[CAVO] [License-review] Submission of OSET Public License for Approval

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

Coyle v. University of Kentucky - dismissed because the doctrine of
sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment precluded the University from
being sued for copyright infringement.

http://www.dailyreportingsuite.com/ip/news/sovereign_immunity_barred_copyri
ght_suit_against_state_university

CRCA hasn’t been upheld against any state AFAIK but then IANAL.

It is pretty clear, however, that there is case law that states, at least,
have some immunity to copyright violations based on Sovereign Immunity if
they haven’t explicitly waived them.  At best you can use Ex parte Young
to make them stop.

Pretty amazing that Revolutionary War debt is still having repercussions
in 2015 because of the 11th Amendment.



On 9/11/15, 12:54 PM, "License-review on behalf of Lawrence Rosen"
<license-review-bounces at opensource.org on behalf of lrosen at rosenlaw.com>
wrote:

>Nigel and Josh,
>
>Copyright has nothing to do with "sovereign immunity."
>
>What you refer to is merely the inability of the U.S. federal government
>to claim copyright in works created by its government employees in the
>course and scope of their employment. This applies to all such writings,
>even software and court decisions. 17 U.S.C. 105: "Copyright protection
>under this title is not available for any work of the United States
>Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from
>receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment,
>bequest, or otherwise."
>
>The important concern that some of us are raising is the wording in the
>OSET license that allows government agencies anywhere to ignore the
>demands of the election software license based on their own criteria.
>That goes way too far.
>
>It is appropriate for the software community to work with government
>agencies on security, export restrictions, even on industry standards for
>elections software. Members of CAVO are already very active in those
>forums. 
>
>GPL plays in that environment very well already. Again the leading
>example is Linux.
>
>/Larry
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Josh Berkus [mailto:josh at postgresql.org]
>Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 8:47 AM
>To: License submissions for OSI review <license-review at opensource.org>;
>Meeker, Heather J. <hmeeker at omm.com>
>Subject: Re: [License-review] Submission of OSET Public License for
>Approval
>
>On 09/11/2015 10:11 AM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
>> I was under the impression that most governments were at least
>> somewhat immune to copyright issues because of sovereign immunity.  I
>> don¹t think any license really protects against this regardless of the
>>terms.
>> 
>> I guess someone with standing could still sue for injunctive relief
>> but doesn¹t strike me as likely.
>
>Only national governments.  With that wording, even a *city* government
>could pass a law to make license restrictions inapplicable.
>
>--Josh Berkus
>
>_______________________________________________
>License-review mailing list
>License-review at opensource.org
>https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
>
>_______________________________________________
>License-review mailing list
>License-review at opensource.org
>https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review