<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000; font-size:10pt;"><div>Larry,</div><div><br></div><div>I don't know what the UK folks were up to with those photographs - Universities are a different animal - except when it comes to plagiarism of course. But I can tell you that from my project work with government and State departments they are EXTREMELY aware of copyright and will go to great lengths to ensure there are zero issues with digital content they are using.</div><div><br></div><div>Companies like Microsoft and Oracle has drilled into the procurement departments the whole need for license compliance, and yes, you are correct, that includes FOSS too.</div><div><br></div><div>The biggest challenge however used to be getting FOSS through the torturous approval processes and security vetting and systems administration folks sign-off. That has all changed. I have been able to get software approved for gold disk distribution by the government. This is of course driven by a change in formal policy, OMB, and success of solutions such as Apache internet servers and Google developed software.</div><div><br></div><div>As for legal hangovers from past centuries decision, yes, there's several of those that are major failing today in the transforming modern world we live in. The 16th Amendment being the biggest culprit I see out there, but that's a whole another topic!<br></div><div><br></div><div>David<br></div><div><br></div>
<blockquote id="replyBlockquote" webmail="1" style="border-left: 2px solid blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size:10pt; color:black; font-family:verdana;">
<div id="wmQuoteWrapper">
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: [CAVO] An aside about CRCA and open source licenses<br>
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <<a href="mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com">lrosen@rosenlaw.com</a>><br>
Date: Fri, September 11, 2015 7:45 pm<br>
To: "'CAVO'" <<a href="mailto:cavo@opensource.org">cavo@opensource.org</a>>, "'License submissions for OSI<br>
review'" <<a href="mailto:license-review@opensource.org">license-review@opensource.org</a>><br>
Cc: Lawrence Rosen <<a href="mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com">lrosen@rosenlaw.com</a>><br>
<br>
<style>
#wmQuoteWrapper /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
#wmQuoteWrapper @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
#wmQuoteWrapper /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, #wmQuoteWrapper li.MsoNormal, #wmQuoteWrapper div.MsoNormal {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
#wmQuoteWrapper a:link, #wmQuoteWrapper span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-priority:99; color:#0563C1; text-decoration:underline;}
#wmQuoteWrapper a:visited, #wmQuoteWrapper span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-priority:99; color:#954F72; text-decoration:underline;}
#wmQuoteWrapper p.MsoPlainText, #wmQuoteWrapper li.MsoPlainText, #wmQuoteWrapper div.MsoPlainText {mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:black;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.PlainTextChar {mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char"; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-link:"Plain Text"; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:black;}
#wmQuoteWrapper .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
#wmQuoteWrapper @page WordSection1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
#wmQuoteWrapper div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;}
</style><div class="WordSection1"><div class="MsoPlainText">Thanks Nigel. I love to read interesting <a target="_blank" href="http://business.cch.com/ipld/CoyleUniversityofKentucky342014.pdf">court decisions</a> (<i>Coyle v. University of Kentucky</i>). I even enjoy being instructed about the relationship between sovereign immunity and copyright law. :-)<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">[Complicated legal discussion follows...]<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">This case was decided on VERY narrow and technical legal grounds. In its complaint, the plaintiff accused a public Kentucky university and its officials of copyright infringement of certain sports photographs. The plaintiff asserted that his copyright claims were not barred against the University defendants because Congress validly abrogated sovereign immunity for copyright claims when it passed the <a target="_blank" href="http://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/101/553.pdf">Copyright Remedy Clarification Act (CRCA)</a> in 1990. The CRCA <u>prevented</u> sovereign immunity for copyright claims. <u>State and local governments can't ignore copyright licenses.</u><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">However, the federal district court in Kentucky held that sovereign immunity was justified in this copyright case on <a target="_blank" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxi">11th Amendment</a> grounds because the CRCA statute passed by Congress relied on <a target="_blank" href="http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/article-i-section-8">Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution</a> (the copyright authorization) rather than on <a target="_blank" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv">Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment</a> (Congress' enforcement power). "A statute that clearly invokes the constitutional provision on which Congress is relying to pass it 'precludes consideration' of alternative justifications." In other words, Congress got it subtly wrong when it justified the CRCA. And the plaintiff was stuck with that. :-(<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">This case is interesting because, if it prevails, state and local agencies could ignore open source (and proprietary!) licenses based on the 11th Amendment. That won't work for any of us or our licenses. I'll assume that a higher court will reverse or that Congress will solve this problem by reauthorizing CRCA for a different (14th Amendment) reason. Or perhaps this decision will just flush into the realm of bad court cases. And then governments once again cannot claim sovereign immunity to permit their own copyright infringement. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">As for suing certain defendants in their "official" or "individual" capacities.... Interesting case for HR lawyers, but I assume that the State of Kentucky paid the defendants' legal fees.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">[Can someone find out what happened with this case after the March 2014 decision?]<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">This is yet another reason not to experiment with the OSET license and instead to rely on GPLv3 enforcement around the world. I know some people around here who will assert the GPL even against government agencies if necessary regardless of the 11th Amendment. :-)<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">/Larry<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-fareast-language:KO">-----Original Message-----<br>From: Tzeng, Nigel H. [<a href="mailto:Nigel.Tzeng@jhuapl.edu">mailto:Nigel.Tzeng@jhuapl.edu</a>] <br>Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 11:38 AM<br>To: Lawrence Rosen <<a href="mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com">lrosen@rosenlaw.com</a>>; 'License submissions for OSI review' <<a href="mailto:license-review@opensource.org">license-review@opensource.org</a>>; 'CAVO' <<a href="mailto:cavo@opensource.org">cavo@opensource.org</a>><br>Subject: Re: [License-review] Submission of OSET Public License for Approval</span></div><div class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">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.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.dailyreportingsuite.com/ip/news/sovereign_immunity_barred_copyri"><span style="color:black;text-decoration:none">http://www.dailyreportingsuite.com/ip/news/sovereign_immunity_barred_copyri</span></a><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">ght_suit_against_state_university<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">CRCA hasn’t been upheld against any state AFAIK but then IANAL.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">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.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">Pretty amazing that Revolutionary War debt is still having repercussions in 2015 because of the 11th Amendment.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">On 9/11/15, 12:54 PM, "License-review on behalf of Lawrence Rosen"<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText"><<a target="_blank" href="mailto:license-review-bounces@opensource.org%20on%20behalf%20of%20lrosen@rosenlaw.com"><span style="color:black;text-decoration:none">license-review-bounces@opensource.org on behalf of lrosen@rosenlaw.com</span></a>><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">wrote:<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>Nigel and Josh,<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>Copyright has nothing to do with "sovereign immunity."<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>What you refer to is merely the inability of the U.S. federal <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>government to claim copyright in works created by its government <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>employees in the course and scope of their employment. This applies to <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>all such writings, even software and court decisions. 17 U.S.C. 105: <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>"Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>the United States Government, but the United States Government is not <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>assignment, bequest, or otherwise."<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>The important concern that some of us are raising is the wording in the <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>OSET license that allows government agencies anywhere to ignore the <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>demands of the election software license based on their own criteria.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>That goes way too far.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>It is appropriate for the software community to work with government <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>agencies on security, export restrictions, even on industry standards <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>for elections software. Members of CAVO are already very active in <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>those forums.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>GPL plays in that environment very well already. Again the leading <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>example is Linux.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>/Larry<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>-----Original Message-----<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>From: Josh Berkus [<a target="_blank" href="mailto:josh@postgresql.org"><span style="color:black;text-decoration:none">mailto:josh@postgresql.org</span></a>]<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 8:47 AM<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>To: License submissions for OSI review <<a target="_blank" href="mailto:license-review@opensource.org"><span style="color:black;text-decoration:none">license-review@opensource.org</span></a>>; <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>Meeker, Heather J. <<a target="_blank" href="mailto:hmeeker@omm.com"><span style="color:black;text-decoration:none">hmeeker@omm.com</span></a>><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>Subject: Re: [License-review] Submission of OSET Public License for <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>Approval<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>On 09/11/2015 10:11 AM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>> I was under the impression that most governments were at least <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>>somewhat immune to copyright issues because of sovereign immunity. I <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>>don¹t think any license really protects against this regardless of the <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>>terms.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>> <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>> I guess someone with standing could still sue for injunctive relief <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>> but doesn¹t strike me as likely.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>Only national governments. With that wording, even a *city* government <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>could pass a law to make license restrictions inapplicable.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>--Josh Berkus<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>License-review mailing list<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">><a target="_blank" href="mailto:License-review@opensource.org"><span style="color:black;text-decoration:none">License-review@opensource.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">><a target="_blank" href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review"><span style="color:black;text-decoration:none">https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review</span></a><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">>License-review mailing list<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">><a target="_blank" href="mailto:License-review@opensource.org"><span style="color:black;text-decoration:none">License-review@opensource.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText">><a target="_blank" href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review"><span style="color:black;text-decoration:none">https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review</span></a><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></div></div><hr>_______________________________________________<br>
CAVO mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CAVO@opensource.org">CAVO@opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo">https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote></span></body></html>