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: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research Laboratory Open Source License proposal
Date Thu, 18 Aug 2016 20:14:43 GMT
The real trick is the DoJ; they have to defend the USG in court, as well as 
deal with any other legal aspects.  If they are willing to accept the licenses 
as-is, then I suspect that rest of the USG would go along (note that I can't 
speak for the USG on this, someone with authority to sign off on the policy 
would have to make that decision).

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William A Rowe Jr [mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net]
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 2:26 PM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Cc: Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com>; Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>;

> license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: RE: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research 
> Laboratory Open Source License proposal
>
> 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 Aug 3, 2016 08:51, "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" 
> <cem.f.karan.civ@mail.mil < Caution-
> mailto:cem.f.karan.civ@mail.mil > > wrote:
> >
> > Hi all, Karl Fogel on the mil-oss (Caution-http://www.mil-oss.org/ <
> > Caution-http://www.mil-oss.org/ > ) mailing list made a suggestion
> > that might be the solution.  Would the Apache foundation be willing to
> > work on Apache 2.1, or maybe 3.0, incorporating changes as needed to
> > cover works that don't have copyright attached to them?  If that were 
> > possible, we wouldn't need the ARL OSL at all.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Cem Karan
>
> Unsure how this news might apply but it sounds like changes in overall 
> policy might gain some traction to address this... If OMB came up
> with the rational of either approving AL 2.0 as is, or made a compelling 
> case for AL 2.1 clarifications.
>
> Caution-https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/08/the-white-house-just-released-the-federal-source-code-policy-to-help-government-agencies-
> go-open-source/ < 
> Caution-https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/08/the-white-house-just-released-the-federal-source-code-policy-to-help-
> government-agencies-go-open-source/ >


Mime
View raw message