Licencias Open Source (Univ de Buenos Aires 2008)

Gustavo G. Mármol. Buenos Aires 2008. 1
(F/OSS) FREE AND OPEN SOURCE
SOFTWARE LICENSES
GUSTAVO G. MÁRMOL
Este trabajo no constituye Consejo Legal.
Las opiniones expresadas son absolutamente personales del autor.

LICENCIAS F/OSS
Objetivos de la Presentación
● Tiempo de la Presentación: 1 hora y 30 minutos!!
● En este lapso de tiempo compartiremos los siguientes temas:
– Las Licencias Free and Open Source Licenses “en general”
– La clasificación de las Licencias FOSS
– La General Public License (GPL) versión 2 en particular, con muy breves
referencias a la versión 3.
– Breves referencias a las licencias BSD, Apache, MIT, MPL y CDDL.
– Conceptos básicos: “Initital Contribution”, “Initial Contributor”, Source
Code Commons”, “Covered Code”, “Larger Work”, “Contributor Version”,
“Copyleft”, “Implied Warranties”: “Warranty of Merchantability” y
“Warranty of Fitness”.

LICENCIAS F/OSS
Objetivos de la Presentación (2)
– El problema de la Proliferación de las Licencias Open Source
– Contributor License Agreement, Copyright Assigment and Grand-Back
Copyright License: FSF CA, Fedora (Red Hat) Project CA, Apache Software
Foundation CA, MySQL CA y Sun Microsystems Inc, CA.
– Vinculación (Linking) de Software: Links Estáticos y Dinámicos.
– Control de Exportación de Software Open Source (Export Control- EARs
Export Administration Regulations)
– Dominio Público yOpen Source. El caso SQLite (Adobe, Simyan, Mozilla)
– Creative Commons Licenses.

LICENCIAS F/OSS
OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE LICENSE
●

LICENCIAS F/OSS
OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE LICENSE (1)
● Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution
terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:
● 1. Free Redistribution: The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the
software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several
different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
● 2. Source Code: The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code
as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there
must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable
reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be
the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source
code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not
allowed.
● 3. Derived Works: The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to
be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

LICENCIAS F/OSS
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups: The license must not discriminate against any
person or group of persons.
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor: The license must not restrict anyone from
making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the
program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
7. Distribution of License: The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the
program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.
8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product: The rights attached to the program must not
depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is
extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's license,
all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are
granted in conjunction with the original software distribution.

LICENCIAS F/OSS
9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software: The license must not
place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the
licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all
other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-
source software.
10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral: No provision of the license
may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.
Notas (1):
-Cierta confusión en la interpretación, debido a cierta terminología
utilizada

LICENCIAS F/OSS
Notas (2):
-Por ejemplo: Cierta confusión en la interpretación, debido a cierta
terminología utilizada. Por ej. en el punto 3 cuando se refiere a las
obras derivadas se expresa: The license must allow modifications and derived works,
and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
- “Must Allow” se lo utiliza dos veces, con significados completamente
diferentes. En la primera parte “must allow” se refiere a que la
licencia “debe permitir” la creación de obras derivadas (es
obligatorio), en la segunda parte se refiere a que la licencia “puede
requerir” (no es obligatorio) que en la distribución se utilice los
mismos términos de la licencia.

LICENCIAS F/OSS
FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION

LICENCIAS F/OSS
FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION (1)
Los principios de la Fundación del Software Libre:
● Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change
and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the
users of the software: (4 LIBERTADES)
● The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
● The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
(freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
● The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
● The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the
public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source
code is a precondition for this.

LICENCIAS F/OSS
Licencias (1)
Las tres (3) categorias de Licencias
FOSS

LICENCIAS F/OSS
Licencias (2)
Las tres (3) categorias de Licencias FOSS
●
Licencias Estilo BSD License (Apache License, v.2)
● Licencias Estilo Mozilla License (CDDL License)
●
Licencias Estilo FSF License (GPL License)

LICENCIAS F/OSS
http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/whitepapers/Sun_Microsystems_OpenSource_Licensing.pdf

LICENCIAS F/OSS
http://java.com.com

GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
GPL v. 2

General Public License (GPL) V.2
“ACEPTACIÓN DE LA LICENCIA GPL”(1)
La Sección 5, dispone: “You are not requiere to accept this
License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing
else grants you permission to modify or distribute the
Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited
by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
modifing or distributing the Program (or any work based on
The Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License
to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying,
distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.

“ACEPTACIÓN DE LA LICENCIA GPL”(2)
● La GPL no requiere una manifestación de aceptación a
los términos de la Licencia
● Diferencias entre el Derecho de Contratos (Contract
Law) y el Derecho de Autor (Copyright Law)
● Sistemas Common Law y Sistema Continental Europeo.
● Desde la esfera del Common Law, La GPL recae en los
principios legales del Copyright Law, y no del Contract
Law.

PREAMBULO

PREAMBULO (1er Párrafo) (1)
“The licenses for most software are designed
to take away your freedom to share and
change it. By contrast, the GNU General
Public License is intended to guarantee
your freedom to share and change free
software -to make sure the software is free
for all its users.

PREAMBULO ( 2do Párrafo) (2)
“When we speak of free software, we are referring
to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses
are designed to make sure that you have the
freedom to distribute copies of free software (and
charge for this service if you wish), that you
receive source code or can get it if you want it,
that you can change the software or use pieces of
it in new free programs; and that you know you
can do these things.

PREAMBULO (3er. y 4to párrafo) (3)
“To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that
forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to
surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to
certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of
the software, or if you modify it”.
“For example, if you distribute copies of such a program,
whether “gratis” or for a fee, you must give the
recipients all the rights that you have. You must make
sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code.
And you must show them these terms so they know their
rights”.

PREAMBULO (5to párrafo) (4)
“We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the
software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you
legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the
software”.

PREAMBULO (6to Párrafo) (5)
“Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to
make certain that everyone understands that there is no
warranty for this free software. If the software is
modified by someone else and passed on, we want its
recipients to know that what they have is not the
original, so that any problems introduced by others will
not reflect on the original authors' reputations”.

PREAMBULO (7mo Párrafo) (6)
● Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by
software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that
redistributors of a free program will individually obtain
patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary.
To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent
must be licensed for everyone's free use or not
licensed at all.

●
ANALISIS DEL PREAMBULO (7)
● Préambulo NO es parte OPERATIVA de la Licencia GPL.
● NO se encuentra dentro de los TERMINOS Y
CONDICIONES (SECTION O. TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR
COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION)
● Es una introducción que ayuda a entender el contexto de
la Licencia GPL v.2
● Desde la esfera legal no tendría efectos (En caso de
Litigio, existe la posibilidad de que un Juez no la considere
para resolver el litigio)

● ANALISIS DEL PREAMBULO (8)
● Del PREAMBULO podemos extraer los tres (3) principales
propósitos de la GPL v.2
● 1. Mantener el Software Libre (en el sentido que el
mismo pueda ser distribuido y modificado sin
condicionamientos adicionales por un “Licenciante”)
● 2. Software “AS IS”: Asegurar a los potenciales
Licenciatarios que el Software es distribuído “AS IS” sin
garantías (Warranty)

● 3. No Restrición de Patentes de Software. En el caso
que el software licenciado sea objeto de patente de
invención, se debe otorgar una licencia de patente.
●
Recuerden que los Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual
no son excluyentes entre sí, por lo tanto, un software
puede estar protegido por el Sistema de Derechos de
Autor/Copyright como por el Sistema de Patentes.

● Por lo tanto, para el correcto funcionamiento
de la Licencia GPL v.2, se deben otorgar:
– (i) Licencias de Patentes
– (ii)Licencias de Derechos de
Autor/Copyright .

● La decisión de incorporar un Preámbulo puede ser
“buena o mala” depende la interpretación personal de
cada abogado.
● Ahora bien, la redacción del 4to párrafo del
Preámbulo de la GPL v2, no es correcta, VEAMOS:
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
“gratis” or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code. And you must show them these terms so they know
their rights.

● ¿Porque? La referencia “you must give the
recipients all the rights that you have”
● El problema surge con la palabra “all” (todos).
● Free Software Foundation (FSF) y la Open Source
Initiative (OSI) NO requieren en su definiciones y/o
guías, que el Licenciante conceda todos sus
derechos

● El Licenciante conserva el derecho de conceder
otras licencias sobre su software en términos
distintos que los de la Licencia GPL v.2. (Sistema
de Licencias Duales)
● Bajo las leyes de Propiedad Intelectual, el titular
de los derechos conserva todos los derechos no
otorgados expresamente.

●
Por tanto, una forma correcta de interpretarlo es:
CUANDO SE SUBLICENCIA SOFTWARE
BAJO LICENCIA GLP v. 2, SE DEBE
LICENCIAR EL SOFTWARE “BAJO SU
LICENCIA ORIGINARIA -GPL v.2- SIN
AGREGAR NINGUNA CONDICIÓN
ADICIONAL.

TERMINOS Y CONDICIONES PARA
COPIAR, DISTRIBUIR Y MODIFICAR

SECCIÓN 0

● SECCIÓN 0. ANÁLISIS (1)
● “This License applies to “any program or other
work” which contains a notice placed by the
copyright holder saying it may be distributed
under the terms of this General Public
License”.

● “...The "Program" below, refers to “any such
program or work”, and a "work based on the
Program" means either “the Program or any
derivative work” under copyright law...”

● “Activities other than copying, distribution
and modification are not covered by this
License; they are outside its scope”.

● LA GPL se aplica a “Programas”: La Licencia GPL
no utiliza el término genérico “software” sino que
define el término “Programa” como “programa u
otras obras”
● “Program/Programa”: se entiende como “computer
software”
● “Other Works/Otras Obras”: no se encuentra
definido.

● La Free Software Foundation en sus “Frequently Asked
Questiones”
● Pregunta Nro. 5: ¿Can I use The GPL for something
other than software?
● Respuesta: Se la puede utilizar para cualquier tipo de
“obra”, en la medida que este claro que constituye
“source code”.

● Source Code: [GPL] “The preferred form of the work
for making changes in it”
● De todas formas formas la GPL fue diseña para
programas de computación,
● Contiene clásulas complejas cruciales (que no
necesariamente aplicarían a otro tipo de “obras”)

● La GPL, en la Sección 0 define a la frase: “work
based on the Program” indistintamente:
– como “Programa”
– como “Derivative Work under copyright law”
(Copyright Law Act -17 USC 101- la define como
“...is a work based upon one or more
preexisting works..”)

● Esta definición -“a work based on the Program”- se
menciona en diferentes maneras en la Sección 1 de
la GPL, por ej: “...a work based on the Program is
formed by modifying the original program”

● Ahora bien, la misma Sección 0, define “work based
on the Program” de una forma más amplia no
coincidente con las leyes de Copyright/Derechos de
Autor, cuando dice:
“...that´s to say, a work containing the
Program or a portion of it...”

¿Es lo mismo?
– “a work based on the Program” (obra
basada el programa)
– “a work containing the program”(obra
que contenga el programa)

“a work based on the Program” (obra
basada el programa) ► Obra derivada/Derivative
Work
“a work containing the program”(obra que
contenga el programa) ► Obra Compuesta/Collective
Work

– Obra Derivada/Derivative Work: “..a work
based upon one or more preexisting
works, such as a translation...or any other
form in which a work may be recast,
transformed, or adapted..”(17 USC 101)

● Obra Compuesta/Collective Works: “...A
work...in which a number of contributions,
constituting separate and independents works
in themselves, are asembled into a collective
whole.”(17 U.S.C. 101)

● En la sección 0 de la GPL existe una
mezcla de ambos conceptos, no
distinguiéndose entre “obras derivadas” y
“obras compuestas”.

¿Cuál es la importancia de todo
esto?

Respecto de cuales “obras” debo
cumplir con la cláusula del
“copyleft” y distribuir el fuente y
los binarios

¿Obras Derivadas?
¿Obras Compuestas?

● En primer lugar: ¿Cual es el “ámbito” de la Licencia
GPL v.2?
●
La Sección 0: dice “Activities other than
copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License, they are outside its
scope”

● Section 0: También se expresa
● “...that´s to say, a work containing the
Program or a portion of it...” (Es decir, una
obra que contenga el Programa o una parte
de él”)

● FOSS licenses differ explicitly or customarily in
how they define the scope of derivative works.
For example, GPL Licensors usually have an expansive
view of what a derivative work is, or assume that the
underlying copyright system supplies the appropiatte
expansive definition. By Contrast, The Apache License 2.0
provides an explicit definition of “derivative work” that is
narrower than the definition understood by the typical GPL
Licensor” (“A Legal Issues Primer for Open Source And Free
Software Projects”, Software Freedom Law Center, February 2008)

“COPYLEFT”

- El término “Copyleft” resulta de “jugar” con la palabra
“Copyright”
- Las “Licencias Copyleft” son “Licencias
Condicionales”
- Una de las condiciones que se debe satisfacer antes de
distribuir el software bajo copyleft es que cualquier cambio
que se haya realizado al software originario sea del mismo
modo liberado bajo una licencia copyleft.
- Una licencia copyleft asegura que todas las versiones
modificadas de un proyecto mantegan las mismas
libertades.

“COPYLEFT”(1)
●
SECCIÓN 2.b):
● “You must cause any work that you distribute or
publish, that in whole or in part contains or is
derived from the program or any part thereof, to be
licensed as a whole at not charge to all third
parties under the terms of this license”

“COPYLEFT”(2)
● “Cualquier obra que Ud. distribuya o
publique, que [en todo o en parte] contenga
o derive del Programa [GPL] o de una parte
de él [GPL] debe ser licenciado bajo los
términos de esta Licencia”

“COPYLEFT”(3)
– “a work based on the Program” (obra
basada el programa) ► Obra Derivada/Derivative
Work [...or is derived from...[GPL] Program]
– “a work containing the program”(obra
que contenga el programa) ► Obra
Compuesta/Collective Work [...that in whole or in
part content...[GPL] Program...]

“LINKING A UN SOFTWARE GPL”

“LINKING A UN SOFTWARE GPL” (1)
Hay dos métodos convencionales para
vincular (linking) código
►LINKS DINÁMICOS
►LINKS ESTÁTICOS

LINKS ESTÁTICOS
● La vinculación estática requiere una modificación en el
código de un programa para permitirle vincularse con otro
programa. Tal modificación, desde que requiere cambios
en el código fuente del programa vinculado,
probablemente cree una obra derivada. Si el programa
vinculado está licenciado bajo la GPL, entonces la obra
derivada también estaría sujeta a la GPL.

LINKS ESTÁTICOS
●
Un programa denominado “linker” toma uno o más objetos
programaticos y los ensambla en un único programa ejecutable
(.exe)
●
Modulos de Código Individuales

LINKS ESTÁTICOS
●
Compilación en tiempos de vinculación (linking)

LINKS ESTÁTICOS
●
Unico Ejecutable (.exe)
●
PROGRAM.EXE

LINKS DINÁMICO
● La vinculación dinámica,es una relación transitoria
entre dos programas para los cuales ambos están
pre-diseñados. El programa vinculado no necesita ser
modificado para implementar la vinculación.

Escenario de Debate “Enlaces dinámicos”:
● Existe una distinción entre el software que está vinculado
en forma dinámica y el software que está vinculado en
forma estática a un código gobernado por la Licencia GPL
v.2.
● Algunos sostienen que la vinculación dinámica al código
[GPL] no constituye obra derivada y no debería quedar
gobernado por los términos de la Licencia GPL v.2

● Para otros, no está tan claro, si un “ejecutable” que se
vincula o enlaza dinámicamente a un “código GPL”
debería ser considerado o no una “obra derivada”
● A su vez, el debate se extiende a la vinculación dinámica
de un software [no GPL] a una “librería GPL”.
● La FSF considera que un “ejecutable" es realmente una
obra derivada si el ejecutable y el código GPL realizan
funciones llamándose una a otra compartiendo datos de
estructura.

● Esto no es una cuestión “per se” de la GPL, sino como
las Leyes de Copyright/Derechos de Autor definen al
término “obra derivada”

“LINKING A UN SOFTWARE GPL”(10)
● SECCIÓN 2, (1er. párrafo sin letras) dice:
●
“These requirements apply to the modified work as a
whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not
derived from the [GPL]Program, and can be
reasonably considered independent and separate
works in themselves, then this License, and its
terms, do not apply to those sections when you
distribute them as “separate works”

●“These requirements apply to the modified work as a
whole” (Estos requisitos se aplican a la obra
modificada en su totalidad)
Esta primera parte, se refiere al artículo 2 y a sus incisos
(a,b y c): “Ud. Puede crear una obra derivada, copiarla y
distribuirla, de acuerdo con el artículo 1, y de acuerdo con
todos los requisitos de 2.A, 2.B y 2.C

● “If identifiable sections of that work are not
derived from the [GPL]Program, and can be
reasonably considered independent and separate
works in themselves”
● Esta segunda parte: Se refiere a “obras” no
derivadas, que tienen su propio “autor” (“Obras
Independientes” o “Independent & Separate Works)

● “then this License, and its terms, do not apply to
those sections when you distribute them as
“separate works”
● Esta tercera parte: Se refiere a cuando las obras son
consideradas independientes (u obras no derivadas
del Programa GPL) y las mismas son distribuidas en
forma separada e independiente del Programa GPL, la
licencia GPL no se aplica.

●
Algunos “Expertos Legales y Técnicos” sostienen que:
– Ello es así, sin importar si la “obra independiente”
se vincula (linking) de alguna manera (estática o
dinámicamente) con el Software GPL.
– La “obra independiente” mantiene su carácter -de
independiente- cuando (al menos) se distribuye
como una obra separada del Programa GPL, y por
tanto la Licencia GPL no aplica.

La SECCIÓN 2 (1er. párrafo sin letras, segunda
parte), dice:
“But when you distribute the same sections [obra
independiente] as part of a whole [GPL Program] which
is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the
whole must be on the terms of this License, whose
permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole,
and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it”

¿Como debería entenderse -bajo las leyes de PI-
cuando se expresa:?
– “But when you distribute the same sections as part
of a whole which is a work based on the Program”,
– “...to each and every part regardless of who wrote
it...”

“The copyright in a “compilation” or “derivative
work” extends only to the material contributed by the
author of such work, as distinguished from the
preexisting material employed in the work, and does
not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting
material” (17 U.S.C. 101)

Respecto de la SECCIÓN 2 (1er párr. sin letras,
segunda parte) podría querer significar bajo las Ley
de Copyright/Derechos de Autor, que:
– Para que una “obra” pueda estar bajo la GPL,
“las partes componentes preexistentes” [por
tanto, no sólo las obras derivadas] deben estar
disponibles para los subsiguientes
licenciararios.

●Ello, es así, para cualquier ”obra compuesta”.
●Es decir, el “autor de la obra compuesta”, debe
tener la autorización y/o licencia y/o permiso
suficiente de “cada uno de los autores de las obras
individuales” para incorporar cada obra individual y
crear una obra “compuesta”, para luego licenciarla a
otros (terceros licenciatarios)

La Licencia GPL v2. “expresa su intención de abarcar a
las “obras compuestas” en el ante-ultimo párrafo de la
SECCIÓN 2, y dice:
● “Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or
contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather,
the intent is to exercise the right to “control the
distribution” of derivative or collective works based
on the Program”

¿Quién tiene el derecho de controlar la
distribución?
1) El Autor/Titular de una “obra compuesta y/o derivada”
tiene el derecho de ejercer el control sobre tales obras.
2) El Autor/Titular de cada “contribución” tiene el
derecho de ejercer el control sobre su contribución.

La “EXPRESIÓN”:
“Work based on the Program”
¿se refiere a ambas “obras derivadas” y “obras
compuestas”?
Son conceptos legales distintos

El último párrafo de la SECCIÓN 2, se refiere a la
distribución de las “obras compuestas” diciendo que
la obligación de Copyleft, no se aplica a este tipo de
obras:
“In addition, mere agregation of another work not
based on the Program [GPL] with the Program [GPL]
(or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a
storage or distribution medium does not bring the
other work [propietary] under the scope of this License
[the GPL]”

● Es decir que únicamente las “obras derivadas”
están cubiertas por la cláusula de Copyleft.
● Y que la “simple agregación” (mere aggregation)
de obras separadas en un mismo medio -CD-
ROM-, no se le aplica el copyleft, aunque esos
“simples agregados” se distribuyan en un sóla
unidad.

LINKING A UN SOFTWARE GPL”(25)
● El análisis legal de lo que constituye “obra
derivada” no depende -únicamente- del estilo o
mecanismo de vinculación entre dos
programas
● La FSF tiene dicho: What constitutes combining
two modules into one program? ”...This is a
legal question, which ultimately judges will
decides...”

LINKING A UN SOFTWARE GPL”(26)
●
FSF “combining two modules” means
– “connecting them together so that they form a
“single larger program”
● Criterios para saber si estamos ante la combinación
entre 2 modulos:
– Mecanismo de Comunicación (exec, pipes ,rpc, function calls within a
shared address space)
– Semánticas de comunicación (que tipo de información se intercambia)

CONCESIÓN DE PATENTES”(1)
●
No hay una “expresa” concesión de derechos de
patentes en la GPL, para fabricar, usar, vender ofrecer
para la venta, importar, etc. software que este cubierto
por derechos de patentes del Licenciante.
●
La concesión de derechos de autor/copyright no
implica conceder derechos de patentes (ni ningún
otro)
● En la SECCIÓN 7, se intenta resuolver esta cuestión.

●
SECCIÓN 7: “If a patent license would not permit
royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those
who receive copies directly or indirectly throught you,
then the only way you could satisfy both it and this
License would be to refrain entirely front distribution
of the Program.

● Entonces, el Licenciante no puede distribuir software
bajo GPL si en forma simultanéa reclama el pago de
“royalties” por sus patentes.
● El acto de distribuir el software implica el “no pago de
royalties” (royalty-free license)

● GPL VERSION 3 Sección 11 (Patentes) + especifica:
● A “contributor” is a copyright holder who authorizes use under this License of the Program or a
work on which the Program is based. The work thus licensed is called the contributor's
“contributor version”.
● A contributor's “essential patent claims” are all patent claims owned or controlled by the
contributor, whether already acquired or hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some
manner, permitted by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor version, but do not
include claims that would be infringed only as a consequence of further modification of the
contributor version. For purposes of this definition, “control” includes the right to grant patent
sublicenses in a manner consistent with the requirements of this License.
● Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under
the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and
otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version.

PLAZO DE LA LICENCIA ”(1)
● Nada se estipula en la Licencia GPL respecto del
plazo de la Licencia.
● La licencia es “mundial” conforme la definición de la
OSI, y su plazo es de carácter “perpetuo”, desde que
no existen mecanimos para dar por terminada la
licencia en la medida que el licenciatario cumpla con
los términos de la misma. (Sección 4)

PLAZO DE LA LICENCIA ”(2)
● Sección 4: “You may no copy, modify, sublicense, or
distribute the Program except as expressly provided under
this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify,
sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will
automatically terminate your rights under this License.
However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from
you under this License will not have their License Terminated
so long as such parties remain in full compliance”

“AT NO CHARGE-ZERO PRICE”(1)
● Sección 2: “You must cause any work that you
distribute or publish, that in whole or in part
contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no
charge to all third parties under the terms of
this License”.

● La GPL requiere que las obras derivadas sean licenciadas
como un todo “at no charge”
● Pero a su vez en la Sección 1, dispone: “You may charge
a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
you may at your option offer warranty protection in
exchange for a fee”
● Sin costo más que el de distribuir el software.

“Selling Free Software” http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
● “Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that you should not charge money for distributing
copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible — just enough to cover the cost. Actually
we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If this seems
surprising to you, please read on.
● The word “free” has two legitimate general meanings; it can refer either to freedom or to price. When we
speak of “free software”, we're talking about freedom, not price. (Think of “free speech”, not “free beer”.)
Specifically, it means that a user is free to run the program, change the program, and redistribute the
program with or without changes. Free programs are sometimes distributed gratis, and sometimes for a
substantial price. Often the same program is available in both ways from different places. The program is free
regardless of the price, because users have freedom in using it.
● Non-free programs are usually sold for a high price, but sometimes a store will give you a copy at no charge.
That doesn't make it free software, though. Price or no price, the program is non-free because users don't
have freedom. Since free software is not a matter of price, a low price isn't more free, or closer to free. So if
you are redistributing copies of free software, you might as well charge a substantial fee and make some
money. Redistributing free software is a good and legitimate activity; if you do it, you might as well make a
profit from it”.

“High or Low Fees GNU GPL” http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
● Except for one special situation, the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) has no
requirements about how much you can charge for distributing a copy of free software. You can
charge nothing, a penny, a dollar, or a billion dollars. It's up to you, and the marketplace, so don't
complain to us if nobody wants to pay a billion dollars for a copy.
● The one exception is in the case where binaries are distributed without the corresponding complete
source code. Those who do this are required by the GNU GPL to provide source code on subsequent
request. Without a limit on the fee for the source code, they would be able set a fee too large for
anyone to pay—such as a billion dollars—and thus pretend to release source code while in truth
concealing it. So in this case we have to limit the fee for source, to ensure the user's freedom.
In ordinary situations, however, there is no such justification for limiting distribution fees, so
we do not limit them.
● Sometimes companies whose activities cross the line of what the GNU GPL permits plead for
permission, saying that they “won't charge money for the GNU software” or such like. They don't get
anywhere this way. Free software is about freedom, and enforcing the GPL is defending freedom.
When we defend users' freedom, we are not distracted by side issues such as how much of a
distribution fee is charged. Freedom is the issue, the whole issue, and the only issue.

“OTRAS OBLIGACIONES”(1)
●
SECCIÓN 1, dispone:. ”You may copy and distribute
verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive
it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and
appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact
all the notices that refer to this License and to the
absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of
the Program a copy of this License along with the
Program.

●
La SECCIÓN 2, expresa: “You may modify your copy or copies of
the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the
Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under
the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these
conditions:
● a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent
notices stating that you changed the files and the date
of any change.

● Protegen la reputación de los autores y aseguran que
los siguientes licenciatarios tengan conocimiento que
el software se licencia bajo la Licencia GPL v2.

“Obras Compuestas-Collective Works” (1)
● § 101. Definition “Except as otherwise provided in this title, as
used in this title, the following terms and their variant forms
mean the following:
● A “collective work” is a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology, or
encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions, constituting separate and
independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole.
● A “compilation” is a work formed by the collection and assembling of
preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or
arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes
an original work of authorship. The term “compilation” includes collective
works.

● § 103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and
derivative works
● (b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends
only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as
distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the
work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting
material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and
does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or
subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting
material.

● Las contribuciones (“obras protegidas”) a una “obra
compuesta” siempre retienen sus derechos de
autor/Copyright.
● Si tienen carácter open source, éstas contribuciones
en una obra compuesta pueden ser removidas y
reutilizadas en “otras obras compuestas”, sujetas a los
términos y condiciones de la licencia FOSS orginaria,
aún sin el permiso del autor de la “primera obra
compuesta”.

● Es decir, en una “compilación” (obra
compuesta) lo que se protege es la
originalidad en la selección y disposición de
sus contenidos.
● Se protege la “estructura” en cuanto forma de
expresión de la selección de sus contenidos
(no siendo extensivo a los contenidos)

●
Por ej:
● Alguien podría realizar una colección y/o antología
sobre material en dominio público. (ya que su plazo de
protección ha expirado)
● El material en dominio público puede ser copiado por
cualquier persona.
● Pero la “colección y/o antología” NO. Se requerirá la
autorización del autor.

●
Situación similar acontence con el “Software Open
Source”
● SE PUEDE remover, reutilizar, copiar, etc. cada obra o
contribución de software open source que compone
una “compilación/collección/antología” (“Obra
Compuesta”) en forma individual.
● NO SE PUEDE copiar, remover, reutilizar la
“compilación/colección/antología” en sí misma, sin el
permiso del autor /titular de los derechos.

“Obras Compuestas-
Collective Works”
(6)
● Novell Corporation.
Suse Linux Enterprise
● Red Hat Inc. Red Hat
Enterprise Linux

“Obras Compuestas-
Collective Works”
(6)
●
Se puede remover y
distribuir Linux de las
distribuciones de Red Hat o
Suse, lo que no se puede
hacer es copiar y distribuir
la distribución y/o colección
de RHEL o SUSE en sí
misma.

NO WARRANTIES (1)
Sección 10. “BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF
CHARGE THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE
EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN
OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITTING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS
AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE “AS IS” WIHOUT WARRANTY
OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT
NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY
AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS
TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH
YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE
COSTOF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION”.

NO WARRANTIES (2)
●
Implied Warranties (Garantias Implicitas)
– Implied Warranty of Merchantability:An implied warranty of
merchantability is an unwritten and unspoken guarantee to the buyer that goods
purchased conform to ordinary standards of care and that they are of the same average
grade, quality, and value as similar goods sold under similar circumstances. In other
words, merchantable goods are goods fit for the ordinary purposes for which they are to
be used.
– UCC: Warranty of merchantability when (1) the seller is the merchant of such goods, and
(2) the buyer uses the goods for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are sold
Thus, a buyer can sue a seller for breaching the implied warranty by selling goods unfit
for their ordinary purpose
– The question of whether goods are fit for their ordinary purpose is much more frequently
litigated (whether the seller is the merchant of the goods sold)

NO WARRANTIES (3)
●
Implied Warranties (Garantias Implicitas)
– Implied Warranty of Fitness: When a buyer wishes to use goods for a
particular, nonordinary purpose, the UCC provides a distinct implied warranty of fitness.
Unlike the implied warranty of merchantability, the implied warranty of fitness does not
contain a requirement that the seller be a merchant with respect to the goods sold. It
merely requires that the seller possess knowledge and expertise on which the buyer may
rely.
– (Whitehouse v. Lange, 128 Idaho 129, 910 P.2d 801 [1996]). Court found that horse buyers
who indicated to the sellers their intention to use the horse for breeding were using the
horse for a particular, nonordinary purpose.The buyers soon discovered that the horse
they purchased was incapable of reproducing. Because the court found this use of the
horse to be nonordinary, the buyers were entitled to an implied warranty of fitness.
– Requirements: (1) the seller must have reason to know of the buyer's particular purpose
for the goods; (2) the seller must have reason to know of the buyer's reliance on the
seller's skill and knowledge in furnishing the appropriate goods; and (3) the buyer must,
in fact, rely on the seller's skill and knowledge.

CONTRIBUTOR LICENSE AGREEMENT &
COPYRIGHT ASSIGMENT & GRANT-BACK
COPYRIGHT LICENSE

CONTRIBUTOR LICENSE AGREEMENT & COPYRIGHT
ASSIGMENT & GRANT-BACK COPYRIGHT LICENSE (1)
Why the FSF gets copyright assignments from contributors?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html
● “Under US copyright law, which is the law under which most free software programs
have historically been first published, there are very substantial procedural
advantages to registration of copyright. And despite the broad right of distribution
conveyed by the GPL, enforcement of copyright is generally not possible for
distributors: only the copyright holder or someone having assignment of the
copyright can enforce the license. If there are multiple authors of a copyrighted
work, successful enforcement depends on having the cooperation of all authors”.

ASSIGMENT & GRANT-BACK COPYRIGHT LICENSE(2)
Why the FSF gets copyright assignments from contributors?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html
● In order to make sure that all of our copyrights can meet the recordkeeping and
other requirements of registration, and in order to be able to enforce the GPL
most effectively, FSF requires that each author of code incorporated in FSF
projects provide a copyright assignment, and, where appropriate, a disclaimer of
any work-for-hire ownership claims by the programmer's employer. That way we can
be sure that all the code in FSF projects is free code, whose freedom we can
most effectively protect, and therefore on which other developers can completely rely.

APACHE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION (1)
Apache Contributor License Agreements
● The ASF desires that all contributors of ideas, code, or documentation to the Apache
projects complete, sign, and submit (via postal mail, fax or email) an
Individual Contributor License Agreement (CLA). The purpose of this agreement is
to clearly define the terms under which intellectual property has been
contributed to the ASF and thereby allow us to defend the project should there
be a legal dispute regarding the software at some future time. A signed CLA is
required to be on file before an individual is given commit rights to an ASF project.
● For a corporation that has assigned employees to work on an Apache project, a
Corporate CLA (CCLA) is available for contributing intellectual property via the
corporation, that may have been assigned as part of an employment agreement.
Note that a Corporate CLA does not remove the need for every developer to sign
their own CLA as an individual, to cover any of their contributions which are not
owned by the corporation signing the CCLA.

● Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, You hereby
grant to the Foundation and to recipients of software distributed by the Foundation a
perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to
reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and
distribute Your Contributions and such derivative workss
● Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, You hereby grant
to the Foundation and to recipients of software distributed by the Foundation a perpetual,
worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section)
patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work,
where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by You that are necessarily
infringed by Your Contribution(s) alone or by combination of Your Contribution(s) with the Work to
which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If any entity institutes patent litigation against You or any
other entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that your Contribution, or the
Work to which you have contributed, constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any
patent licenses granted to that entity under this Agreement for that Contribution or Work shall
terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.

● Estas concesiones de licencias le permiten a la Apache Software Foundation
licenciar sus obras compuestas (compilaciones de diferentes obras) y las obras
derivadas incluyendo la “contribución” realizada bajo cualquier tipo de licencia. Con
lo cual, le otorga flexibilidad respecto del relicenciamiento (RELICENSING).
● Le permite afirmar que cada una de las contribuciones recibidas es otorgada por su
titular-contribuidor.
● El objetivo enunciado es proteger a la ASF y al Contribuidor.
● No modifica en nada los derechos de IP que cada contribuidor posee sobre la
contribución, con lo cual pueda utilizar tal contribución en otros proyectos.

MySQL (1)
MySQL Contributor License Agreements
http://forge.mysql.com/contribute/cla.php
● “The MySQL Contributor License Agreement (CLA) means, in simple terms, that:
● You assign and transfer the copyright of your contribution to MySQL to the
extent permitted by applicable law. In return you receive back a broad license
to re-use and distribute your contribution.
● You grant a patent license to MySQL and its users, in the event that you own a patent
that covers your contribution.
● You represent that you coded and own the contribution, and are legally entitled to
grant the assignment and license.
● You may provide support for free, for a fee, or not at all.
● MySQL has no obligation to accept or use your contribution”.

MySQL (2)
● You hereby irrevocably assign, transfer, and convey to MySQL all right, title and interest in and
to the Contribution. Such assignment includes all copyrights, copyright applications, and
copyright registrations, and all other intellectual property or proprietary rights other than
patents relating to the Contribution, together with all causes of actions accrued in your favor for
infringement thereof, recognized in any jurisdiction, whether or not perfected ("Proprietary Rights").
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, MySQL shall have the right to use or not use
the Contribution and to use, sell, register, distribute, license, reproduce, re-use, alter, modify,
edit, change, or otherwise commercialize the Contribution as it sees fit, in any manner now
known or in the future discovered, and for any purpose. To the extent that under any applicable
mandatory law, Proprietary Rights cannot be assigned, You irrevocably agree to grant, and You
hereby grant, to MySQL an exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, unlimited, worldwide, fully paid,
and unconditional license to use and commercialize Proprietary Right to the Contribution in
any manner now known or in the future discovered. To the extent such license grant is not fully
valid, effective or enforceable under mandatory law, You irrevocably agree to grant, and You hereby
grant, to MySQL, such rights as MySQL reasonably requests in order to acquire a legal position as
close as possible to full and exclusive legal ownership.

MySQL (3)
● Upon making the assignment and grants set forth in
Section 2.1, You shall receive from MySQL a non-
exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty-free,
irrevocable license to make, have made, use,
reproduce, distribute, sub-license, modify and prepare
derivative works based on your Contribution.

FEDORA PROJECT RED HAT INC. (1)
FEDORA Project Contributor License Agreements
●
“Thank you for your interest in The Fedora Project (the
"Project"). In order to clarify the intellectual property license
granted with Contributions from any person or entity, Red Hat,
Inc. ("Red Hat"), as maintainer of the Project, must have a
Contributor License Agreement (CLA) on file that has been
signed by each Contributor, indicating agreement to the license
terms below. This license is for Your protection as a Contributor
as well as the protection of the Project and its users; it does not
change your rights to use your own Contributions for any other
purpose”.

FEDORA PROJECT RED HAT INC. (2)
FEDORA Project Contributor License Agreements
Contributor Grant of License. You hereby grant to Red Hat, Inc., on behalf of the
Project, and to recipients of software distributed by the Project:
● (a) a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty free, irrevocable
copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly
perform, sublicense, and distribute your Contribution and such derivative works; and,
● (b) a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty free, irrevocable
(subject to Section 3) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell,
import, and otherwise transfer your Contribution and derivative works thereof, where
such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by you that are
necessarily infringed by your Contribution alone or by combination of your
Contribution with the work to which you submitted the Contribution. Except for the
license granted in this section, you reserve all right, title and interest in and to
your Contributions.

SUN MICROSYSTEMS. (1)
Sun Microsystems, Inc Contributor Agreement
● With respect to any worldwide copyrights, or copyright applications and registrations, in your contribution:
● You hereby assign to us joint ownership, and to the extent that such assignment is or becomes invalid,
ineffective or unenforceable, you hereby grant to us a perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, worldwide, no-
charge, royalty-free, unrestricted license to exercise all rights under those copyrights. This includes, at our
option, the right to sublicense these same rights to third parties through multiple levels of sublicensees or
other licensing arrangements;
● You agree that each of us can do all things in relation to your contribution as if each of us were the sole
owners, and if one of us makes a derivative work of your contribution, the one who makes the derivative work
(or has it made) will be the sole owner of that derivative work;
● You agree that you will not assert any moral rights in your contribution against us, our licensees or
transferees;
●
You agree that we may register a copyright in your contribution and exercise all ownership rights associated
with it; and
● You agree that neither of us has any duty to consult with, obtain the consent of, pay or render an accounting
to the other for any use or distribution of your contribution.

ASSIGMENT & GRANT-BACK COPYRIGHT LICENSE (12)
Sun Microsystems Inc, Contributor Agreement
6.Q: I've previously assigned copyright in my prospective contribution to the Free
Software Foundation or some other organization under their contribution
policy. So I no longer have the ability to assign a joint copyright to Sun. How
can I contribute?
A: The Free Software Foundation will probably have granted you back an
unlimited, sublicensable copyright license to your contribution, and other
accepting organizations may also grant back such a license. This kind of grant-
back copyright license may allow you in turn to grant to Sun all the rights
needed under the SCA. Please be sure that you have such a grant-back
copyright license if you have previously assigned copyright, and wish to
contribute the same code or material to a Sun-sponsored project.

Sun Microsystems Inc., Contributor Agreement
9. Q. I don't want my contribution to end up only in a proprietary product. Does Sun
promise to publish my contribution under an open-source license?
A: Yes, Sun will make certain that any contributions that are published under
any license, are available under an FSF or OSI approved license as well.
10. Q. Can I be certain that if I contribute to a Sun-sponsored project, I'll retain the right
to contribute to other, non-Sun projects under any license?
A: There is nothing in the SCA that prohibits you from contributing the same
works to other projects remember, you are only asked to share rights, not
relinquish them. Contribution policies of other projects to which you might
want to contribute may restrict your ability to contribute works you've
contributed to a Sun project, or to participate in some roles if you have
participated in a Sun project. Please consult their policies for more information

Dominio Publico
“FREE/OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE “NO
ES/ESTA EN EL DOMINIO PÚBLICO”(1)
● Free/Open Source Software está regido bajo las
leyes de Propiedad Intelectual (Derechos de Autor/
Copyright y Patentes)
● Free/Open Source Software no es/está en el
“dominio público” (al menos hasta que los plazos
de protección expiren)

Dominio Publico
“FREE/OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE “NO
ES/ESTA EN EL DOMINIO PÚBLICO”(2)

Controles de Exportación (Export Control
Regulations, EARs)
“Free Open Source Software y las Normas de
Control de Exportación de EE.UU(1)
●
Las Normas de Control de Exportación de EEUU controla la exportación,
importación y re-exportación (tanto física como electrónica) de la
tecnología (en el sentido más amplio) de doble uso.
● Doble uso, significa: “Uso civil” y “Uso militar”
● El software es considerado tecnología.
● Por tanto el software open source se encuentra sujeto a las nomas EARs
(Export Administration Regulations)
●Algunas Licencias contienen disposiciones expresas a las normas de
Control de Exportación (CDDL) otras no (GPL v2)

Open Sparc & Open Storage
OPEN STORAGE
● Open Storage combines open source software with industry standard
hardware to change the way the world stores, accesses, and manages its data.
● http://www.sun.com/storage/openstorage/index.jsp
● As vast numbers of users share content, communicate, and conduct business
across the globe , flexible, scalable, and affordable storage becomes more than
a technology need — it’s a business requirement.
● Businesses often find themselves trapped by the limitations of their traditional
storage infrastructure, forced to face the reality that closed, proprietary storage
systems cannot easily or cost-effectively scale to meet escalating storage
requirements.

OPEN STORAGE
●
Open storage is a whole new game: You make the rules.
● The old storage game dictated that as your data grew, you
had to buy more storage devices to support it. Until now,
you were required to purchase your storage from the same
company that made you vulnerable to technology lock-in.
Open storage changes the rules and lets you combine
open-source software and industry-standard components
to avoid vendor lock-in.

Open Sparc (Multicore Microprocessor)
●
OPENSPARC.NET is the genesis of a vision by engineers,
technologists, evangelists, and executives at Sun Microsystems,
Inc. to create a larger community where open conversations and
collaborative development projects spawn dramatic innovations
around chip design. Individual programmers as well as
representatives from Universities, industry associations,
supporting software companies, foundries, entrepreneurs, large
corporations and visionaries have already begun to participate
in this expanded community.

Licencias Open Source (Univ de Buenos Aires 2008)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (9)

Similar to Licencias Open Source (Univ de Buenos Aires 2008)

Similar to Licencias Open Source (Univ de Buenos Aires 2008) (20)

More from Gustavo G. Marmol Alioto

More from Gustavo G. Marmol Alioto (7)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Licencias Open Source (Univ de Buenos Aires 2008)