[License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

Mon Feb 27 20:26:00 UTC 2017

What you just said (the paragraph about the FOIA exemption) seems to be spot 
on.  Our legal counsel **will not** comment on this list.  Full stop.

The Federal Register process may be the best way forwards.  I'll bring it up 
in the next Federal Source Code policy meeting.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Stephen Michael Kellat
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 2:11 PM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Cc: lrosen at rosenlaw.com; license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research 
> Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> ----
>
> I am off-duty from my job over at Treasury today so I guess I can say 
> something.  Standard disclaimer incorporated by reference from
> presentation here: 
> Caution-http://skellat.freeshell.org/blog/pages/about-this-blog.html
>
> One main exemption to FOIA is that internal pre-decisional work product of 
> lawyers is exempt from disclosure.  Any contribution on this
> list could be considered privileged communication by those lawyers.  I doubt 
> there would be enough caveats and disclaimers to keep any
> communication on-list from being considered possible official agency action 
> subject to the Administrative Procedures Act.  A lone non-
> lawyer might be able to skirt the APA barely but once the lawyers come in 
> then the machinery of government would kick in and things
> would need publishing in the Federal Register.
>
> For as long as this issue has been running, moving things over to actually 
> having the Army running an inquiry opened up in the Federal
> Register where the public can comment and attorneys for the Army can respond 
> probably will be worthwhile.  For as much as this list can
> be reactive, it is time for DoD and Army to put their cards on the table for 
> feedback.
>
> Stephen Michael Kellat
>
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 10:42:59 -0800
> "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>
> > Cem Karan wrote:
> >
> > > As for our legal counsel posting to this list directly, they've told
> > > me in the past that they won't do that because it violates some
> > > statute or contract clause[1].
> >
> > [1] I'm not sure what exactly, they've explained it to me, but I keep
> > forgetting the finer details.
> >
> >
> >
> > I apologize for again writing to you, Cem, since you are doing a great
> > job at this thread, but it is the only way I know to get my message to
> > your attorneys:
> >
> >
> >
> > Their behavior in funneling their license to this public list via a
> > non-lawyer is insulting to those of us on this list who are lawyers
> > and who well understand the law of copyright and open source. They are
> > also insulting the non-lawyers on this list who know more about open
> > source licenses than most lawyers in your government agency apparently
> > do. Please ask them to talk to us as professionals.
> >
> >
> >
> > As far as some "statute or contract clause" that would prevent a
> > lawyer from justifying his or her own submission of a license to this
> > public open source mail list, I doubt that!
> >
> >
> >
> > I am personally so frustrated at this unnecessary barrier that I might
> > file a FOIA request to force them to speak up publicly about their
> > public legal issue that concerns all of us who use the Apache license
> > with public domain components in our software. That's not the way the
> > open source community works out such issues.
> >
> >
> >
> > /Larry
> >
> >
> >
> > Lawrence Rosen
> >
> > Rosenlaw (Caution-www.rosenlaw.com)
> >
> > 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
> >
> > Cell: 707-478-8932
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: License-discuss
> > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org]
> > On Behalf Of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) Sent: Monday,
> > February 27, 2017 10:10 AM To: lrosen at rosenlaw.com;
> > license-discuss at opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD
> > Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL
> > OSL) Version 0.4.1
> >
> >
> >
> > I've forwarded your question to our internal counsel, and I'm hoping
> > to get a message back in a day or two.  I'll post it when they get
> > back to me.
> >
> >
> >
> > As for our legal counsel posting to this list directly, they've told
> > me in the past that they won't do that because it violates some
> > statute or contract clause[1].  So, I apologize if I have to act as a
> > filter, but that is the best I can do at the moment.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Cem Karan
> >
> >
> >
> > [1] I'm not sure what exactly, they've explained it to me, but I keep
> > forgetting the finer details.
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > > From: Lawrence Rosen [ <Caution-mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com>
> > > Caution-mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com]
> >
> > > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 12:50 PM
> >
> > > To: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
> >
> > > < <Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil>
> > > cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil>;
> > > <Caution-mailto:license-discuss at opensource.org>
> > > license-discuss at opensource.org
> >
> > > Cc: Lawrence Rosen < <Caution-mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com>
> > > lrosen at rosenlaw.com>
> >
> > > Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] U.S. Army
> > > Research
> >
> > > Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
> >
> > >
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > ________________________________
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Cem Karan wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > I'm not a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer, I don't pretend to be one
> > > > on
> >
> > > > TV or anywhere else, and nothing I say should be construed as
> > > > legal
> >
> > > advice.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > In that situation, it would be unfair to ask you my question
> > > directly,
> >
> > > so please forward my email directly to your lawyer(s). I'd like to
> >
> > > hear from them directly or on this list.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Cem Karan wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > . . . the truly serious issue is severability
> >
> > > Caution-Caution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability <
> > > Caution-
> >
> > >  <Caution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability>
> > > Caution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability > ).  The concern
> > > is that
> >
> > > if the USG uses a license that depends on copyright (e.g., Apache
> >
> > > 2.0), and those clauses are declared unenforceable by the courts,
> > > then
> >
> > > it may be possible to declare the entire license unenforceable.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Larry Rosen asked:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Apache-licensed software also may (and frequently does) contain
> > > public
> >
> > > domain components. Are you suggesting that "severability" is a
> >
> > > potential problem with Apache software?
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > /Larry
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Lawrence Rosen
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Rosenlaw (Caution-Caution-www.rosenlaw.com)
> >
> > >
> >
> > > 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Cell: 707-478-8932
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 6419 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20170227/f04d238c/attachment.p7s>