This document discusses several main issues regarding open source software licenses: 1. It outlines common elements of open source licenses including allowing users to perform acts like installation, use, and modification of source code. 2. It describes different types of open source licenses like the GPL, MIT, and BSD licenses and how the GPL includes a "copyleft" or viral clause requiring derivatives to also be open source. 3. It discusses legal issues that can arise with open source licenses like license compatibility, patents, and third party rights. Proper contributor agreements can help address ownership and copyright issues.

1. ( )Main IP issues
concerning OSS
Dr Andrés Guadamuz

2. ( )Apologies
Löki http://www.flickr.com/photos/tyltu/4041895378/

3. ( )Another story

4. ( )Another story

5. ( )Another story

6. ( )Another story

7. ( )Legal conservation
areas
By howardignatius http://www.flickr.com/photos/howardignatius/3492077372/

8. ( )Self-organization
!

9. ( )Creative Commons
Attribution: Every CC licenses allows the world to
copy and distribute a work provided that the
licensee credits the creator/licensor.
The author may include these other elements:
NonCommercial: licensees can use the work for
non-commercial purposes.
No Derivatives: the work cannot be modified.
ShareAlike: the work can be copied, modified and
distributed if the author releases the derivative
under the same license.

10. ( )

11. ( )

12. ( )
Human-Readable
Commons Deed
Lawyer-Readable
Legal Code
Machine-Readable
Digital Code
<a rel="license" href="http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/
3.0/"><img alt="Creative Commons
License" style="border-width:0"
src="http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-
sa/3.0/88x31.png" /></a><br />This
work is licensed under a <a
rel="license" href="http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/
3.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-
ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License</a>.

13. ( )Licenses
BY Attribution
BY-NC Attribution - Non Commercial
BY-SA Attribution - Share Alike
BY-ND Attribution - No Derivatives
BY-NC-SA Attribution - Non Commercial - Share Alike
BY-NC-ND Attribution - Non Commercial - No Derivatives

14. )( FLOSS License
ecology

15. ( )Spectrum of rights

16. ( )Legal issues
⊛ Licenses, licenses, licenses
⊛ Patents
⊛ Contract formation
⊛ Third party rights
⊛ Enforcement

17. ( )Common elements
⊛ Licenses allow users to perform acts that
they would otherwise would not be allowed
to.
⊛ Some rights reserved.
⊛ Grant of license allows installation, use,
reuse, publishing, decompilation,
interoperability, etc.
⊛ Access to the source code is a must.

18. ( )Licenses
⊛ Open Source Initiative (OSI) lists 69
approved licenses.
⊛ In 2007 I conducted an informal survey
finding 245 licenses.
⊛ Black Duck database lists now over 1000
licenses.

19. ( )OSI categories
⊛ License that are popular and widely used or
with strong communities
⊛ Special purpose licenses
⊛ Other/Miscellaneous licenses
⊛ Licenses that are redundant with more
popular licenses
⊛ Non-reusable licenses
⊛ Superseded licenses
⊛ Licenses that have been voluntarily retired
⊛ Uncategorized Licenses

20. ( )Rosen’s
classification
⊛ Academic licenses: Academic licenses
place no requirements whatsoever on the
license user.
⊛ Reciprocal licenses: Require some form of
reciprocity, usually that any derivatives of
the software be released under the same
license.
⊛ Standard licenses: They seek to create a
base standard of software and
documentation.
⊛ Content licenses: Protect non-software
elements, such as pictures and music.

21. ( )Academic (BSD)
⊛ Redistribution and use in source and binary
forms, with or without modification, are
permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:
⊛ Redistributions of source code must retain the above
copyright notice, this list of conditions and the
following disclaimer.
⊛ Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the
above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the
following disclaimer in the documentation and/or
other materials provided with the distribution.
⊛ Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the
names of its contributors may be used to endorse or
promote products derived from this software without
specific prior written permission.

22. ( )Copyleft
⊛ Actually, it is not the opposite of copyright,
in fact, it uses copyright for protection.
⊛ Copyleft is a licensing method by which the
work is protected by copyright, but it will
have a specific clause that allows a work to
remain “open” through a share-alike or viral
clause.
⊛ Openness in this context means that the
original work and whatever derivatives must
remain available to the public in one way or
another.

23. ( )General Public
License (GPL)
⊛ Allows licensees to use and distribute the
software.
⊛ Contains “viral” element, all works that are
derived from the license must be distributed
with the GPL.
⊛ The “Lesser General Public License”
contains the same terms as the GPL, but
gives additional permissions to those who
wish to re-distribute code.

24. ( )Copyleft clause
GPL v2
⊛ “2(b) You must cause any work that you
distribute or publish, that in whole or in part
contains or is derived from the Program or
any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole
at no charge to all third parties under the
terms of this License.”

25. ( )GPL v3
⊛ It is longer, and more complex than its
predecessor.
⊛ Take-up by developers has been slow.
⊛ Boosted viral clause (it now may apply to
other software included with the GPL
software).
⊛ Restricts the use of Technical Protection
Measures.
⊛ Includes a patent licence.

26. ( )Top 10 licenses
(2013)
Rank License %
1 GNU
General
Public
License
(GPL)
2.0 32.65%
2 Apache
License
2.0 12.84%
3 GNU
General
Public
License
(GPL)
3.0 11.62%
4 MIT
License 11.28%
5 BSD
License
2.0 6.83%
6 ArFsFc
License
(Perl) 6.27%
7 GNU
Lesser
General
Public
License
(LGPL)
2.1 6.19%
8 GNU
Lesser
General
Public
License
(LGPL)
3.0 2.62%
9 Eclipse
Public
License
(EPL) 1.61%
10 Code
Project
Open
1.02
License 1.33%

27. ( )New copyleft
clause
⊛ “5.c) You must license the entire work, as a
whole, under this License to anyone who
comes into possession of a copy. This
License will therefore apply, along with any
applicable section 7 additional terms, to the
whole of the work, and all its parts,
regardless of how they are packaged. This
License gives no permission to license the
work in any other way, but it does not
invalidate such permission if you have
separately received it.”

28. ( )Enforcement
⊛ German court cases (GPL validity):
⊛ Sitecom (Munich)
⊛ Fortinet (Munich)
⊛ D-Link (Frankfurt)
⊛ SCO v IBM (copyright infringement)
⊛ Jacobsen v Katzer (contract formation)
⊛ Wallace v IBM (competition law)

29. ( )Creative Commons
Cases
⊛ Curry v. Audax (Netherlands)
⊛ Pontevedra ruling (Spain)
⊛ Case 09-1684-A (Belgium)
⊛ Avi Re'uveni v. Mapa inc. (Israel)
⊛ Gerlach v die-rechte.info (Germany)

30. ( )GPL v3 patent
license grant
⊛ “Each contributor grants you a non-
exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent
license under the contributor's essential
patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for
sale, import and otherwise run, modify and
propagate the contents of its contributor
version.”

31. ( )Interoperability
Alexandre Dulaunoy http://www.flickr.com/photos/adulau/3011878917/

32. ( )Distribution chain
Author /
Owner
Licensee /
Derivative
Licensee /
User
Licensee /
Distributor
Derivative User User Distributor
DerivativeUser

33. ( )Actual chains
Author

34. ( )Incompatibility
issues
⊛ GPL may not be compatible with your
licensing strategy.
⊛ Case Scenario 1: Using GPL’d software
internally and to produce commercial
applets does not require GPL redistribution.
⊛ Case Scenario 2: Using GPL’d code,
changing it as part of a proprietary package
requires that the software should be
released under GPL.

35. ( )Alpha!
Gamma!
Beta!
GPL
Third party
rights
⊛ Alpha creates work, licenses with
OA licence to Beta. Beta licenses
work to Gamma, which modifies it
and sells it commercially.
⊛ Can Alpha sue Gamma?
⊛ Does Alpha have third party rights?

36. ( )Alpha!
Gamma!
Beta!
Infringeme
Copyright
infringement
⊛ Same case as before
⊛ Can Alpha sue Gamma for copyright
infringement?
⊛ Seemingly yes if copying is
substantial.
⊛ Tests for originality apply.
⊛ Some OS projects ask creators to
assign copyright.

37. ( )Contributor
agreements
⊛ Standardized contributory agreements allow
developers who contribute to a FOSS
project to submit their contributions and
either assign copyright, or grant an
exclusive license.
⊛ Contributor agreements provide confidence
that the guardian of a project’s output has
the necessary rights over all contributions to
allow for distribution of the product.

38. ( )Signature
formalities
⊛ Does copyright law allow assignment
(transfer) of rights?
⊛ Does copyright law allow exclusive
licenses?
⊛ If yes to both questions, are there any
formal requirements? (writing, signature)
⊛ If yes, can those requirements be met by
electronic means?

39. ( )Concluding...

40. ( )Thank you
andres@metaverseconsulting.com
@technollama on Twitter
CC Attribution-ShareAlike