybe even NASA?) so it's not that academic; but > presumably any place where this public domain arises, it applies to > patents too. Would be nice to get that sorted. > > Brian > >> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Chris DiBona wrote: >> In military contracting , patent grants are key to the point where I >> wouldn't consider a non patent granting license from, say, lockheed as being >> open source at all. >> >> >> On Aug 18, 2016 3:05 PM, "Tzeng, Nigel H." <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 8/18/16, 3:57 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Lawrence Rosen" >> <[email protected] on behalf of >> [email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >>> Nigel Tzeng wrote: >>>> The issue here is for code that is potentially quite substantial. I >>>> would think that would be a different scenario. >>> >>> If I include the works of Shakespeare in my software, it would of course >>> be substantial and yet still be public domain almost everywhere (?). >> >> If patents aren't a concern then okay. Copyright lasts longer than >> patents so for anything that is in the public domain because of age then >> no patents would still apply. >> >> There isn¹t a lot of code that has aged out. Only code written between >> before 1963 and didn¹t get a renewal. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> License-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > > ------------------------------ > > End of License-discuss Digest, Vol 56, Issue 40 > *********************************************** _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
