[License-review] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0 and Government licensing [was: moving to an issue tracker [was Re: Some notes for license submitters]]

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-review [mailto:license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Perens
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 11:45 AM
> To: License submissions for OSI review <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-review] NOSA 2.0 and Government licensing [was: moving to an issue tracker [was Re: Some
> notes for license submitters]]
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 8:34 AM, Smith, McCoy
> 
> 	I'm curious what sort of harm the government or downstream users would suffer in your scenario
> 
> 
> His comment about USG having lots of money for people to go after - the one with the repeated lines - indicates that liability is a
> concern.
> 
> Even in a copyright-based license, the declination of warranty is not a copyright term. It's a unilateral declination. It's not really going to
> work to tell the court that a party that sues you for liability damages commits copyright infringement by doing so.
> 
> A unilateral declination regarding public-domain software should work as well as one regarding copyrighted material.

Are there any OSI-approved licenses that give such a declination?  That also handle patent and other IP issues?  And that will cover contributions from the outside which have copyright attached?

If there are, please point me at them!  There are journals and other publications that really value OSI-approved licenses, and won't accept material that isn't under an OSI-approved license (JOSS is one).  That is a stumbling block for the USG.


Thanks,
Cem Karan

---
Other than quoted laws, regulations or officially published policies, the views expressed herein are not intended to be used as an authoritative state of the law nor do they reflect official positions of the U.S. Army, Department of Defense or U.S. Government.