Gwyn Murray's slides of her talk during the Bay Area OSS meetup in January 2015. Find more details here: http://www.meetup.com/Bay-Area-Open-Source-Meetup/

1. Free and Open Source Software
(“FOSS”) Licensing Overview
Gwyn Firth Murray
Matau Legal Group
January 21, 2015

2. Open Source Licenses: Three Main Categories
A.
Permissive/ Attribution
Fewest requirements,
unrestricted scope of use.
Unrestricted development of
derived works
However, attribution is
required
Examples:
Berkeley Software
Distribution License (BSD)
Apache License
B.
File-Based Copyleft
Community fostering licenses
Files derived from common
files must be shared with the
commons.
Other derived works may be
licensed in any manner.
Examples:
Mozilla Public License (MPL)
Eclipse Public License (EPL)
C.
Strong Copyleft
Competition-limiting
Most “Free” but can be the
most restrictive: seek to
propagate open source.
All work (including derived
works) must be shared with
the commons.
Examples:
GNU General Public License
(GPL)
Lesser GPL (LGPL)
January 20152 © 2005-2015 Matau Legal Group

3. January 2015© 2005-2015 Matau Legal Group3
“Copyleft” or “Reciprocal” Licenses
• Software must be redistributed under the original
license terms
• Examples of strong copyleft are the AGPL, GPL and
LGPL
• Examples of file-based copyleft are MPL and EPL
• Important note: “copyleft” is not the opposite of
“copyright”. It means that licensees redistributing the
software or modifications thereto must do so under the
original inbound license.

4. January 2015© 2005-2015 Matau Legal Group4
The GPL
• Most widely-used free software license(s)
– Approximately ¾ of all free software packages are
distributed under the GNU GPL
• Central GPL 2.0 Provision (Section 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.”
• GPLv3 and LGPLv3 released June 29, 2007

5. The LGPL
• “Library” or “Lesser” GPL
• Designed to permit linking of LGPL libraries into
“non-free” programs
• But legal analysis is the same as with GPL:
– Have you created a derivative work of the covered
Program?
– And are you distributing that work?
– If yes to both, source code must be made available.
• Static vs. Dynamic Linking Debate
January 2015© 2005-2015 Matau Legal Group5

6. January 2015© 2005-2015 Matau Legal Group6
What do you get if you combine the Godfather
and the GPL?
……………..An offer you can’t understand.
(author unknown)
My Favorite GPL Joke

7. January 2015© 2005-2015 Matau Legal Group7
“Permissive” or “Academic” Licenses
• Examples are BSD, MIT, and Apache
• These Licenses Allow You to Impose Additional or
Modified Terms on Modified Copies
• No Restriction on Charging Royalties for Modified
Copies

8. January 2015© 2005-2015 Matau Legal Group8
The BSD License
• Central BSD Provision:
“Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with
or without modification, are permitted . . .”
• One of the Most “Permissive” Licenses
• Caveat: License Compliance Still Matters
– Atrribution and License Notice Terms

9. March 2015© 2005-2015 Matau Legal Group9
“Permissive” or “Academic” Licenses
• Examples are BSD, MIT, and Apache
• These Licenses Allow You to Impose Additional or
Modified Terms on Modified Copies
• No Restriction on Charging Royalties for Modified
Copies
• Some versions of these (BSD 3-clause and 4-clause,
Apache 1.1) do have compatibility issues with GPL 2.0
and other licenses

10. Unifying Theme in FOSS Licenses
• Give Credit Where Credit is Due
• Don’t Claim You Wrote Something If You
Didn’t.
• License requirements are triggered upon
distribution
– Note: “Distribution” can mean different things,
depending upon the license.
– Modification matters, but distribution is the key
January 2015© 2005-2015 Matau Legal Group10

11. Key Differences Among Licenses
• Must code be released under same license under
which it arrived?
• Must source code of unmodified code be made
available upon distribution?
• Must source code of modified code be made
available upon distribution?
• Must a description of modifications be made
upon distribution?
January 2015© 2005-2015 Matau Legal Group11

12. More on GPL/LGPL v 3.0
• Pure Copyleft: GPL 2.0 and GPL 3.0:
– Is licensing “GPL 2.0” only, or “GPL 2.0 or later”?
– GPL 3.0?
– GPL 2.0 or 3.0 with Classpath or other exception?
• Copyleft depending upon use:
– LGPL 2.1
– LGPL 3.0.
• GPL and LGPL 3.0 have interesting terms
– Anti-”Tivoization” clause
– Patent license clauses
January 2015© 2005-2015 Matau Legal Group12

13. GPL 3.0, LGPL 3.0, AGPL 3.0
• GPL 3.0 includes anti-DRM and anti-”Tivoization”
provisions
– These may be a big issue depending upon product.
• GPL 3.0 and LGPL 3.0 include explicit patent license
terms that could jeopardize Licensee’s patent portfolio
• AGPL 3.0 provides that operation of software as a
service is a “distribution”, thus triggering source code
availability requirements.
March 2015© 2005-2015 Matau Legal Group13

14. Common Misconceptions
• There are no compliance requirements for
permissively-licensed code.
• I can treat Apache-licensed code the same as
BSD or MIT-licensed code.
• LGPL is a “safe” license, just like BSD.
January 2914© 2005-2015 Matau Legal Group14

15. Common Misconceptions (2)
• License versions don’t matter.
• I only need to comply if I modify the code.
• If I wrote the code, I own it and can contribute
it back to the community.
January 2914© 2005-2015 Matau Legal Group15

16. January 2015© 2005-2015 Matau Legal Group16
Thank You
Gwyn Firth Murray
Matau Legal Group
650-823-5864 (cell)
gwyn@mataulegal.com
www.mataulegal.com