<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, 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;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoPlainText>Thanks Nigel. I love to read interesting <a 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></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>[Complicated legal discussion follows...]<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p 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 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></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>However, the federal district court in Kentucky held that sovereign immunity was justified in this copyright case on <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxi">11th Amendment</a> grounds because the CRCA statute passed by Congress relied on <a 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 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></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p 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></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p 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></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>[Can someone find out what happened with this case after the March 2014 decision?]<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p 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></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>/Larry<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-fareast-language:KO'>-----Original Message-----<br>From: Tzeng, Nigel H. [mailto:Nigel.Tzeng@jhuapl.edu] <br>Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 11:38 AM<br>To: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>; 'License submissions for OSI review' <license-review@opensource.org>; 'CAVO' <cavo@opensource.org><br>Subject: Re: [License-review] Submission of OSET Public License for Approval</span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p 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></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><a 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></p><p class=MsoPlainText>ght_suit_against_state_university<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>CRCA hasn’t been upheld against any state AFAIK but then IANAL.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p 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></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Pretty amazing that Revolutionary War debt is still having repercussions in 2015 because of the 11th Amendment.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>On 9/11/15, 12:54 PM, "License-review on behalf of Lawrence Rosen"<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><<a 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></p><p class=MsoPlainText>wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>Nigel and Josh,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>Copyright has nothing to do with "sovereign immunity."<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>What you refer to is merely the inability of the U.S. federal <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>government to claim copyright in works created by its government <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>employees in the course and scope of their employment. This applies to <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>all such writings, even software and court decisions. 17 U.S.C. 105: <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>"Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>the United States Government, but the United States Government is not <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>assignment, bequest, or otherwise."<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>The important concern that some of us are raising is the wording in the <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>OSET license that allows government agencies anywhere to ignore the <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>demands of the election software license based on their own criteria.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>That goes way too far.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>It is appropriate for the software community to work with government <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>agencies on security, export restrictions, even on industry standards <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>for elections software. Members of CAVO are already very active in <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>those forums.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>GPL plays in that environment very well already. Again the leading <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>example is Linux.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>/Larry<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>-----Original Message-----<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>From: Josh Berkus [<a href="mailto:josh@postgresql.org"><span style='color:black;text-decoration:none'>mailto:josh@postgresql.org</span></a>]<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 8:47 AM<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>To: License submissions for OSI review <<a href="mailto:license-review@opensource.org"><span style='color:black;text-decoration:none'>license-review@opensource.org</span></a>>; <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>Meeker, Heather J. <<a href="mailto:hmeeker@omm.com"><span style='color:black;text-decoration:none'>hmeeker@omm.com</span></a>><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>Subject: Re: [License-review] Submission of OSET Public License for <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>Approval<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>On 09/11/2015 10:11 AM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>> I was under the impression that most governments were at least <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>>somewhat immune to copyright issues because of sovereign immunity. I <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>>donąt think any license really protects against this regardless of the <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>>terms.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>> I guess someone with standing could still sue for injunctive relief <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>> but doesnąt strike me as likely.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>Only national governments. With that wording, even a *city* government <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>could pass a law to make license restrictions inapplicable.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>--Josh Berkus<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>License-review mailing list<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><a href="mailto:License-review@opensource.org"><span style='color:black;text-decoration:none'>License-review@opensource.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><a 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></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>License-review mailing list<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><a href="mailto:License-review@opensource.org"><span style='color:black;text-decoration:none'>License-review@opensource.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><a 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></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>