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

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 2:35 PM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: 
> [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source
> License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
>
> Cam Karan asked:
>
> > If you have case law where the USG won a lawsuit over material licensed 
> > under one of the copyright-based OSI licenses where there was
> no claim of copyright, please provide it.
>
>
>
> A copyright lawsuit requires copyright, so that's impossible.
>
>
>
> A contract lawsuit requires damages and is usually fought in state (or small 
> claims?) court without even being published. Ask your own
> attorneys if they have ever won a contract lawsuit in a state or federal 
> court without proof of damages because the USG or anyone else
> merely distributed harmless public domain software.

I can, but I suspect that the answer is 'no' because I believe that the DoJ is 
the one that handles defending the USG.  And, considering that you are a 
lawyer and I'm not, I suspect that you're right about damages being necessary. 
;)

That said, what is being proposed is new ground for the USG.  I suspect that 
there is very little if any case law regarding Open Source and the USG.  I'd 
rather get all this right BEFORE there are any lawsuits.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

-------------- 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/20160818/23cff284/attachment.p7s>