[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) cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil
Thu Aug 18 20:36:35 UTC 2016


Larry, I agree with you completely about the need for all attorneys talking to 
one another, while us engineers sit back and listen.  I'm going to try to talk 
the various attorneys in the USG that I've contacted into being part of a 
telecon.  If I'm able to do so, are there any attorneys on this list who would 
be interested in taking part in that discussion?  If you are, please email me 
directly; put "ARL OSL telecon" as the subject line, and tell me what times 
are best for you relative to the Eastern Time Zone.

PLEASE NOTE!  That telecon MUST be for attorneys ONLY!  I may be able to 
convince the ARL attorneys to talk to outside attorneys, but they will be VERY 
unhappy if anyone else is coming in on the line.  There are good legal reasons 
for this; please don't try to sneak in.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 2:15 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
>
> 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:
>
> > The only reason that the ARL OSL was proposed AT ALL is because there is a 
> > strong concern that since USG code doesn't have copyright
> [1], any license that relies exclusively on copyright may be invalidated by 
> the courts [2].
>
>
>
> We understand that strong concern. Most of us don't share it.
>
>
>
> Many of us have noted that NO FOSS LICENSE relies exclusively on copyright 
> law. That argument was made here on this list years ago. No
> court anywhere has ever decided a FOSS case without also using CONTRACT 
> interpretation rules.
>
>
>
> We also noted that MOST FOSS SOFTWARE already contains public domain 
> components. Perhaps ALL FOSS SOFTWARE, considering that
> engineers often claim copyright on more than they deserve.
>
>
>
> Our U.S. Army software is no different: Portions copyright; portions not.
>
>
>
> We attorneys here will try to convince your attorneys of that if they 
> consent to speak to us. You engineers should not volunteer to be
> translators in that discussion, but listen in. And we attorneys should speak 
> candidly about copyright and contract law. Several of us are
> specialists, and several here have already volunteered to have that legal 
> chat with your counsel.
>
>
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
> Lawrence Rosen
>
> Rosenlaw (Caution-www.rosenlaw.com)
>
> 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
>
> Cell: 707-478-8932
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
> [Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil]
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 10:52 AM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: 
> U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL)
> 0.4.0
>
>
>
> The only reason that the ARL OSL was proposed AT ALL is because there is a 
> strong concern that since USG code doesn't have copyright
> [1], any license that relies exclusively on copyright may be invalidated by 
> the courts [2].  If the USG had copyright, then I could stop
> pushing the ARL OSL entirely as we could use any of the OSI-supplied 
> licenses.
>
>
>
> So to be 100% clear, we don't know if any copyright-based license will stand 
> up in court for works that don't have copyright attached.  The
> only reason that the ARL OSL was proposed was to deal with that particular 
> situation.  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.  I can pass
> that to the ARL Legal team who can then review it.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Cem Karan
>
>
>
> [1] I'm making the usual assumption that this was code created by USG 
> employees in the course of their duties; copyright can be assigned
> to the USG where and when it exists, but I'm ignoring that for right now.
>
>
>
> [2] My expectation is that it would be invalidated for the USG-supplied 
> portion, but not for any portion that had copyright attached.  Note
> that this is just my opinion, and I have nothing to back it up.  IANAL.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: License-discuss 
> > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org < 
> > Caution-mailto:license-discuss-
> bounces at opensource.org > ]
>
> > On Behalf Of Smith, McCoy
>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:54 PM
>
> > To: license-discuss at opensource.org < 
> > Caution-mailto:license-discuss at opensource.org >
>
> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re:
>
> > U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL)
>
> > 0.4.0
>
> >
>
> > Or to put a finer point on it, the other issues you identify appear to
>
> > be ones that are explicitly addressed in many already-approved OSI
>
> > licenses, including Apache 2.0, the one you are modeling your license 
> > upon.
>
> >
>
> > I hope you're getting a sense that there are several lawyers on this
>
> > mailing list -- lawyers who have years of experience looking at,
>
> > debating, and giving advice on the issues you identify in this
>
> > submission -- who think that your proposed license is a variant of
>
> > Apache 2.0 designed to solve a "problem" for USG users with Apache 2.0
>
> > that we are skeptical even exists.  Perhaps the ARL lawyers can
>
> > clarify what the problem is, and that we are missing something.  But I
>
> > think at least I am having a hard time understanding how this license
>
> > does anything that Apache 2.0 doesn't.
>
> >
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: License-discuss
>
> > [Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf 
> > Of
>
> > Richard Fontana
>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:33 AM
>
> > To: license-discuss at opensource.org < 
> > Caution-mailto:license-discuss at opensource.org >
>
> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re:
>
> > U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL)
>
> > 0.4.0
>
> >
>
> > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:17:07PM +0000, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY
>
> > RDECOM ARL
>
> > (US) wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > Once again, liability isn't the only issue; there are also copyright
>
> > > issues (for contributors), and IP issues.  If we could solve the
>
> > > problem via a simple disclaimer of liability, we would.  We need to
>
> > > handle ALL the issues.
>
> >
>
> > Even if you were correct in the assertions you've made about ARL code,
>
> > why is a new license needed for contributors other than ARL?
>
>
>
>

-------------- 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/20160818/2f5acbec/attachment.p7s>


More information about the License-discuss mailing list