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
2011 presentation on open source software provided through the University of Colorado Silicon Flatirons Center for Law and Technology "Crash Course" series.
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.
OCTOBER 16, 2013
John Willinsky from the Graduate School of Education and founder of the Public Knowledge Project "...a multi-university initiative developing (free) open source software and conducting research to improve the quality and reach of scholarly publishing" and Irina Zaks from the Stanford Law School and Open Source Lab.
Their perspectives will set the stage for an open discussion about various facets of open access, including impacts and opportunities for the libraries. Please join us!
2011 presentation on open source software provided through the University of Colorado Silicon Flatirons Center for Law and Technology "Crash Course" series.
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.
OCTOBER 16, 2013
John Willinsky from the Graduate School of Education and founder of the Public Knowledge Project "...a multi-university initiative developing (free) open source software and conducting research to improve the quality and reach of scholarly publishing" and Irina Zaks from the Stanford Law School and Open Source Lab.
Their perspectives will set the stage for an open discussion about various facets of open access, including impacts and opportunities for the libraries. Please join us!
OSSF 2018 - Jilayne Lovejoy - Training: Intro to Open SourceFINOS
This training session will cover some of the topics from the OpenChain curriculum, including:
introduction to intellectual property law as related to open source
introduction to open source licenses
overview of using open source software in products and open source license compliance
considerations for open source contributions and projects
The goal of this session is to provide basic foundation knowledge of open source software upon which to start building policy, process and practices within your organization.
Presented by Dr. Sanjaya Mishra , Education Specialist, eLearning, COL and Principal Investigator, ROER4D Project at the Workshop on OER for Development supported by IDRC, Canada
The file is based on the game Business baazigar in which you have to launch an Broadband service in India. So that was a small attempt i think it can be better. Your suggestions are welcome.
Understanding Millennials and Neo-Millennials: Making the Most of Course Mate...ED MAP
“Making the Most of Course Materials” will examine the notion and sources of content, and how transparency, economics, relevancy, collaboration, and technology impact content strategies. We will also discuss advantages and challenges to integrating multiple content channels, best practices and factors to consider in adopting new content strategies.
Kysyntäjousto ja kodin energianhallinta Vaasa EnergyWeek 2016 There CorporationAndy Lundström
Esitys/pitch There Corporationin tarjoamasta energiahallintaratkaisuista joka tuo lisää mukavuutta asumiseen ja säästöä energiakuluihin sekä kysyntäjoustoratkaisusta joka mahdollistaa uuden energiamarkkinan, jossa asiakas on aktiivinen osa energiajärjestelmää.
OSSF 2018 - Jilayne Lovejoy - Training: Intro to Open SourceFINOS
This training session will cover some of the topics from the OpenChain curriculum, including:
introduction to intellectual property law as related to open source
introduction to open source licenses
overview of using open source software in products and open source license compliance
considerations for open source contributions and projects
The goal of this session is to provide basic foundation knowledge of open source software upon which to start building policy, process and practices within your organization.
Presented by Dr. Sanjaya Mishra , Education Specialist, eLearning, COL and Principal Investigator, ROER4D Project at the Workshop on OER for Development supported by IDRC, Canada
The file is based on the game Business baazigar in which you have to launch an Broadband service in India. So that was a small attempt i think it can be better. Your suggestions are welcome.
Understanding Millennials and Neo-Millennials: Making the Most of Course Mate...ED MAP
“Making the Most of Course Materials” will examine the notion and sources of content, and how transparency, economics, relevancy, collaboration, and technology impact content strategies. We will also discuss advantages and challenges to integrating multiple content channels, best practices and factors to consider in adopting new content strategies.
Kysyntäjousto ja kodin energianhallinta Vaasa EnergyWeek 2016 There CorporationAndy Lundström
Esitys/pitch There Corporationin tarjoamasta energiahallintaratkaisuista joka tuo lisää mukavuutta asumiseen ja säästöä energiakuluihin sekä kysyntäjoustoratkaisusta joka mahdollistaa uuden energiamarkkinan, jossa asiakas on aktiivinen osa energiajärjestelmää.
An Address Delivered at the Spirit of Life Unitarian Fellowship, Kirribilli, New South Wales, on Sunday, 23 September 2012. Copyright Ian Ellis-Jones 2012. All Rights Reserved.
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
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.
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.
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
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/
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)
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)
A tale of scale & speed: How the US Navy is enabling software delivery from l...sonjaschweigert1
Rapid and secure feature delivery is a goal across every application team and every branch of the DoD. The Navy’s DevSecOps platform, Party Barge, has achieved:
- Reduction in onboarding time from 5 weeks to 1 day
- Improved developer experience and productivity through actionable findings and reduction of false positives
- Maintenance of superior security standards and inherent policy enforcement with Authorization to Operate (ATO)
Development teams can ship efficiently and ensure applications are cyber ready for Navy Authorizing Officials (AOs). In this webinar, Sigma Defense and Anchore will give attendees a look behind the scenes and demo secure pipeline automation and security artifacts that speed up application ATO and time to production.
We will cover:
- How to remove silos in DevSecOps
- How to build efficient development pipeline roles and component templates
- How to deliver security artifacts that matter for ATO’s (SBOMs, vulnerability reports, and policy evidence)
- How to streamline operations with automated policy checks on container images
UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series, part 3DianaGray10
Welcome to UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series part 3. In this session, we will cover desktop automation along with UI automation.
Topics covered:
UI automation Introduction,
UI automation Sample
Desktop automation flow
Pradeep Chinnala, Senior Consultant Automation Developer @WonderBotz and UiPath MVP
Deepak Rai, Automation Practice Lead, Boundaryless Group and UiPath MVP
Key Trends Shaping the Future of Infrastructure.pdfCheryl Hung
Keynote at DIGIT West Expo, Glasgow on 29 May 2024.
Cheryl Hung, ochery.com
Sr Director, Infrastructure Ecosystem, Arm.
The key trends across hardware, cloud and open-source; exploring how these areas are likely to mature and develop over the short and long-term, and then considering how organisations can position themselves to adapt and thrive.
Transcript: Selling digital books in 2024: Insights from industry leaders - T...BookNet Canada
The publishing industry has been selling digital audiobooks and ebooks for over a decade and has found its groove. What’s changed? What has stayed the same? Where do we go from here? Join a group of leading sales peers from across the industry for a conversation about the lessons learned since the popularization of digital books, best practices, digital book supply chain management, and more.
Link to video recording: https://bnctechforum.ca/sessions/selling-digital-books-in-2024-insights-from-industry-leaders/
Presented by BookNet Canada on May 28, 2024, with support from the Department of Canadian Heritage.
Elevating Tactical DDD Patterns Through Object CalisthenicsDorra BARTAGUIZ
After immersing yourself in the blue book and its red counterpart, attending DDD-focused conferences, and applying tactical patterns, you're left with a crucial question: How do I ensure my design is effective? Tactical patterns within Domain-Driven Design (DDD) serve as guiding principles for creating clear and manageable domain models. However, achieving success with these patterns requires additional guidance. Interestingly, we've observed that a set of constraints initially designed for training purposes remarkably aligns with effective pattern implementation, offering a more ‘mechanical’ approach. Let's explore together how Object Calisthenics can elevate the design of your tactical DDD patterns, offering concrete help for those venturing into DDD for the first time!
Observability Concepts EVERY Developer Should Know -- DeveloperWeek Europe.pdfPaige Cruz
Monitoring and observability aren’t traditionally found in software curriculums and many of us cobble this knowledge together from whatever vendor or ecosystem we were first introduced to and whatever is a part of your current company’s observability stack.
While the dev and ops silo continues to crumble….many organizations still relegate monitoring & observability as the purview of ops, infra and SRE teams. This is a mistake - achieving a highly observable system requires collaboration up and down the stack.
I, a former op, would like to extend an invitation to all application developers to join the observability party will share these foundational concepts to build on:
Encryption in Microsoft 365 - ExpertsLive Netherlands 2024Albert Hoitingh
In this session I delve into the encryption technology used in Microsoft 365 and Microsoft Purview. Including the concepts of Customer Key and Double Key Encryption.
Le nuove frontiere dell'AI nell'RPA con UiPath Autopilot™UiPathCommunity
In questo evento online gratuito, organizzato dalla Community Italiana di UiPath, potrai esplorare le nuove funzionalità di Autopilot, il tool che integra l'Intelligenza Artificiale nei processi di sviluppo e utilizzo delle Automazioni.
📕 Vedremo insieme alcuni esempi dell'utilizzo di Autopilot in diversi tool della Suite UiPath:
Autopilot per Studio Web
Autopilot per Studio
Autopilot per Apps
Clipboard AI
GenAI applicata alla Document Understanding
👨🏫👨💻 Speakers:
Stefano Negro, UiPath MVPx3, RPA Tech Lead @ BSP Consultant
Flavio Martinelli, UiPath MVP 2023, Technical Account Manager @UiPath
Andrei Tasca, RPA Solutions Team Lead @NTT Data
UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series, part 4DianaGray10
Welcome to UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series part 4. In this session, we will cover Test Manager overview along with SAP heatmap.
The UiPath Test Manager overview with SAP heatmap webinar offers a concise yet comprehensive exploration of the role of a Test Manager within SAP environments, coupled with the utilization of heatmaps for effective testing strategies.
Participants will gain insights into the responsibilities, challenges, and best practices associated with test management in SAP projects. Additionally, the webinar delves into the significance of heatmaps as a visual aid for identifying testing priorities, areas of risk, and resource allocation within SAP landscapes. Through this session, attendees can expect to enhance their understanding of test management principles while learning practical approaches to optimize testing processes in SAP environments using heatmap visualization techniques
What will you get from this session?
1. Insights into SAP testing best practices
2. Heatmap utilization for testing
3. Optimization of testing processes
4. Demo
Topics covered:
Execution from the test manager
Orchestrator execution result
Defect reporting
SAP heatmap example with demo
Speaker:
Deepak Rai, Automation Practice Lead, Boundaryless Group and UiPath MVP
UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series, part 4
"Crash Course" on Open Source Silicon Flatirons Center (2012)
1. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
“Crash Course” on Open Source
Jason D. Haislmaier
jason.haislmaier@hro.com
@haislmaier
2. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
Open Source Software
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.
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.
Disclaimer and Rights
4. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
“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)
9. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
• 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
Evolution of Open Source
The “Free” Software Ideology
10. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
“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.”
Evolution of Open Source
Richard Stallman
Founder, Free Software Foundation
11. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
Evolution of Open Source
Richard Stallman
Founder, Free Software Foundation
“You should think of ‘free’ as in ‘free speech,’
not ‘free’ as in ‘free beer’.”
12. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
• 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
Evolution of Open Source
The Free Software Definition
13. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
“Open Source” Software
Evolution of Open Source
14. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
• 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
Evolution of Open Source
The Rise of Open Source Software
15. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
• 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
The Rise of Open Source
Evolution of Open Source
16. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
“FOSS”
Free and Open Source Software
Evolution of Open Source
17. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
• 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”
The Open Source Definition
Open Source Licenses
18. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
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
Open Source Licenses
19. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
CopyleftAcademic
Very
Permissive
• Berkley Software
Distribution License
(BSD)
• MIT License
• W3C
Less
Permissive
• Apache Software
License
• Eclipse Public License
• Artistic License
Less
Restrictive
• Mozilla Public License
(MPL)
• Common
Development and
Distribution License
(CDDL)
• Common Public
License (CPL)
• IBM Public License
More
Restrictive
• GNU GPL v2
• GNU GPL v3
• GNU LGPL v2.1
• GNU LGPL v3
• Affero GPL v2
• Affero GPL v3
Single Definition – Many Licenses
Open Source Licenses
20. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
“Copyleft”
All Rights Reversed
Copyright
All Rights Reserved
Open Source Licenses
21. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
Open source software is
licensed software
Open source licenses
make the software “open source”
Open Source Licenses
22. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
Understand the similarities
Understand the differences
Understand why they matter
Open Source Licenses
23. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
• License flows with code
– Unilateral set of permissions
– No negotiation
– No affirmative assent needed
• Use “Permissions” (with boundaries)
– Source and object code forms
– Copy, modify, and distribute
– May allow other end users to do
the same
• Limited or No Licensor Obligations
– No warranties
– No updates/upgrades
– No support obligations
– No infringement indemnification
• Legally enforceable (and enforced)
Open Source
• “Arms-length” agreement
– “Meeting of the minds”
– Often negotiated
– Affirmative assent (sign, click, etc.)
• Use “Restrictions”
– Object code only
– Limited copying and use
– No reverse engineering
– No distribution
• Robust Licensor Obligations
– Warranties
– Updates/upgrades
– Support and maintenance
– Infringement indemnification
• Legally enforceable (and enforced)
Proprietary
Open Source Licenses
24. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
• Permissive
• Minimal requirements
• Notice
– Copyright ownership
– License applicability
• Attribution
– Authors of original code
– Contributions to the original code
• Application only to the original code
– Derivatives and modifications not covered
– Non-“viral”
• License flows with the code, but. . .
– High level of compatibility with other
licenses
– Relicensing permitted under other licenses
Academic
• Restrictive
• Extensive requirements
• Notice and attribution
• Availability of source code
• Application beyond the original code
– Covers derivative works (and perhaps
other modifications)
– “Viral”
• License must flow with the code
– Potential license incompatibilities
– Limited or no release under other licenses
• Often include patent licenses
– Express or implied
– Covering licensed code and contributions
• Other requirements. . .
Copyleft
Open Source Licenses
25. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
Is Copyleft anti-Copyright?
Copyleft and Copyright
26. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
• 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. . .
Open Source Licenses Depend on Copyright
Copyleft and Copyright
27. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
Just how differently?
Copyleft and Copyright
28. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
“We’re ‘ok.’ We don’t distribute software. ”
Cloud
30. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
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?
Open Source in the Cloud
31. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
Example: GPLv2
• GPLv2 is triggered by distribution
• Merely running the program is not covered by the license
Open Source in the Cloud
32. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
Example: GPLv3
• GPLv3 is triggered by a “conveyance”
• Specifically does not include use over a network
Open Source in the Cloud
33. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
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
Open Source in the Cloud
34. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
“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
Open Source in the Cloud
35. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
What constitutes a “distribution”
of software under the GPL?
36. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
What is the consequence of a
“distribution” of software under the GPL?
37. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
• 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
Example: GPLv2
License Interpretation
38. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
• 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”
Example: GPLv2
License Interpretation
39. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
Who decides how to interpret
open source licenses?
License Interpretation
40. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
• 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
Example: GPLv2
License Interpretation
41. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
• 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
Example: GPLv2
License Interpretation
42. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
• 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
Example: GPLv2
License Interpretation
43. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
What happens when a difference in
interpretation occurs?
45. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
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
Attacks on Android
46. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
• 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
Attacks on Android
47. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
• 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?
Allegations Against Bionic
Attacks on Android
48. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
• 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.
Status of Header Files Under Copyright Law
Attacks on Android
49. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
• 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
• 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
Status of Header Files Under the GPL
Attacks on Android
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
50. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
• The version of GPLv2 used by the Linux kernel includes an additional exception:
• 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?
Attacks on Android
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
Status of Header Files Under the GPL
51. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
• 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
Risk to Android?
Attacks on Android
52. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
• Even if Bionic is subject to GPLv2, are applications running on Android also
subject to GPLv2?
• Solid legal arguments exist that this is not the case
Risk to Android Applications?
Attacks on Android
If the Bionic header files remain subject to GPLv2, there is a
considerable risk that applications using them become subject to GPLv2
as well.
Source: http://www.brownrudnick.com/nr/pdf/alerts/Brown%20Rudnick%20Advisory%20The%20
Bionic%20Library-Did%20Google%20Work%20Around%20The%20GPL.pdf
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.
53. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
• Strong legal argument that merely linking one independent program to another
does not create a derivative work
• 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
Risk to Android Applications?
Attacks on Android
Source: "The Unreasonable Fear of Infection", Lawrence Rosen
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.
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
54. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
• 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
Attacks on Android
Risk to Android Applications?
55. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
• Linus Torvalds has stated in the past that applications and other programs
running on Linux do not become subject to the GPL
• His comments regarding these allegations reiterate this point
• 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
What Does The Community Have to Say?
Attacks on Android
“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 LKML, http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/3/228
“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 Network World - http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/72428
56. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
Patents
Patent “Aggression”
Nothing New to Open Source
57. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
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
Patent Aggression
58. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
• 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
v.
The Firestar Case
Firestar Software, Inc v. Red Hat, Inc et al
(Case No.: 2:06cv258)
Patent Aggression
59. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
• 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?
The Firestar Settlement
Patent Aggression
60. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
• 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
The Firestar Follow-On
Patent Aggression
61. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
• 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
Microsoft v. TomTom
Patent Aggression
62. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
• March 2009, TomTom countersues Microsoft
• Alleging infringement of four TomTom patents related to TomTom’s
Streets and Trips program
Patent Aggression
Microsoft v. TomTom
63. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
• As part of its defense strategy, TomTom also joins the
Open Innovation Network (OIN)
Patent Aggression
Microsoft v. TomTom
64. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
• 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)
Patent Aggression
Microsoft v. TomTom
65. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
• 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
Patent Aggression
Microsoft v. TomTom
66. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
• 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
Patent Aggression
Microsoft Patent Licensing
67. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
Microsoft Patent Licensing
Patent Aggression
Source: Microsoft Corporation
• 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
70. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
How are companies
defending against this threat?
Patent Aggression
71. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
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
72. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
Patent Aggression
Patent Purchases
• U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) intervened
• 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
“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.”
“Although the department will allow the transaction to proceed, it will
continue investigating the distribution of the Novell patents to the
CPTN owners.”
73. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
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
74. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
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
75. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
• 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
Patent Aggression
Patent Pooling
76. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
• 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
Patent Aggression
Patent Pooling
77. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
• 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
Patent Aggression
Patent Pooling
78. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
Patent Aggression
Source: Linux Today - http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2010050100535NWSWLL
Patent Pooling
• Rumors of pools being assembled against open source projects as well. . .
79. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
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
80. Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
Thank You.
Jason Haislmaier
jason.haislmaier@hro.com
@haislmaier
Editor's Notes
Having a strategy at all can be an important objective Assume that use is happening and set a goal of knowledge and compliance