Open Source in US Defense Acquisition

On Jan 12, 2012, the Department of Defense held a public meeting inviting comment on the use of open source software in defense contracting.   Written comments were submitted by various organizations including the Aerospace Industries Association.  Those comments lay out the questions posed by the DoD regarding risks that open source software includes proprietary software (i.e. is infringing), ability of contractors to get support for open source software, and whether the DFARs (Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations) should be revised to clarify the rights granted the government under licenses like GPL.  The AIA's comments also raise the question of whether export restrictions are "additional restrictions" that conflict with GPL.  Another set of comments addressed the question of whether Apache 2.0, paragraph 9, which "provides that the licensee indemnifies the developer in certain circumstances," conflicts with the Antideficiency Act (ADA) 31 USC 1341.  The ADA prevents the government from incurring of obligations in excess of appropriations or funds. 

Linux Coffee Roaster

I don't know about you, but when I get up in the morning, I always think:  the only thing that would make this cup of coffee better would be if it were made with open source software.  Until I decide to devote an entire computer to roasting coffee, open source caffeine will have to remain a dream for me.

Mozilla 2.0 Published and Approved

Mozilla Public License 2.0 has been released, has been approved as an open source license  by the Open Source Initiative, and has been approved as a free software license by FSF.  

Koha Trademark Dispute

An open source project in New Zealand is involved in a trademark dispute. 

If you want to see an example of the kind of reporting about open source legal matter that drives lawyers like me to distraction, take a look at this article.  It describes the dispute as just about everything except what it is -- a trademark interference.  "A small New Zealand library is fighting to keep its trademark free software from the clutches of a United States corporation."  It's actually a dispute about the trademark, not the software copyright.  "[A]n American company named LibLime has hijacked the system and wants to use it for its own private client base."  Hijacked?  If it's open source, it's free to use and modify, though there may be a separate trademark issue.  Also the URL for the article calls it "Small-library-fights-US-corporation-over-software-patent" and there are no patents in sight.

But apparently the publicity worked, as the project, according to its own blog post linked above, got many donations to a legal fund, and also pro bono representation.  A deal is reportedly being brokered to assign the trademark to a non-profit representing the Koha community.

When is Open Source not Open Source?

A recent article in Network World contained some interesting caveat emptors about marketing open source software.  The first part of the article -- discussing whether open source is really free or secure -- is nothing new.  But then, the article mentions this:  "Some software vendors playing fast and loose with the rules have slapped an "open source" label on software that in fact turns out to be a "free to download and use" version of proprietary software that cannot be altered or distributed."

This raises an interesting potential legal issue that has not yet come to fruition.  Key "trademarks" in the open source space such as "open source" and "Linux" are probably largely genericized, so it seems unlikely that claims will arise as to whether inaccurately calling a product these things is a trademark infringement.  However, I have been surprised not to see a fraud or false advertising claim based on a vendor identifying software as "open source" when it is not.   It's unclear what the damages might be if the software is gratis but not libre, but that has never stopped a class action plaintiff's lawyer, as far as I know.