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 18:05:32 GMT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marvin Humphrey [mailto:marvin@rectangular.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 9:14 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 5:38 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> But this initiative is really unfortunate because of the damage to the FOSS 
> ecosystem caused by license proliferation. It would really be in
> everyone's interest -- publishers, users, wider industry -- if the Apache 
> License 2.0 or some other standard, well-known license can be
> made to work.
> Are the people behind this proposed license acquainted with the problem of 
> license proliferation, yet still absolutely determined to
> proceed? I predict that you will come to regret it.
>   Caution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_proliferation
> Marvin Humphrey

Yes, we're aware of license proliferation.  The problem is that licenses that 
use copyright exclusively won't work for the US Government because USG works 
don't have copyright within the US.

Believe me, if there was a license that would handle our problems that was 
already out there, we'd use it.  We were hoping that NOSA 2.0 would be out and 
accepted by the time we got to this part of designing our internal policy; if 
it had been, we'd have used it instead.  We're only diving into this because 
we don't see any other options that protect everyone's interests (I'm going to 
put together a much longer reply to Roy's earlier email that should explain 
things more clearly).

Cem Karan

View raw message