www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" <cem.f.karan....@mail.mil>
Subject RE: [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL)
Date Fri, 29 Jul 2016 18:00:24 GMT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Dunning [mailto:ted.dunning@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 8:39 PM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Cc: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
> Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research Laboratory Open Source 
> License (ARL OSL)
> 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.
> ________________________________
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
> <cem.f.karan.civ@mail.mil < Caution-
> mailto:cem.f.karan.civ@mail.mil > > wrote:
> 	>
> 	> As such the disclaimer that was suggested by Roy deals with that 
> situation.
> 	> My read on his disclaimer is that it does not need to be
> 	> incorporated into the license itself, but can be included in a Notice or
> 	> similar file to clarify the origin of the code.
> 	>
> 	> If that is acceptable, then you can accept the Apache License as-is.
> 	I saw Roy's email, and I have what I think are valid reasons for why a 
> simple
> 	disclaimer is not enough.  However, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm running my
> 	thoughts past our legal department so I can get the entire answer 100%
> 	correct.  That particular email is going to be quite lengthy.  I'm hoping 
> the
> 	legal department will answer all my questions by sometime this afternoon, 
> so I
> 	can get a good answer out to everyone.
> It occurs to me (again... you said this already) that your goals are not to 
> make your license the same as the Apache License, nor vice versa.
> Instead, the goal is to make sure that your license is in the so-called 
> category A licenses for Apache. That is a much easier task and it might
> well be that your proposed form is already there.

That is true.  My goal is to make sure that our license is as close to 
interchangeable with Apache 2.0 as possible, and I really do want our license 
to be a category A license.  We WANT our code to be used by others, and we 
WANT others to be able to contribute to our projects.  We just can't do it 
without some kind of protection against liability (I still owe Roy a reply to 
his earlier email, which should address some of this).

Cem Karan

View raw message