2011 presentation on open source software provided through the University of Colorado Silicon Flatirons Center for Law and Technology "Crash Course" series.
"Crash Course" on Open Source Silicon Flatirons Center (2012) Jason Haislmaier
2012 "crash course" presentation to the Silicon Flatirons Center at the University of Colorado School of Law. Covering an overview of legal issues involving open source software
This slidedeck is the first presentation in a series of presentations on legal issues on open source licensing by Karen Copenhaver of Choate Hall and Mark Radcliffe of DLA Piper. To view the webinars, please go to http://www.blackducksoftware.com/files/legal-webinar-series.html. You may also want to visit my blog which frequently deals with open source legal issues http://lawandlifesiliconvalley.com/blog/
There are hundreds of open source licenses. Most developers don't take the time to read or understand them, but can you continue to ignore them? We have seen a rise in litigation around open source license over the last 10 years. And, in the last 12 months we have seen the first examples of OSS copyright trolls that are taking developers to court in an attempt to monetize GPL violations.
This presentation covers: How OSS licenses are enforced;
What are the main types of OSS licenses; How to identify them;
and what steps you need to take to ensure you are complying.
We cover use case scenarios and do a "deep dive" on the most used licenses today and how to understand them
A primer on adapting open source software to an IT service organization. Focuses on how open source licenses are different and how it may affect your business model and intellectual property.
Fundamentals of Free and Open Source SoftwareRoss Gardler
Introduction to the OSS Watch Business
and Sustainability Models Around Free and Open Source Software. this presentation doesn't deal with the business models, it introduces FOSS and the key licence types.
"Crash Course" on Open Source Silicon Flatirons Center (2012) Jason Haislmaier
2012 "crash course" presentation to the Silicon Flatirons Center at the University of Colorado School of Law. Covering an overview of legal issues involving open source software
This slidedeck is the first presentation in a series of presentations on legal issues on open source licensing by Karen Copenhaver of Choate Hall and Mark Radcliffe of DLA Piper. To view the webinars, please go to http://www.blackducksoftware.com/files/legal-webinar-series.html. You may also want to visit my blog which frequently deals with open source legal issues http://lawandlifesiliconvalley.com/blog/
There are hundreds of open source licenses. Most developers don't take the time to read or understand them, but can you continue to ignore them? We have seen a rise in litigation around open source license over the last 10 years. And, in the last 12 months we have seen the first examples of OSS copyright trolls that are taking developers to court in an attempt to monetize GPL violations.
This presentation covers: How OSS licenses are enforced;
What are the main types of OSS licenses; How to identify them;
and what steps you need to take to ensure you are complying.
We cover use case scenarios and do a "deep dive" on the most used licenses today and how to understand them
A primer on adapting open source software to an IT service organization. Focuses on how open source licenses are different and how it may affect your business model and intellectual property.
Fundamentals of Free and Open Source SoftwareRoss Gardler
Introduction to the OSS Watch Business
and Sustainability Models Around Free and Open Source Software. this presentation doesn't deal with the business models, it introduces FOSS and the key licence types.
Objective Capital's Africa Resources Investment Congress 2012
Ironmongers' Hall, City of London
12 June 2012
Speaker: Ed Coughlan, Business Monitor International
The Syntens Sustainability Quick Scan is introduced, which allow small companies to gauge their level of sustainability. Results are presented indicating drivers for sustainability in SMEs. ISPIM conference case June 2011.
Kursīšu pagasta 2010/2011.gada GADAGRĀMATA. Notikumi Kursīšu pagastā.
Prezentācija tapusi projekta "3i - ieraugi, iekadrē, ievieto" laikā un ir viens no projekta rezultātiem.
Os melhores cursos de engenharia do Brasil em 2015VittorioTedeschi
No fim de dezembro, o Ministério da Educação (MEC) divulgou a lista com as principais instituições de ensino superior brasileiras, em 2015. A avaliação considera o Índice Geral de Cursos (IGC), indicador de qualidade do ensino que qualifica as universidades com notas de 1 a 5, levando em conta o CPC, Conceitos Preliminares de Curso, ou seja, a infraestrutura e a qualidade do corpo docente, além do rendimento dos alunos no ENADE, Exame Nacional de Educação.
A avaliação conta também com conceitos da Capes (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoa de Nível Superior), sendo os cursos com notas de 4 a 5 os integrantes do grupo de excelência no ensino, enquanto o nível 3 é denominado regular e, consequentemente, os níveis 2 e 1 são considerados insuficientes. Considerando o curso de Engenharia Química, a boa notícia é que 21 centros universitários receberam o selo de excelência, sendo duas destas com a nota máxima, 16 são públicas contra 5 privadas.
O Estado de Minas Gerais lidera a lista entre as melhores universidades com 7 locais, seguido por Rio de Janeiro e São Paulo, com 3 cada, Rio Grande do Sul, com 2, e os estados do Espírito Santo, Paraíba, Pernambuco Ceará, Bahia e Santa Catarina, com 1 universidade cada. O destaque fica por conta da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, em Belo Horizonte, que recebeu a nota 5, mesma nota do Instituto Militar de Engenharia, no Rio de Janeiro.
Ainda entre as 10 primeiras, estão a Universidade Federal de São Carlos (SP), Universidade Federal de Viçosa (MG), Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (RS), Universidade Estadual de Campinas (SP), Universidade Federal de São João Del Rei (MG), Universidade de Ribeirão Preto (SP), Centro Universitário UNA (MG) e Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (RJ).
This an analysis and a presentation on free and open source software made by me, This is about relevance of free and open source software and current software technologies which are free and open source to all.
Many of us work in open source projects without really understanding all the details about open source licensing and how intellectual property should be managed. In this session we will talk what it means to be open source, what "copyleft" means, how a few of the major open source licenses work, how to handle copyright ownership, and what contributor agreements do.
Objective Capital's Africa Resources Investment Congress 2012
Ironmongers' Hall, City of London
12 June 2012
Speaker: Ed Coughlan, Business Monitor International
The Syntens Sustainability Quick Scan is introduced, which allow small companies to gauge their level of sustainability. Results are presented indicating drivers for sustainability in SMEs. ISPIM conference case June 2011.
Kursīšu pagasta 2010/2011.gada GADAGRĀMATA. Notikumi Kursīšu pagastā.
Prezentācija tapusi projekta "3i - ieraugi, iekadrē, ievieto" laikā un ir viens no projekta rezultātiem.
Os melhores cursos de engenharia do Brasil em 2015VittorioTedeschi
No fim de dezembro, o Ministério da Educação (MEC) divulgou a lista com as principais instituições de ensino superior brasileiras, em 2015. A avaliação considera o Índice Geral de Cursos (IGC), indicador de qualidade do ensino que qualifica as universidades com notas de 1 a 5, levando em conta o CPC, Conceitos Preliminares de Curso, ou seja, a infraestrutura e a qualidade do corpo docente, além do rendimento dos alunos no ENADE, Exame Nacional de Educação.
A avaliação conta também com conceitos da Capes (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoa de Nível Superior), sendo os cursos com notas de 4 a 5 os integrantes do grupo de excelência no ensino, enquanto o nível 3 é denominado regular e, consequentemente, os níveis 2 e 1 são considerados insuficientes. Considerando o curso de Engenharia Química, a boa notícia é que 21 centros universitários receberam o selo de excelência, sendo duas destas com a nota máxima, 16 são públicas contra 5 privadas.
O Estado de Minas Gerais lidera a lista entre as melhores universidades com 7 locais, seguido por Rio de Janeiro e São Paulo, com 3 cada, Rio Grande do Sul, com 2, e os estados do Espírito Santo, Paraíba, Pernambuco Ceará, Bahia e Santa Catarina, com 1 universidade cada. O destaque fica por conta da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, em Belo Horizonte, que recebeu a nota 5, mesma nota do Instituto Militar de Engenharia, no Rio de Janeiro.
Ainda entre as 10 primeiras, estão a Universidade Federal de São Carlos (SP), Universidade Federal de Viçosa (MG), Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (RS), Universidade Estadual de Campinas (SP), Universidade Federal de São João Del Rei (MG), Universidade de Ribeirão Preto (SP), Centro Universitário UNA (MG) e Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (RJ).
This an analysis and a presentation on free and open source software made by me, This is about relevance of free and open source software and current software technologies which are free and open source to all.
Many of us work in open source projects without really understanding all the details about open source licensing and how intellectual property should be managed. In this session we will talk what it means to be open source, what "copyleft" means, how a few of the major open source licenses work, how to handle copyright ownership, and what contributor agreements do.
A seminar presentation on Open Source by Ritwick Halder - a computer science engineering student at Academy Of Technology, West Bengal, India - 2013
Personal Website - www.ritwickhalder.com
Concepts of Free Software has been spilled over into other areas and it has been expanded beyond the software; Free Software is actually Free Culture.
In this presentation I've covered the exact meaning of Free Software, as a phrase, and then try to differentiate between Free Software Foundation(FSF) and Open Source Initiative(OSI). Talk a little bit about Licenses, financial resources and revenue streams of FOSS business ecosystem and at last ending the presentation with introducing Aaron Swartz and his efforts for real freedom.
The major outcome of this presentation is insisting on the human rights of any person to know what exactly going on under the hood of their devices, have the right to access and manipulate the source codes of their gadgets, unless they don't really own it and it is severely an act of violating the privacy.
*The presentation file is around 42MB due to containing a 2mins video clip.*
خلاصه ارائه:
- حق داشتن دسترسی و تغییر کد منبع نرمافزاری و شیوهی کار دقیق سختافزاری دستگاهها از حقوق اولیهی انسانی محسوب میشه.
- انسانها با وارد کردن انواع وسایل نرم/سختافزاری به حریمخصوصی زندگیشون، باید حق داشتن دسترسی به منابع نرم/سختافزاری رو داشته باشن.
- وظیفه و مسئولیت تمام مهندسین کامپیوتر جامعه: بر منابع کدهای نرم/سختافزاری وسایل مختلف همچون خبرنگاران عینی، بررسی موشکافانه داشته باشن.
A slideshow on what Open Source is, how to start contributions with special focus on Mozilla's own contribution pathways.
Credits: Ritwick Halder (http://www.slideshare.net/geniusanalyser/open-source-seminar-presentation?qid=46528d24-df84-4603-b731-4f7883341a2f&v=default&b=&from_search=7)
What is Open Source Software (OSS) and what is the idea behind it? What are examples for popular Open Source Software, what are the Advantages about using OSS, what are the disadvantages.
Mobile Apps - Legal and Practical ConsiderationsJason Haislmaier
Presentation by Jason Haislmaier and Matt McKinney at the 2014 Rock Mountain Intellectual Property and Technology Institute in Denver Colorado. Covering the legal and practical considerations involved with developing, releasing, and maintaining software applications for mobile devices.
When Past Performance May Be Indicative of Future Results - The Legal Implica...Jason Haislmaier
Presentation to the ABA Cyberspace Law Committee 2014 Winter Meeting in Denver, CO. Bruce Antley and Jason Haislmaier. Covering legal issues in location based services and the use of predictive analytics.
Presentation - Mobile Medical Applications Guidance for Industry and Food and...Jason Haislmaier
Presentation to PrIME Health Collaborative at Galvanize in Denver, Colorado on October 29, 2013 covering an overview of the FDA "Mobile Medical Applications Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff."
Presentation - gener8tor - Data Privacy, Security, and Rights 130627Jason Haislmaier
Data privacy, security and rights presentation given to the Gener8tor companies on June 27, 2013. Covering data privacy and data security rights issues relevant to startups and the evolution of the value of data.
Data Property Rights (Rocky Mountain IP and Technology Institute 2013) (May 2...Jason Haislmaier
Presentation at the 2012 Rocky Mountain IP and Technology Institute. Covering the emerging rights in "data" and the sources for legal protection of data.
Presentation at the Silicon Flatirons Center at the University of Colorado School of Law. Providing an update on the latest issues and trends in data privacy and data security in the US. Focusing on recent actions of the FTC and state governments.
Presentation ncsl - mobile privacy enforcement 130502 (as presented)Jason Haislmaier
Presentation to the National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL) Spring Conference in Denver, CO on May 2, 2013. Covering mobile app privacy policy and enforcement at the federal and state levels. Highlighting actions taken by the Attorney General of the State of California. Copyright 2013 Jason Haislmaier
2011 Silicon Flatirons IP (Crash Course) For EntrepreneurersJason Haislmaier
Intellectual Property Crash Course for Entrepreneurs (February 22, 2011) presentation at the Wolf Law Building at the University of Colorado (Boulder, CO)
Legal Issues in Cloud Computing (J. Haislmaier - IP Institute 2010)
2011 "Crash Course" on Open Source
1. “Crash Course” on Open Source
December 5, 2011
Jason D. Haislmaier
jason.haislmaier@hro.com
@haislmaier
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
2. Disclaimer and Rights
This presentation is intended for general informational purposes only and should not
be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances,
nor is it intended to address specific legal compliance issues that may arise in
particular circumstances. Please consult counsel concerning your own situation and
any specific legal questions you may have.
The thoughts and opinions expressed in this presentation are those of the individual
presenters and do not necessarily reflect the official or unofficial thoughts or opinions
of their employers.
Open Source Software
For further information regarding this presentation, please contact the presenter(s)
listed in the presentation.
Unless otherwise noted, all original content in this presentation is licensed under the
Creative Commons Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States
License available at: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us.
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
4. “We can no longer [practically] develop
[commercial] software without the use of open
source software. . . In fact, if we could find a way
to do so, we would patent it!”
[Name withheld]
CIO
Large mobile software developer
(and major patent holder)
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
6. New trends
The Evolution of
Open Source Software
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
7. A brief and (very) unofficial history. . .
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
8. Evolution of Open Source
“Free” Software
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
9. Evolution of Open Source
The “Free” Software Ideology
• 1970s - Free software movement begins
– Started largely by academics and corporate researchers
– Working in collaboration to develop software
– Source code (human-readable software code) was freely distributed among users
– Users shared bug fixes, new functionality, etc. among the community
• 1983 - Richard Stallman launches the GNU project
– Response to frustration with the advent of “closed” software
– Announced the development of a complete operating system “free” from constraints on
source code
– The “GNU” operating system
• 1984 - Work on the GNU operating system begins
• 1985 - Stallman founds the Free Software Foundation (FSF) to
promote the free software ideology
• 1986 - Stallman authors the Free Software Definition defining the
principles of “free” software
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
10. Evolution of Open Source
“The word "free" does not refer to price; it refers to
freedom. The freedom to copy a program and redistribute
it to your neighbors so that they can use it as well as you.
The freedom to change a program, so that you can control
it instead of it controlling you; for this, the source code
must be made available to you.”
Richard Stallman
Founder, Free Software Foundation
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
11. Evolution of Open Source
“You should think of ‘free’ as in ‘free speech,’
not ‘free’ as in ‘free beer’.”
Richard Stallman
Founder, Free Software Foundation
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
12. Evolution of Open Source
The Free Software Definition
• Free Software “Definition” embodied in 4 basic freedoms
0 - Run the program, for any purpose
1 - Study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
2 - Redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
3 - Improve the program, and release your improvements to the
public, so that the whole community benefits
• Free software becomes synonymous with software that
– Can be used, studied, and modified without restriction
– Can be redistributed in modified or unmodified form without restriction
(or with minimal restrictions)
But, only if other recipients can do the same things
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
13. Evolution of Open Source
“Open Source” Software
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
14. Evolution of Open Source
The Rise of Open Source Software
• 1989 - Version 1 of the GNU General Public License (GPL) is
published by the FSF
• 1991 - Version 2 of the GPL is published
• 1991 - Linux operating system initially released
– Originally not released under a free software license
– Migrated to the GPL in February 1992 (version 0.12)
• 1997 - Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) published
– Authored by Bruce Parens as part of the official policy for the
Debian open source software project
– Based on the Free Software Definition
– Defines the principles under which Debian will be made available
as “free” software
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
15. Evolution of Open Source
The Rise of Open Source
• Early 1998 - Netscape releases the Netscape Communicator as free software
– Bring the benefits of free software to the commercial software industry
– Emphasize the business potential of the sharing of source code
– Without many of the ideological overtones of free software
• Late 1998 - Open Source Initiative (OSI) formed
– Formed by Eric Raymond (with help from Bruce Parens and others)
– Response to the overly activist/ideological stance of free software
– Seeks to bring the benefits of free software to the
commercial software industry by advocating the
use of “open source” software
– Perens adapts and repurposes the DFSG and FSD
to form the Open Source Definition (OSD) to define
the principles of “open source” software
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
16. Evolution of Open Source
“FOSS”
Free and Open Source Software
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
17. Open Source Licenses
The Open Source Definition
• The “Open Source Definition” (OSD) articulates the principles a
license must meet to be “open source”
– Availability of source code
– Free redistribution
– Availability of “derived works”
– Integrity of the author’s source code
– No discrimination against persons or groups
– No discrimination against fields of endeavor
– License must travel with the software
– License not dependent on particular software distribution
– License does not restrict other software
– License technology neutral
• Used by the OSI to define licenses as “open source”
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
18. Open Source Licenses
Approved Open Source Licenses
• The OSI maintains a certification program to approve licenses as
compliant with the OSD
• Over 70 licenses approved as “open source” by the OSI
– All implement the OSD, each with its own specific terms
– One definition, many different types of licenses
• Many unapproved “open source” licenses exist
– Never formally approved by the OSI
– Still refer to themselves (and referred to by others) as “open source”
• Many other licenses are referred to as “open source”
– Based in some part on OSI-approved licenses
– No guarantee of compliance with the OSD
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
19. Open Source Licenses
Single Definition – Many Licenses
Academic Copyleft
Very Less Less More
Permissive Permissive Restrictive Restrictive
• Berkley Software • Apache Software • Mozilla Public License • GNU GPL v2
Distribution License License (MPL) • GNU GPL v3
(BSD) • Eclipse Public License • Common • GNU LGPL v2.1
• MIT License • Artistic License Development and • GNU LGPL v3
• W3C Distribution License
(CDDL) • Affero GPL v2
• Common Public • Affero GPL v3
License (CPL)
• IBM Public License
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
20. Open Source Licenses
Copyright
All Rights Reserved
“Copyleft”
All Rights Reversed
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
21. Open Source Licenses
Open source software is
licensed software
Open source licenses
make the software “open source”
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
22. Open Source Licenses
Understand the similarities
Understand the differences
Understand why they matter
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
23. Open Source Licenses
Proprietary Open Source
• “Arms-length” agreement • License flows with code
– “Meeting of the minds” – Unilateral set of permissions
– Often negotiated – No negotiation
– Affirmative assent (sign, click, etc.) – No affirmative assent needed
• Use “Restrictions” • Use “Permissions” (with boundaries)
– Object code only – Source and object code forms
– Limited copying and use – Copy, modify, and distribute
– No reverse engineering – May allow other end users to do
– No distribution the same
• Robust Licensor Obligations • Limited or No Licensor Obligations
– Warranties – No warranties
– Updates/upgrades – No updates/upgrades
– Support and maintenance – No support obligations
– Infringement indemnification – No infringement indemnification
• Legally enforceable (and enforced) • Legally enforceable (and enforced)
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
24. Open Source Licenses
Academic Copyleft
• Permissive • Restrictive
• Minimal requirements • Extensive requirements
• Notice • Notice and attribution
– Copyright ownership • Availability of source code
– License applicability • Application beyond the original code
• Attribution – Covers derivative works (and perhaps
– Authors of original code other modifications)
– Contributions to the original code – “Viral”
• Application only to the original code • License must flow with the code
– Derivatives and modifications not covered – Potential license incompatibilities
– Non-“viral” – Limited or no release under other licenses
• License flows with the code, but. . . • Often include patent licenses
– High level of compatibility with other – Express or implied
licenses – Covering licensed code and contributions
– Relicensing permitted under other licenses • Other requirements. . .
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
25. Copyleft and Copyright
Is Copyleft anti-Copyright?
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
26. Copyleft and Copyright
Open Source Licenses Depend on Copyright
• Open source software licensing has arisen
(at least in part) as a response to copyright law
• Open source licensing relies on the ability of a copyright owner to
choose how to enforce (or not enforce) their copyright
• Each open source license is intended to act as a set of
permissions (and restrictions) granted by a copyright owner under
their copyright
• Like most licenses (or contracts), open source licenses have limits
• Unlike proprietary licenses, these limits generally allow for more
“open” or “free” use of the software
• Each open source license implements the Open Source Definition
• Some more differently than others. . .
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
30. Open Source in the Cloud
Example: BSD License
• BSD License is triggered by “Redistribution and use”
• Express restrictions only apply to “redistributions”
• Does it matter given the permissive nature of the BSD?
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
31. Open Source in the Cloud
Example: GPLv2
• GPLv2 is triggered by distribution
• Merely running the program is not covered by the license
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
32. Open Source in the Cloud
Example: GPLv3
• GPLv3 is triggered by a “conveyance”
• Specifically does not include use over a network
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
33. Open Source in the Cloud
Example: AGPLv3
• The Affero GPLv3 expressly covers use over a network
• Treats use over a network as a distribution or conveyance is treated
under the GPL
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
34. Open Source in the Cloud
“So doesn’t this mean that the GPL
is the new BSD license. . . and that
Google is the new Microsoft ?”
Bradley Kuhn
Former executive director of the FSF
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
35. What constitutes a “distribution”
of software under the GPL?
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
36. What is the consequence of a
“distribution” of software under the GPL?
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
37. License Interpretation
Example: GPLv2
• GPLv2 covers the program licensed under GPLv2 and
“works based on the program”
• Requires works in whole or in part “derived from the Program” to be
licensed under the terms of the GPL
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
38. License Interpretation
Example: GPLv2
• GPLv2 definitions refer to a “derivative work” under applicable
copyright law as a guide
• But, also provide their own interpretation of what would be included as a
“work based on the program”
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
39. License Interpretation
Who decides how to interpret
open source licenses?
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
40. License Interpretation
Example: GPLv2
• GPLv2 sets multiple boundaries
– Triggered by a “distribution”
– Allows modification to form a “work based on the Program”
– Requires a work that “in whole or in part contains or is derived from the
Program” to be subject to the GPL
• Does not fully define these terms
• Refers to applicable copyright law for aide in defining key terms
• Copyright law is not well-defined as it relates to these areas
– The U.S. Copyright Act grants copyright owners the exclusive right to
“distribute” the works, but does not define “distribute”
– Similar uncertainty around a “derivative work” of software
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
41. License Interpretation
Example: GPLv2
• Multiple interpretations and understandings have emerged
– Free Software Foundation and other open source groups
– Open source legal community
– Very limited court decisions regarding open source
– Court decisions in other areas of copyright law
• Relatively little dispute at either end of the spectrum
• Uncertainty exists in the many emerging variations in-between
• Even the accepted interpretations are highly fact-dependant
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
42. License Interpretation
Example: GPLv2
• Copyright law gives the copyright owner power to enforce their copyright
• Issuing licenses is part of this power
• The copyright owner decides
– Whether to apply GPLv2 to their software
– How to interpret GPLv2 as applied to their software
– When and how to enforce GPLv2
• Court decisions apply (if they are available)
• Accepted interpretations and practices can carry weight
• Where the law is unclear and multiple reasonable interpretations exist, the
copyright owner has the power to decide which interpretation to adopt
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
43. What happens when a difference in
interpretation occurs?
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
45. Attacks on Android
Google essentially copied hundreds of files of Linux code
that were never meant to be used as is by application
developers, "cleaned" those files using a non-standard and
questionable technical process, and then declared that the
code was no longer subject to the GPLv2, so that
developers could use it without becoming subject to the
copyleft effect that would normally apply to GPLv2-licensed
code taken from the Linux kernel.
Source: http://www.brownrudnick.com/nr/pdf/alerts/Brown%20Rudnick%20Advisory%20The%20
Bionic%20Library-Did%20Google%20Work%20Around%20The%20GPL.pdf
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
46. Attacks on Android
• Android consists of:
– An underlying Linux kernel – Licensed under GPLv2
– A C-library known as “Bionic” – Licensed under BSD
• Allegations claim that the Bionic library is a derivative work of the Linux kernel
due to the amount and type of code included in Bionic from the Linux kernel
• GPLv2 requires that all derivative works of software licensed under GPLv2 must
themselves be licensed under GPLv2
• Therefore, by implication
– Bionic must be licensed under GPLv2; AND
– Applications running on Android must also be licensed under GPLv2
• Thus, Android developers are under “significant” business and legal risk
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
47. Attacks on Android
Allegations Against Bionic
• Google incorporated Linux kernel header files (and derivative works of those
files) into Bionic
• Think of the header files as essentially acting as interfaces to the Linux kernel
• Used the header files to allow applications and other programs to use and
invoke the functions of the Linux kernel
• The question: Does this matter?
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
48. Attacks on Android
Status of Header Files Under Copyright Law
• Copyrightability of header files is open to debate
– Interface declarations are analogous to "facts" regarding the operation of a software program
– Facts (of any kind) are not copyrightable (along with systems, processes, or methods of operation)
• Copying of interfaces to create compatible (independent) software has also
been viewed as fair use.
– If available, fair use provides an unlicensed user with a defense to copyright
infringement
– See, e.g., Sony Computer Entertainment v. Connectix Corp., 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir.
2000)
• GPLv2 is a copyright license, so without a valid copyright (or a fair use claim),
there is nothing for the license to provide or protect.
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
49. Attacks on Android
Status of Header Files Under the GPL
• Questions about the treatment of header files under the GPL are nothing new
• Even the FSF has questioned whether the use of header files will always result
in a derivative work of the Linux kernel
Someone recently made the claim that including a header file
always makes a derivative work.
That's not the FSF's view. Our view is that just using structure
definitions, typedefs, enumeration constants, macros with simple
bodies, etc., is NOT enough to make a derivative work.
It would take a substantial amount of code (coming from inline
functions or macros with substantial bodies) to do that.
Source: 2003 Email from Richard Stallman quoted at: http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0301.1/0362.html
• General acceptance that not all portions of header files are copyrightable
• Uncertainty as to which portion of header files are copyrightable
• Highly fact-based analysis
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
50. Attacks on Android
Status of Header Files Under the GPL
• The version of GPLv2 used by the Linux kernel includes an additional exception:
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that
use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely
considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall
under the heading of a “derived work”. Also note that the
GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation,
but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux kernel) is
copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
Source: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING
• Permits applications and other programs to link to the functionality of the Linux
kernel without creating a derivative work
• Applications running on Linux are thus not required to be licensed under GPLv2
• Bionic is not the first Linux library to operate in this manner
– Example: glibc (GNU C library)
Created using the same basic methodology used to create Bionic
Not licensed under the GPL (licensed under the LGPL)
– Other examples exist as well
• Why are glibc and other similarly-developed libraries not also derivative works?
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
51. Attacks on Android
Risk to Android?
• Even with other examples of non-infringing Linux libraries that are not licensed
under the GPL, it is possible that:
– Bionic includes copyrighted code from the Linux kernel (e.g., coming from inline
functions or macros with substantial bodies)
– Bionic makes more than “normal system calls” to the Linux kernel
– The code used by Bionic is not subject to a fair use argument
• The only way to know for sure is to review the files comprising the Bionic library
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
52. Attacks on Android
Risk to Android Applications?
• Even if Bionic is subject to GPLv2, are applications running on Android also
subject to GPLv2?
If the Bionic header files remain subject to GPLv2, there is a considerable
risk that applications using them become subject to GPLv2 as well.
If GPLv2 applies to Android applications, developers’ ability to
differentiate on the Android platform would be seriously impaired,
because they would be required to release the source code of their
applications [under GPLv2] and would be precluded from limiting how
anyone, including competitors, uses that code.
Source: http://www.brownrudnick.com/nr/pdf/alerts/Brown%20Rudnick%20Advisory%20The%20
Bionic%20Library-Did%20Google%20Work%20Around%20The%20GPL.pdf
• Solid legal arguments exist that this is not the case
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
53. Attacks on Android
Risk to Android Applications?
• Strong legal argument that merely linking one independent program to another
does not create a derivative work
Simply combining a copyrighted work with another work does not
create a derivative work. The original copyrighted work must be
modified in some way. The resulting derivative work must itself
“represent an original work of authorship.” So if the licensee doesn’t
modify the original GPL-licensed program, but merely runs it, he is
not creating a derivative work.
Source: "The Unreasonable Fear of Infection", Lawrence Rosen
• Also well-settled that running an application on a GPL-licensed OS does not
create a derivative work and cause the application to come under the GPL
Consider the scenario where the Linux operating system, a GPL-
licensed program, loads and executes a proprietary program. The
Linux program is not modified; it is merely used for the purpose for
which it was designed. The proprietary program does not “contain”
nor is it “derived from” Linux. Linux does not infect the proprietary
program, and the proprietary program does not become subject to
the GPL.
Source: "The Unreasonable Fear of Infection", Lawrence Rosen
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
54. Attacks on Android
Risk to Android Applications?
• GPLv2 applies to the licensed program and “any work based on the Program”
• GPLv2 defines this as “any derivative work under copyright law”
• Copyright law defines a “Derivative Work” as:
– A work based upon one or more preexisting works
– In which the underlying work is recast, transformed, or adapted
– Where the modifications, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship
• Bringing together two independent and separate works does not alone
constitute a derivative work
• May create a compilation or collective work
• Collective works or compilations are collections of separate and independently
copyrighted works
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
55. Attacks on Android
What Does The Community Have to Say?
• Linus Torvalds has stated in the past that applications and other programs
running on Linux do not become subject to the GPL
“User programs are _clearly_ not derived works of the kernel, and as
such whatever the kernel license is just doesn’t matter.”
Source: Linus Torvalds, as quoted in LKML, http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/3/228
• His comments regarding these allegations reiterate this point
“It seems totally bogus, we’ve always made it very clear that the
kernel system call interfaces do not in any way result in a derived
work as per the GPL.”
Source: Linus Torvalds, as quoted in Network World - http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/72428
• As the owner of the copyright in significant portions of the Linux kernel, Torvalds
is the one with legal standing to bring a claim for violation of the Linux copyright
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
56. Patents
Patent “Aggression”
Nothing New to Open Source
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
57. Patent Aggression
Nothing New to Open Source
• 2004 study by Open Source Risk Management
• Revealed at least 283 patents implicated by Linux
• At least 27 of those patents held by Microsoft
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
58. Patent Aggression
The Firestar Case
v.
Firestar Software, Inc v. Red Hat, Inc et al
(Case No.: 2:06cv258)
• First patent infringement suit targeting an open source project
• Firestar sued Red Hat on June 28, 2006
• Eastern District of Texas
• Alleged that the JBoss Hibernate 3.0 technology infringed
several patents, notably:
– 5,522,077 - Object oriented network system for allocating ranges of globally unique object identifiers
from a server process to client processes which release unused identifiers
– 5,937,402 - System for enabling access to a relational database from an object oriented program
– 6,101,502 - Method of interfacing an object oriented software application with a relational database
• Settlement reached before much activity took place
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
59. Patent Aggression
The Firestar Settlement
• Settlement terms are public:
http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/blog/patent_settlement_agreement.pdf
• Very broad:
– All software licensed under the Red Hat brand
(whether developed by Red Hat or third parties)
– Derivative works of Red Hat branded products and combinations of software
including Red Hat branded products
– Upstream developers as well as predecessor products of Red Hat branded products
– Distributors, customers, and everyone
– All patents owned by DataTern and Amphion
• Model for open source patent infringement settlements?
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
60. Patent Aggression
The Firestar Follow-On
• The patents named in the Firestar complaint are still at work
• U.S. Patent No. 6,101,502 and 5,937,402
• Now assigned to patent holding company DataTern (and its parent company
Amphion Innovations PLC)
• Asserted against a host of companies
• Microsoft entered the suit with a declaratory judgment action on April 8, 2011
– Filed in the Southern District of New York
– Alleges the suits have referenced Microsoft software
– Defendants have asked Microsoft for indemnification
– Seeks to declare the patents invalid or that no Microsoft products are infringing
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
61. Patent Aggression
Microsoft v. TomTom
• February 2009, Microsoft files suit against GPS device maker TomTom
alleging infringement of eight patents
• Among them, patent numbers 5,579,517 and 5,758,352 for techniques for
implementing a “common name space for long and short filenames”
• Covering Microsoft's FAT32 file system
• Microsoft claims the suit is not a direct attack on Linux
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
62. Patent Aggression
Microsoft v. TomTom
• March 2009, TomTom countersues Microsoft
• Alleging infringement of four TomTom patents related to TomTom’s
Streets and Trips program
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
63. Patent Aggression
Microsoft v. TomTom
• As part of its defense strategy, TomTom also joins the
Open Innovation Network (OIN)
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
64. Patent Aggression
Microsoft v. TomTom
• March 30, 2009 – Microsoft and TomTom settle all issues
• Specific financial terms not disclosed
• TomTom to pay Microsoft an undisclosed amount for coverage under eight
Microsoft patents for car-navigation and file-management systems
• Microsoft to receive coverage under four TomTom patents (no payment
required by Microsoft)
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
65. Patent Aggression
Microsoft v. TomTom
• Five-year term
• Covers both past and future U.S. sales of the relevant products
• Purports to be open source compliant:
The agreement includes patent coverage for Microsoft’s three file management
systems patents provided in a manner that is fully compliant with TomTom’s
obligations under the General Public License Version 2 (GPLv2).
• TomTom will drop FAT-patented parts of its products:
TomTom will remove from its products the functionality related to two file
management system patents (the ‘FAT LFN patents’), which enables efficient
naming, organizing, storing and accessing of file data. TomTom will remove this
functionality within two years, and the agreement provides for coverage directly
to TomTom’s end customers under these patents during that time.
• Microsoft is passing patent protection to TomTom’s ‘end customers’
• Similar to the scheme of prior Microsoft patent license agreements
• Contrast this settlement with the settlement in RedHat-Firestar
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
66. Patent Aggression
Microsoft Patent Licensing
• Microsoft has also built an increasingly broad patent licensing program
– Over 1000 licenses in the last decade
– Many rumored to cover Linux and other open source projects
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
67. Patent Aggression
Microsoft Patent Licensing
• Microsoft has also built an increasingly broad patent licensing program
– Over 1000 licenses in the last decade
– Many rumored to cover Linux and other open source projects
– 10 (and counting) are known to be Android-related
Source: Microsoft Corporation
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
70. Patent Aggression
How are companies
defending against this threat?
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
71. Patent Aggression
Patent Purchases
• November 22, 2010 – Novell announces sale to Attachmate Corporation
• Deal includes the sale of “certain IP assets” to CPTN Holdings
• CPTN is a Microsoft-led consortium including Apple, EMC, and Oracle
• Purchased IP assets include 882 patents
• Many relating to Linux and other major open source projects
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
72. Patent Aggression
Patent Purchases
• U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) intervened
“As originally proposed, the deal would jeopardize the ability of open
source software, such as Linux, to continue to innovate and compete
in the development and distribution of server, desktop, and mobile
operating systems, middleware, and virtualization products.”
• Requires CPTN to alter the terms of purchase
– Microsoft will not directly own any of the Novell patents (will receive a license)
– EMC (which owns VMWare) will not acquire 33 patents and applications
identified as related to virtualization software
– All Novell patents will be acquired subject to GPLv2 and the
Open Invention Network (OIN) License
– CPTN may not limit which patents are available under the OIN License
“Although the department will allow the transaction to proceed, it will
continue investigating the distribution of the Novell patents to the
CPTN owners.”
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
73. Patent Aggression
Patent Purchases
• July 2011 – Nortel Networks announces $4.5 billion sale of patent assets to
an Apple and Microsoft-led alliance (including Research in Motion, Sony,
Ericsson, and EMC)
• Over 6,000 patents and patent applications
• Covering wireless and networking technology and semiconductors
• Beat out Google, Intel, and others for the sale
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
74. Patent Aggression
Patent Purchases
• August 2011 – Google announces $12.5 billion purchase of handset
manufacturer and patent holder Motorola Mobility
• Over 17,000 patents
• Covering a wide range of mobile communications technology
• Google also announced dual purchases of 1000 patents each from IBM
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
75. Patent Aggression
Patent Pooling
• Patent-sharing coalition
• Formed in 2008 by IBM, Philips, Novell, Red Hat, Sony, and NEC
• Members now include Google, Oracle, and over 250 others
• http://www.openinventionnetwork.com
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
76. Patent Aggression
Patent Pooling
• OIN acquires rights to patents and makes them available royalty-free to members
• OIN also obtains licenses from members not to assert their patents against other
members
• Licenses apply within the “Linux System”
• Analogous to patent non-assertion pools established around technical standards
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
77. Patent Aggression
Patent Pooling
• OIN has led to initiatives to assist in stemming the issuance of poor quality patents
through cultivating prior art against patent applications
• Other patent cooperative organizations exist as well under similar models
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
78. Patent Aggression
Patent Pooling
• Rumors of pools being assembled against open source projects as well. . .
Source: Linux Today - http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2010050100535NWSWLL
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
79. Conclusion
Where Do Things Stand?
• Legally, open source is all about the licenses
• License interpretation (and compliance) depends on multiple factors
– Applicable license
– Owner/licensor interpretation
– Facts and circumstances
• Open source is very much dependent on copyright and other IP rights
• Ownership is always a central question
• Patent infringement issues continue to be a concern
• Despite this, the overall risks associated with using open source are
increasingly comparable to proprietary software
• Primary issue is one of diligence
• Develop a plan (and stick to it)
• Be prepared to explain (and document) your open source usage
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
80. Thank You.
Jason Haislmaier
jason.haislmaier@hro.com
@haislmaier
Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP