[License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

Tue Aug 16 20:03:18 UTC 2016

Here are the problems:

1) ARL doesn't know if it can use copyright-based licenses on public domain 
software.  In particular, will the entire license be held invalid, including 
the disclaimers, if the copyright portions are held to be invalid?

2) Liability is only one part of the puzzle; as I mentioned in an earlier 
email, there are IP issues that need to be solved (e.g. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambus#Lawsuits).  That makes CC0 unattractive.

If the entire license is held to be invalid, then contributors may have 
standing to sue both the USG and anyone that uses USG code for patent 
violations.  We're trying to have a license that will withstand legal 
scrutiny, and protect not just the USG, but also all innocent contributors and 
users of USG-sponsored projects.

As for 'license vs. contract', was that something discussed in relation to the 
ARL OSL?

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 12:57 PM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research 
> Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> ----
>
> Regardless of whether a licensor owns the copyright, distribution of that 
> work is still a conveyance of a piece of software in commerce.
> Among other things, that is a contractual act. Even public domain software 
> can cause harm. A disclaimer of warranty and liability -- even
> for the public domain portion of a work, within the limitations of the 
> law -- can still be effective in a FOSS license.
>
> Why does the Army Research Laboratory confuse the distribution of a work 
> under a waiver of liability with the ownership (or not) of its
> embedded copyrights?
>
> Is this a resurrection of the old "license vs. contract" dispute that we 
> buried long ago?
>
> /Larry
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Fontana [Caution-mailto:fontana at sharpeleven.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 9:42 AM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research 
> Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
>
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 04:19:31PM +0000, Christopher Sean Morrison wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Aug 16, 2016, at 11:43 AM, "Smith, McCoy" <mccoy.smith at intel.com> 
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > CC0 gives a complete (to the extent permissible by law) waiver of 
> > copyright rights, as well as a disclaimer of liability for the "Work"
> (which is that which copyright has been waived). I believe that to be an 
> effective waiver of liability, despite the fact that there is not
> copyright rights being conveyed. Does anyone believe that that waiver is 
> ineffective?
> >
> >
> > Gee, if only legal-review had approved CC0 as an open source license,
> > it would be a potential option. ;)
> >
> >
> >
> > As it stands, the board's public position to not recommend using CC0 on 
> > software [1] due to its patent clause makes it problematic.
>
> The point here though is the assumption ARL is apparently making, that an 
> effective warranty or liability disclaimer must be tied to a
> (seemingly) contractual instrument. CC0 is evidence that some lawyers have 
> thought otherwise.
>
> Based on this whole thread, I imagine that even if CC0 were OSI-approved, 
> ARL would find fault with it given that it seems to assume that
> the copyright-waiving entity actually does own copyright. (I have actually 
> found CC0 attractive in some situations where there is
> acknowledged uncertainty about copyright ownership.)
>
>
> Richard
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5559 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20160816/66a6baef/attachment.p7s>