You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" <ce...@mail.mil> on 2016/08/03 13:50:56 UTC
RE: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research
Laboratory Open Source License proposal
Hi all, Karl Fogel on the mil-oss (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
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research
Laboratory Open Source License proposal
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL
(US) <ce...@mail.mil> wrote:
> The current lack of legal analysis is the problem. If they had complete
> analysis and full guidance about the license, we wouldn't be here at all!
From the outside, this seems to be a problem which can only be solved
from the top.
Perhaps if the ARL OSL were to be published, or if a new version of
the Apache License were to incorporate the relevant suggestions, one
constituency within the US government might be satisfied. But there
are bound to be other constituencies and other lawyers who disagree
with the analysis and who would argue, just as vehemently as we have
seen here, that a different solution is required.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research
Laboratory Open Source License proposal
Posted by "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" <ce...@mail.mil>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wheeler, David A [mailto:dwheeler@ida.org]
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 2:52 PM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Cc: Karl Fogel <kf...@red-bean.com>; Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>;
> license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: RE: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research
> Laboratory Open Source License proposal
>
> William A Rowe Jr [Caution-mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net]:
> > 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/
>
> The detailed policy is here:
> Caution-https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2016/m_16_21.pdf
>
> That new US federal government policy doesn't directly apply to many of
> Cem's cases. The policy doesn't apply to National Security
> Systems (NSS), and I expect that a lot of what the Army research labs do
> would be classified as NSS. The policy certainly presses for the
> release of open source software in general; it requires that a minimum of
> 20% of custom-developed code be released as OSS in each year
> for 3 years. It does note (in its definitions) that "custom developed code"
> includes software developed by government officials as part of
> their official duties. The policy itself does not delve into this kind of
> legal analysis.
The current lack of legal analysis is the problem. If they had complete
analysis and full guidance about the license, we wouldn't be here at all!
Thanks,
Cem Karan
RE: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research
Laboratory Open Source License proposal
Posted by "Wheeler, David A" <dw...@ida.org>.
William A Rowe Jr [mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net]:
> 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.
https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/08/the-white-house-just-released-the-federal-source-code-policy-to-help-government-agencies-go-open-source/
The detailed policy is here:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2016/m_16_21.pdf
That new US federal government policy doesn't directly apply to many of Cem's cases. The policy doesn't apply to National Security Systems (NSS), and I expect that a lot of what the Army research labs do would be classified as NSS. The policy certainly presses for the release of open source software in general; it requires that a minimum of 20% of custom-developed code be released as OSS in each year for 3 years. It does note (in its definitions) that "custom developed code" includes software developed by government officials as part of their official duties. The policy itself does not delve into this kind of legal analysis.
--- David A. Wheeler
RE: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research
Laboratory Open Source License proposal
Posted by "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" <ce...@mail.mil>.
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 <kf...@red-bean.com>; Lawrence Rosen <lr...@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/ >
RE: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research
Laboratory Open Source License proposal
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Aug 3, 2016 08:51, "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" <
cem.f.karan.civ@mail.mil> wrote:
>
> Hi all, Karl Fogel on the mil-oss (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.
https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/08/the-white-house-just-released-the-federal-source-code-policy-to-help-government-agencies-go-open-source/