Just to be clear, if you're talking about the US Army Research Laboratory (ARL) policy (https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions), that policy only applies to personnel at the US Army Research Laboratory. Other agencies are free to adopt and adapt 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:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen > Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 4:57 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Lawrence Rosen <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] patent rights and the OSD > > All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the > identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links > contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a > Web browser. > > > ________________________________ > > > > > 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 > might be able to live with. :-) If I understand correctly, there > is already an existing government policy that patent rights are granted to > all users of the software, albeit separately by policy rather than > by license. > > > > And if I understand correctly, that is already the implied promise in > Europe? > > > > /Larry > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss > [Caution-mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Richard > Fontana > Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 1:09 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] patent rights and the OSD > > > > On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 03:55:37PM +0000, Christopher Sean Morrison wrote: > > > > > Of particular significance, it calls into question whether there are > > > any OSI-approved licenses that specifically exclude patent rights in > > > the current portfolio or whether CC0 would be the first of its 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: > > > > Caution-https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:ClearBSD < > Caution-https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:ClearBSD > > > Caution-https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#clearbsd < > Caution-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. > > > > I've also seen one or two companies engage in the practice of licensing code > under GPLv2 accompanied by a statement that no patent > licenses are granted. > > > > > If there AREN'T, that begs under non-proliferation for any new licenses > > that explicitly disclaim patent rights to be found OSD- > inadequate, particularly w.r.t. clauses #1 and #7. Moreover, any license > approval for a new license containing a patent disclaimer (e.g., > CC0) would necessarily require modification or accompaniment by a required > patent grant mechanism (such as ARL's approach) in order > to satisfy the OSD. > > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > > License-discuss mailing list > > [email protected] < > Caution-mailto:[email protected] > > > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > < Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi- > bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
