OSSLICENSING
Disclaimers
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENTA. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
U.S. GOVERNMENT DISCLAIMER NO...
Who is this guy?
MARCUS A. STREIPS
Attorney-Advisor (Intellectual Property)
United States Army Medical Research & Materiel...
Why are we here?
OSEHRA Mission
“BUILD and SUPPORT an OPEN SOURCECOMMUNITY of users, developers,
service providers, and re...
Why are we here?
• BUILD
• SUPPORT
• TRANSPARENT
• AGILE
• VENDER-NEUTRAL
• OPEN SOURCE
• COMMUNITY
OSEHRA Mission (Abridg...
Open Source Principles
1. Innovation comes from the outside. It must be channeled inside.
2. Software is knowledge transfo...
How do we make that happen?
1. Open Source Ecosystem: Patents, Data, Standards and Software
2. Open Source Software (OSS) ...
How do we make that happen?
Part I: Open Source Ecosystem:
Patents, Data, Standards and Software
OSEHRA System Architecture
SOURCE: http://architecture.osehra.org/
OSEHRA System Architecture
SOURCE: http://architecture.osehra.org/
• Data & Docs
• Standards
• Software
• Architecture
• P...
Licensing Landscape
SOURCE: http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/mr/psm/09_technical_data_rights_acquisition_strategy_guertin_2nov20...
OSEHRA System Architecture
Patents
Standards
(copyrights)
Data
(data rights)
Software
(copyrights)
OSEHRA System Architecture
Patents
Standards
(copyrights)
Data
(data rights)
Software
(copyrights)
Defn. Patent
• Intangible Property
• Concepts & Ideas
• Social Contract
• Hedge against risk
• Inventive concept covering ...
Patents
The first patent was granted on July 31, 1790 to Samuel Hopkins of Philadelphia for a method
of producing potash (...
Patents and OSS
• VERY IMPORTANT to keep patents out of OSS code
• Restrict software use and distribution
• Undermine emer...
Patent Reciprocity and Open Standards
“Most users of software probably don’t realize how integral industry standards are t...
Patent Reciprocity and Open Standards
• Create a common pool of patent claims that are available for all who share the sta...
Patent Reciprocity and Open Standards
SOURCE: http://www.hl7.org/legal/patentinfo.cfm
Copyright 2007-2013 Health Level Sev...
Patent Reciprocity and Open Standards
SOURCE: http://www.hl7.org/legal/patentinfo.cfm
Copyright 2007-2013 Health Level Sev...
OSEHRA System Architecture
Patents
Standards
(copyrights)
Data
(data rights)
Software
(copyrights)
Defn. Copyright
• Intangible Property
• Expression
• Social Contract
• Monopoly to copy, distribute, modify an original “W...
Copyrights
A Little History:
The earliest recorded historical case-law on the right to copy comes from ancient Ireland.The...
Copyright and Open Systems
• Standards (HL7, ISO)
• Data/Databases (US vs. EU/AU/CA)
• Schema
• Documentation
• Design Con...
Defn. OpenWork (Knowledge/Data/Content/Service)
SOURCE: http://opendefinition.org/okd/
1. Access Agile
2. Redistribution V...
OpenWork Conformant Licenses
SOURCE: http://opendefinition.org/okd/
SOURCE: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/
OpenWork Conformant Licenses
SOURCE http://creativecommons.org/choose/
OpenWork NON-Conformant Licenses
SOURCE http://opendefinition.org/licenses/nonconformant/
Government Data Rights
SOURCE: http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/mr/psm/09_technical_data_rights_acquisition_strategy_guertin_2no...
OSEHRA System Architecture
Patents
Standards
(copyrights)
Data
(data rights)
Software
(copyrights)
Open Standards Requirement of OSS
• Users of open standards aren’t locked into a particular implementation.
• Easily switc...
Open Standards Requirement of OSS
1. No Intentional Secrets Transparent
2. Availability Agile/Vendor-Neutral
3. Patents Ve...
Open Standards Requirement of OSS
SOURCE: http://www.hl7.org/documentcenter/public_temp_B65E8487-1C23-BA17-0CA344F46F3417A...
OSEHRA System Architecture
Patents
Standards
(copyrights)
Data
(data rights)
Software
(copyrights)
How do we make that happen?
Part II: Open Source Software (OSS)
Licenses Overview
A Defn. Open Source Software
SOURCE: http://opensource.org/osd
See Also: http://osehra.org/sites/default/files/osehra_lice...
OSS License Category
SOURCE: http://flosscc.opensource.org/content/spread-the-word content on this site is licensed under ...
OSS License Category
SOURCE: http://flosscc.opensource.org/content/spread-the-word content on this site is licensed under ...
OSS License Category
SOURCE : http://www.openfoundry.org/en/foss-license-category
OSS License Category
SOURCE : http://www.openfoundry.org/en/comparison-of-licenses
OSS License Category
SOURCE : http://www.openfoundry.org/LicenseWizard/index.htm?en
See also: http://home.ccil.org/~cowan/...
Rank of OSS Licenses by Popularity
SOURCE: http://osrc.blackducksoftware.com/data/licenses/
Copyright 2013 Black Duck Soft...
Rank of OSS Licenses by User
SOURCE: http://www.openlogic.com/news/bid/154646/OpenLogic-Scanning-Data-Reveals-OSS-Develope...
OSS License Category
BSD/MIT (“Commercial Friendly”, “Permissive”)
•The code is protected by copyright.
• code can be used...
OSS License Category
Apache 2.0 (“Commercial Friendly”, “Permissive”)
•The code is protected by copyright.
•The code can b...
OSS License Category
GPL 3.0 (“Viral”, “Copyleft”, “Restrictive”)
• “Viral” because the licenses spreads a continuing use ...
OSS License Category
GPL 3.0 (“Viral”, “Copyleft”, “Restrictive”)
SOURCE: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/04/pick-a-...
OSS License Category
LGPL (“Lesser Copyleft”)
• The code is protected by copyright.
• Considered “halfway” point between “...
How do we make that happen?
Part III: OSS Compatibility:
Aggregation, Integration, Linking
Non-GPL Compatibility w/ GPL
SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works
SOU...
OSS Aggregation
An "aggregate" consists of a number of separate programs, distributed
together on the same CD-ROM or other...
OSS Integration
SOURCE: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation
Copyright © 2007, 2008, 2010, 2013 Free S...
OSS Linking
The Problem of “DerivativeWorks”
SOURCE: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6366
Copyright © 1994 – 2013 Linu...
OSS Linking
SOURCE: http://www.cs.binghamton.edu
See Also: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic
OSS Linking
SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works
Text is available un...
OSS License Compatibility
SOURCE : http://www.openfoundry.org/en/compatibility-of-licenses
Here the term “compatibility” r...
OSS Compatibility
SOURCE: http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/floss-license-slide.pdf
Copyright 2013 DavidA.Wheeler and license...
OSS Compatibility
SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works
Text is availa...
So which one?
Apache License 2.0
SOURCE: http://osehra.org/sites/default/files/osehra_licensing_terms_v.1.0.pdf
How do we make that happen?
Part IV: “Don’t Do itYourself (DIYs)”:
OSS Best Practices
OSHERA OSS Key Features
1. Allow use in non-open source code (no reciprocity condition in license)
2. No licensing royalti...
Don’t “DIYs”
• A GRAM license makes user and developer adoption quicker and easier.
• A GRAM license has substantial licen...
Don’t “DIYs”
The OSEHRA will only consider existing OSI-Approved licenses.There is already enough
variety of open source l...
Encouraged Practices
• Individuals contributing bug fixes and improvements
• Commercial companies contributing bug fixes a...
Discouraged Practices
• Continuous tension and fractioning of the Community
• Forking of the project into diverging branch...
FIN
Sources
http://osehra.org/sites/default/files/osehra_licensing_terms_v.1.0.pdf
http://architecture.osehra.org
http://www.a...
Sources (cont.)
http://www.openfoundry.org/LicenseWizard/index.htm?en
http://home.ccil.org/~cowan/floss
http://osrc.blackd...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

OSS Licensing (Public)

249

Published on

A discussion of OSS licensing issues, particularly as they impact the U.S. Federal Government and its commercial and non-profit partners. Particular emphasis on application of principles to electronic health records.

U.S. GOVERNMENT DISCLAIMER NOTICE. The views expressed in this presentation are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. The information appearing on this presentation is for general informational purposes only and is not intended to provide legal advice to any individual or entity. Please consult with your own legal advisor before taking any action based on information appearing in this presentation or any sources to which it may cite.

Published in: Law, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
249
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

OSS Licensing (Public)

  1. 1. OSSLICENSING
  2. 2. Disclaimers DISTRIBUTION STATEMENTA. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. U.S. GOVERNMENT DISCLAIMER NOTICE. The views expressed in this presentation are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.The information appearing on this presentation is for general informational purposes only and is not intended to provide legal advice to any individual or entity. Please consult with your own legal advisor before taking any action based on information appearing in this presentation or any sources to which it may cite. UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
  3. 3. Who is this guy? MARCUS A. STREIPS Attorney-Advisor (Intellectual Property) United States Army Medical Research & Materiel Command Fort Detrick, MD
  4. 4. Why are we here? OSEHRA Mission “BUILD and SUPPORT an OPEN SOURCECOMMUNITY of users, developers, service providers, and researchers engaged in advancing electronic health record software and related health information technology.”OSEHRA’s mission includes the creation of aVENDOR-NEUTRAL community for the creation, evolution, promotion and support of an open source Electronic Health Record (EHR).This community will operate with theTRANSPARENCY and AGILITY that characterize open source software initiatives.This entails not only the development of a community of software experts, clinicians, and implementers, but also a robust ecosystem of complementary products, capabilities and services. OSEHRA is a service organization. In one sense, our “product” is a thriving open source EHR community. However, a more practical description of our products would list the services OSEHRA provides to SUPPORT that community, such as our software repository, testing, certification, and working group support. ”
  5. 5. Why are we here? • BUILD • SUPPORT • TRANSPARENT • AGILE • VENDER-NEUTRAL • OPEN SOURCE • COMMUNITY OSEHRA Mission (Abridged)
  6. 6. Open Source Principles 1. Innovation comes from the outside. It must be channeled inside. 2. Software is knowledge transformed into code. It needs an engaged Community. 3. Software is never a finished product. Its evolution requires an involved Community. 4. Attract interested people with shared goals. Earn their trust. 5. Transparency: remove any obstacles to the free flow of information 6. Meritocratic governance driven by: Autonomy, Mastery, and Purpose 7. Release Early, Release Often. 8. Avoid Private Discussions. 9. Establish Credibility. Build relationships with Open SourceCommunities. 10.Welcome the unexpected. Listen carefully to the Community. SOURCE: http://osehra.org/sites/default/files/osehra_licensing_terms_v.1.0.pdf
  7. 7. How do we make that happen? 1. Open Source Ecosystem: Patents, Data, Standards and Software 2. Open Source Software (OSS) Licenses Overview 3. OSS Compatibility: Aggregation, Integration, Linking 4. “Don’t Do itYourself (DIYs)”: OSS Best Practices
  8. 8. How do we make that happen? Part I: Open Source Ecosystem: Patents, Data, Standards and Software
  9. 9. OSEHRA System Architecture SOURCE: http://architecture.osehra.org/
  10. 10. OSEHRA System Architecture SOURCE: http://architecture.osehra.org/ • Data & Docs • Standards • Software • Architecture • Patents
  11. 11. Licensing Landscape SOURCE: http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/mr/psm/09_technical_data_rights_acquisition_strategy_guertin_2nov2011_v2.pdf
  12. 12. OSEHRA System Architecture Patents Standards (copyrights) Data (data rights) Software (copyrights)
  13. 13. OSEHRA System Architecture Patents Standards (copyrights) Data (data rights) Software (copyrights)
  14. 14. Defn. Patent • Intangible Property • Concepts & Ideas • Social Contract • Hedge against risk • Inventive concept covering “Anything under the Sun” • NOT laws of nature, natural phenomena or abstract idea • Government sanctioned monopoly to make, use, sell, import • 20 years from earliest effective filing date
  15. 15. Patents The first patent was granted on July 31, 1790 to Samuel Hopkins of Philadelphia for a method of producing potash (potassium carbonate), an essential ingredient used in making soap, glass, and gunpowder.
  16. 16. Patents and OSS • VERY IMPORTANT to keep patents out of OSS code • Restrict software use and distribution • Undermine emergence of a commercial marketplace • Raise suspicion of costly litigation • Goes against principles of vendor-neutrality, agility and community SOURCE: http://osehra.org/sites/default/files/osehra_licensing_terms_v.1.0.pdf
  17. 17. Patent Reciprocity and Open Standards “Most users of software probably don’t realize how integral industry standards are to their business and financial applications, nor how disruptive it might be to them if the standard suddenly became more expensive or less available.” Open standards should be made available under reasonable reciprocal licenses that require licensees to share under the same terms their own patent claims reading on the standard, or the standard should not be called open. SOURCE: http://www.rosenlaw.com/pdf-files/DefiningOpenStandards.pdf Copyright 2013 Lawrence Rosen. Licensed under the Open Software License version 3.0 (“OSL 3.0”)
  18. 18. Patent Reciprocity and Open Standards • Create a common pool of patent claims that are available for all who share the standard. • Condition reciprocity for participation in the standards process • Condition reciprocity for commercial distribution of software that implements the specification. • Explicit in license conditions • Implicit through defensive termination provisions • Covenants not to sue (Sun/MicrosoftXML standard) – but see Microsoft's Open Specification Promise: No Assurance for GPL, Copyright 2008, Software Freedom Law Center licensed under licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0. SOURCE: http://www.rosenlaw.com/pdf-files/DefiningOpenStandards.pdf Copyright 2013 Lawrence Rosen. Licensed under the Open Software License version 3.0 (“OSL 3.0”)
  19. 19. Patent Reciprocity and Open Standards SOURCE: http://www.hl7.org/legal/patentinfo.cfm Copyright 2007-2013 Health Level Seven International
  20. 20. Patent Reciprocity and Open Standards SOURCE: http://www.hl7.org/legal/patentinfo.cfm Copyright 2007-2013 Health Level Seven International
  21. 21. OSEHRA System Architecture Patents Standards (copyrights) Data (data rights) Software (copyrights)
  22. 22. Defn. Copyright • Intangible Property • Expression • Social Contract • Monopoly to copy, distribute, modify an original “Work” • literary, visual and musical works, sound recordings and software • Term? (70/95/120) see http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm
  23. 23. Copyrights A Little History: The earliest recorded historical case-law on the right to copy comes from ancient Ireland.The Cathach is earliest example of Irish writing.Around 560 AD St. Columba copied it from St. Finnian causing a controversy that precipitated the Battle of Cúl Dreimhne in 561 AD (3000 dead). King Diarmait Mac Cerbhaill gave the judgment : "To every cow belongs her calf, therefore to every book belongs its copy
  24. 24. Copyright and Open Systems • Standards (HL7, ISO) • Data/Databases (US vs. EU/AU/CA) • Schema • Documentation • Design Concepts/GUI/Trade Dress • Software
  25. 25. Defn. OpenWork (Knowledge/Data/Content/Service) SOURCE: http://opendefinition.org/okd/ 1. Access Agile 2. Redistribution Vendor-Neutral 3. Reuse Agile 4. Absence ofTechnological Restriction Transparent 5. Attribution Agile 6. Integrity Agile 7. No DiscriminationAgainst Persons or Groups Vendor-Neutral 8. No DiscriminationAgainst Fields of Endeavor Agile/Vendor-Neutral 9. Distribution of License Agile 10. License must NOT be Specific to a Package Agile/Vendor Neutral 11. License must NOT Restrict the Distribution of OtherWorks Agile See Also: upcoming lecture: “Open Data” Dr. Fred Prior
  26. 26. OpenWork Conformant Licenses SOURCE: http://opendefinition.org/okd/ SOURCE: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/
  27. 27. OpenWork Conformant Licenses SOURCE http://creativecommons.org/choose/
  28. 28. OpenWork NON-Conformant Licenses SOURCE http://opendefinition.org/licenses/nonconformant/
  29. 29. Government Data Rights SOURCE: http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/mr/psm/09_technical_data_rights_acquisition_strategy_guertin_2nov2011_v2.pdf
  30. 30. OSEHRA System Architecture Patents Standards (copyrights) Data (data rights) Software (copyrights)
  31. 31. Open Standards Requirement of OSS • Users of open standards aren’t locked into a particular implementation. • Easily switch to a different implementation – Proprietary/FLOSS implementation. • The standard itself helps developers know what to do. SOURCE: http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/open-standards-open-source.html Copyright 2013 DavidA.Wheeler and licensed under the Creative Commons “Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License”; the GNU Free Documentation License; or the GNU GPL (version 2 or later) Open standards aid FLOSS projects, and it’s not hard to see why:
  32. 32. Open Standards Requirement of OSS 1. No Intentional Secrets Transparent 2. Availability Agile/Vendor-Neutral 3. Patents Vendor-Neutral 4. No Agreements Agile/Transparent 5. Attribution Agile 6. No OSR-Incompatible Dependencies Agile/Vendor-Neutral SOURCE: http://opendefinition.org/okd/
  33. 33. Open Standards Requirement of OSS SOURCE: http://www.hl7.org/documentcenter/public_temp_B65E8487-1C23-BA17-0CA344F46F3417A2/pressreleases/HL7_PRESS_20120904.pdf Copyright 2013 Health Level Seven International
  34. 34. OSEHRA System Architecture Patents Standards (copyrights) Data (data rights) Software (copyrights)
  35. 35. How do we make that happen? Part II: Open Source Software (OSS) Licenses Overview
  36. 36. A Defn. Open Source Software SOURCE: http://opensource.org/osd See Also: http://osehra.org/sites/default/files/osehra_licensing_terms_v.1.0.pdf See Also: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html 1. Free Redistribution Vendor-Neutral 2. Source Code Transparent 3. DerivedWorks Agile 4. Integrity of the Author’s Source Code Agile 5. No DiscriminationAgainst Persons or Groups Vendor-Neutral 6. No DiscriminationAgainst Fields of Endeavors Agile/Vendor-Neutral 7. Distribution of License Agile 8. License Must Not be Specific to A Product Agile 9. License Must Not Restrict other Software Agile 10. License Must beTechnology-Neutral Vendor-Neutral
  37. 37. OSS License Category SOURCE: http://flosscc.opensource.org/content/spread-the-word content on this site is licensed under aCreative CommonsAttribution 2.5 License 3Types of Licenses 1. Reciprocal (aka “Viral”, “Copyleft”, “Restrictive”) - if you change the code and redistribute it, you must also redistribute the source code; the code will remain open source. - all code linked to the code with a reciprocal license must remain with the same reciprocal license 2. Partially Reciprocal (“Weak Copyleft”) - similar to the reciprocal but you can distribute a singe component of your code with this license and link it to code with other license (even proprietary) 3. Academic (aka “Commercial Friendly”, “Permissive”) - you may relicense your derivative work under any license of your choice, or even make it proprietary
  38. 38. OSS License Category SOURCE: http://flosscc.opensource.org/content/spread-the-word content on this site is licensed under aCreative CommonsAttribution 2.5 License Popular andWidely Used License 1. Reciprocal (aka “Viral”, “Copyleft”, “Restrictive”) - GNU General Public License (GPL) 2. Partially Reciprocal (“Weak Copyleft”) - Eclipse Public License (EPL) - GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) - Mozilla Public License 2.0 (MPL) 3. Academic (aka “Commercial Friendly”, “Permissive”) - Apache License 2.0 - BSD - MIT License
  39. 39. OSS License Category SOURCE : http://www.openfoundry.org/en/foss-license-category
  40. 40. OSS License Category SOURCE : http://www.openfoundry.org/en/comparison-of-licenses
  41. 41. OSS License Category SOURCE : http://www.openfoundry.org/LicenseWizard/index.htm?en See also: http://home.ccil.org/~cowan/floss/
  42. 42. Rank of OSS Licenses by Popularity SOURCE: http://osrc.blackducksoftware.com/data/licenses/ Copyright 2013 Black Duck Software,. Inc SOURCE: http://johnhaller.com/jh/useful_stuff/open_source_license_popularity/ Copyright 2011 John T. Haller
  43. 43. Rank of OSS Licenses by User SOURCE: http://www.openlogic.com/news/bid/154646/OpenLogic-Scanning-Data-Reveals-OSS-Developers-Choose-GPL-Enterprises-Prefer-Apache Copyright 2013 OpenLogic, Inc.
  44. 44. OSS License Category BSD/MIT (“Commercial Friendly”, “Permissive”) •The code is protected by copyright. • code can be used in closed source projects. •The code can be included in project with more restrictive licenses. •The program that used this can be sold and licensed commercially. • Derivative works need NOT be released (non-reciprocal). •There is implicit permission to exercise patents. • A number of terms that are left unspecified. SOURCE: http://osehra.org/sites/default/files/osehra_licensing_terms_v.1.0.pdf
  45. 45. OSS License Category Apache 2.0 (“Commercial Friendly”, “Permissive”) •The code is protected by copyright. •The code can be used in closed source projects. •The code can be included in project with more restrictive licenses. •The program that used this can be sold and licensed commercially. • Derivative works need NOT be released. •The Apache license has a very explicit patent license. • A clear list of definitions is provided in its preamble. •Terms consistent in copyright, patent, trademark laws. • A clause for contributor’s license agreements provides a low entry path for contributors SOURCE: http://osehra.org/sites/default/files/osehra_licensing_terms_v.1.0.pdf
  46. 46. OSS License Category GPL 3.0 (“Viral”, “Copyleft”, “Restrictive”) • “Viral” because the licenses spreads a continuing use of the licenses in its derivatives. • The code can be sold and licensed commercially as long as the source code is under the same license. • Derivative works, when distributed, must be distributed under the same license (reciprocity condition). • Does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. • Patent permissions are included more strongly than GPL 2.0. • Hardware devices must allow modified versions to run. • Prevents the practice of applying restrictive licenses to modifications of original source code. • May NOT be distributed under any other license. Keep code “free forever”. SOURCE: http://osehra.org/sites/default/files/osehra_licensing_terms_v.1.0.pdf
  47. 47. OSS License Category GPL 3.0 (“Viral”, “Copyleft”, “Restrictive”) SOURCE: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/04/pick-a-license-any-license.html © 2013 Jeff Atwood. “The archetypal bearded, sandal-clad free software license.Your code can never be used in any proprietary program, ever!Take that, capitalism!”
  48. 48. OSS License Category LGPL (“Lesser Copyleft”) • The code is protected by copyright. • Considered “halfway” point between “restrictive” and “permissive” licenses • Allows combination with proprietary closed-source software impermissible under GPL • Does not extend to LGPL license to works that link against the original code. • Originally written to accommodate code libraries Source: http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/foss-primer.pdf Copyright © 2006, 2007, 2008, Software Freedom Law Center, Inc.Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire document is permitted in any medium; however, this notice must be preserved on all copies.
  49. 49. How do we make that happen? Part III: OSS Compatibility: Aggregation, Integration, Linking
  50. 50. Non-GPL Compatibility w/ GPL SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works SOURCE: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation Text is available under the Creative CommonsAttribution-ShareAlike License; Aggregation – Software is bundled in a distribution GPL Compliant Pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. GPL Compliant Integration - Modules are included in the same executable file GPL NON-Compliant Modules run linked together in a shared address space GPL NON-Compliant Static and Dynamic Linking ?
  51. 51. OSS Aggregation An "aggregate" consists of a number of separate programs, distributed together on the same CD-ROM or other media.The GPL permits you to create and distribute an aggregate, even when the licenses of the other software are non-free or GPL-incompatible.The only condition is that you cannot release the aggregate under a license that prohibits users from exercising rights that each program's individual license would grant them. SOURCE: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation Copyright © 2007, 2008, 2010, 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License
  52. 52. OSS Integration SOURCE: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation Copyright © 2007, 2008, 2010, 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License “If you integrate module Q, and release the combined program P+Q under the GPL, that means any part of P+Q can be used under the GPL.” P : GPL Code Q: YourCode P+Q = P+Q = P = Q
  53. 53. OSS Linking The Problem of “DerivativeWorks” SOURCE: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6366 Copyright © 1994 – 2013 Linux Journal. The CopyrightAct, at 17 U.S.C. §101, is a little vague and doesn't say anything at all about software: A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.
  54. 54. OSS Linking SOURCE: http://www.cs.binghamton.edu See Also: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic
  55. 55. OSS Linking SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works Text is available under the Creative CommonsAttribution-ShareAlike License; 1. Dynamic and static linking violate GPL (FSF, LGPL, Stallman) 2. Static linking violates GPL but unclear as to dynamic linking (Torvalds, Novell) 3. Linking is does not automatically create a derivative work (OSI, Rosen) Point of view:
  56. 56. OSS License Compatibility SOURCE : http://www.openfoundry.org/en/compatibility-of-licenses Here the term “compatibility” refers to the two following conditions: 1.When a software developer makes use of more than one external module in the development of a single project, and when the licenses of used modules do not conflict with each other, we say these licenses are compatible with each other. 2.When a software developer modifies a given program, and the modified part makes use of other modules; when the licenses of the modules do not conflict with the license of the modified program, we say the licenses are compatible with each other.
  57. 57. OSS Compatibility SOURCE: http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/floss-license-slide.pdf Copyright 2013 DavidA.Wheeler and licensed under the Creative Commons “Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License”; the GNU Free Documentation License; or the GNU GPL (version 2 or later)
  58. 58. OSS Compatibility SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works Text is available under the CC-BY-SA-3.0; Released under the GNU Free Documentation License.
  59. 59. So which one? Apache License 2.0 SOURCE: http://osehra.org/sites/default/files/osehra_licensing_terms_v.1.0.pdf
  60. 60. How do we make that happen? Part IV: “Don’t Do itYourself (DIYs)”: OSS Best Practices
  61. 61. OSHERA OSS Key Features 1. Allow use in non-open source code (no reciprocity condition in license) 2. No licensing royalties 3. No Dual Licensing 4. Maximize business model diversity 5. Encourage, but NOT require contribution of improvements and modifications 6. Allow for project forking, but AVOID it 7. Share maintenance cost of code base SOURCE: http://osehra.org/sites/default/files/osehra_licensing_terms_v.1.0.pdf
  62. 62. Don’t “DIYs” • A GRAM license makes user and developer adoption quicker and easier. • A GRAM license has substantial licensing knowledge and support. • ManyGRAM licenses are shepherded by professional organizations (e.g., FSF, OSI,Apache) • Developers have a understanding and consensus of how the GRAM license models work. • Too many different licenses makes it difficult for licensors to choose • License compatibility is a complex issue • Multi-License distributions are complex and hard to understand SOURCE: http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/foss-primer.pdf SOURCE: http://opensource.org/proliferation-report all content licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0. Pick Generally Recognized as Mature (GRAM) Licenses:
  63. 63. Don’t “DIYs” The OSEHRA will only consider existing OSI-Approved licenses.There is already enough variety of open source licenses to satisfy most common licensing situations.The Open Source Initiative repeatedly discourages projects from creating new licenses.The effort of devising a new license will drain a significant amount of resources and distract the OSEHRA from more pressing issues while providing no benefit for the open source stance of the project at large. SOURCE: http://osehra.org/sites/default/files/osehra_licensing_terms_v.1.0.pdf
  64. 64. Encouraged Practices • Individuals contributing bug fixes and improvements • Commercial companies contributing bug fixes and improvements • Commercial companies contributing large modules of source code • Commercial companies building a profitable and competitive marketplace • Educational use of the software • Use of the software for research purposes • Innovation ranging from small variations to radical disruptive concepts • High quality by continuous reduction of software defects • An environment of trust conducive to cooperation and collaboration SOURCE: http://osehra.org/sites/default/files/osehra_licensing_terms_v.1.0.pdf
  65. 65. Discouraged Practices • Continuous tension and fractioning of the Community • Forking of the project into diverging branches (beyond experimental and exploratory purposes) • Litigation and uncertainty on potential future litigation • Entrenchment of the software and use of it by only a small niche of users • Unbalanced influence on the software by a small fraction of actors in the ecosystem SOURCE: http://osehra.org/sites/default/files/osehra_licensing_terms_v.1.0.pdf
  66. 66. FIN
  67. 67. Sources http://osehra.org/sites/default/files/osehra_licensing_terms_v.1.0.pdf http://architecture.osehra.org http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/mr/psm/09_technical_data_rights_acquisition_strategy_guertin_2nov2011_v2.pdf http://www.rosenlaw.com/pdf-files/DefiningOpenStandards.pdf http://www.hl7.org/legal/patentinfo.cfm http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm http://opendefinition.org/okd http://opendatacommons.org/licenses http://creativecommons.org/choose http://opendefinition.org/licenses/nonconformant/ http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/open-standards-open-source.html http://www.hl7.org/documentcenter/public_temp_B65E8487-1C23-BA17-0CA344F46F3417A2/pressreleases/HL7_PRESS_20120904.pdf http://opensource.org/osd http://osehra.org/sites/default/files/osehra_licensing_terms_v.1.0.pdf http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://flosscc.opensource.org/content/spread-the-word http://www.openfoundry.org/en/foss-license-category http://www.openfoundry.org/en/comparison-of-licenses
  68. 68. Sources (cont.) http://www.openfoundry.org/LicenseWizard/index.htm?en http://home.ccil.org/~cowan/floss http://osrc.blackducksoftware.com/data/licenses/ http://johnhaller.com/jh/useful_stuff/open_source_license_popularity http://www.openlogic.com/news/bid/154646/OpenLogic-Scanning-Data-Reveals-OSS-Developers-Choose-GPL-Enterprises-Prefer-Apache http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/04/pick-a-license-any-license.html http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/foss-primer.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6366 http://www.cs.binghamton.edu http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic http://www.openfoundry.org/en/compatibility-of-licenses http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/floss-license-slide.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works http://opensource.org/proliferation-report
  1. Gostou de algum slide específico?

    Recortar slides é uma maneira fácil de colecionar informações para acessar mais tarde.

×