Downloaded 33 times
![#ESCBOS
MIT License
The MIT License (MIT)
Copyright (c) [year] [fullname]
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files
(the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge,
publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do
so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF
CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER
DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/escbostonpresoleachcope-160427150718/85/Legal-and-practical-concerns-with-open-source-software-14-320.jpg)
Uploaded byRogue Wave Software
Legal and practical concerns with open source software
The document presents an educational overview of open source software (OSS), including its benefits, compliance issues, and legal considerations related to copyright and licensing. Key topics discussed are various OSS licenses, particularly copyleft and GPL, along with notable case law such as Jacobsen v. Katzer and Google v. Oracle. The document emphasizes the importance of understanding OSS compliance, developing a licensing policy, and educating developers to navigate legal risks effectively.
More Related Content
Similar to Legal and practical concerns with open source software
More from Rogue Wave Software
Legal and practical concerns with open source software
- 1.
- 2. #ESCBOS Open Source Software(OSS) • Richard A. Leach – Intellectual Property Attorney Brooks Kushman, P.C. • Rod Cope – Chief Technology Officer Rogue Wave Software, Inc.
- 3. #ESCBOS Disclaimer • This presentationshall not be taken as legal advice and is only for educational purpose.
- 4. #ESCBOS Agenda • OSS: Whyshould I care? • Copyright Law overview • Copyleft Introduction • OSS Licenses and terms • Avoiding Liability • OSS Strategy – Where to start • Case Law – Jacobsen v. Katzer – Oracle v. Google – XimpleWare v. Versata et al – Welte v. Fantec GmbH (6/14/13 – Germany)
- 5. #ESCBOS Open Source Software •~$60B/year savings* • > 4 Billion Files • >7,500 repositories • > 2,000 Licenses https://www.blackducksoftware.com/ * http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/creating_wealth_free_software
- 6. #ESCBOS OSS Compliance: ShouldI care? • Diversion of Time, Talent, Resources • Impact to Customers & Reputation • Potential waiver of IP rights • Potential Damages
- 7. #ESCBOS Copyright: What isit? • Protection of Artistic Expressions, not ideas or functionality • Music • Movies • Artwork • Literature • Software
- 8. #ESCBOS Rights of aCopyright Owner • Exclusive rights • Distribute – Sell • Reproduce – Copy • Adapt – Create derivative work • Perform • Display • Transmit • Neither Registration nor notice required to create protection
- 9. #ESCBOS Copyright Introduction License $$$ Copyright Owner User •Owner chooses to enter into a contract with User • Owner grants rights to Sell, Copy, Adapt, . . . • User provides some consideration ($$$) • User agrees to abide by the license terms • Other people not allowed to Sell, Copy, Adapt, . . .
- 10. #ESCBOS Introduction to ‘Copyleft’ License $$$ CopyrightCopyleft License $0.0
- 11. #ESCBOS Concept of Copyleft •“To understand the concept, you should think of ‘free’ as in ‘free speech,’ not as in ‘free beer’.” – RMS (Author of GPL) • To keep open source software “free,” terms and conditions apply requiring licensed users to preserve that “freedom” for downstream users.
- 12. #ESCBOS Copyleft – TheCost of Freedom • Copyleft: a copyright licensing scheme for making a program (or other work) free, and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.en.html
- 13. #ESCBOS Common Open SourceLicenses https://www.blackducksoftware.com/resources/data/top-20-open-source-licenses What’s the difference? > 75% of software uses 5 Licenses
- 14. #ESCBOS MIT License The MITLicense (MIT) Copyright (c) [year] [fullname] Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
- 15. #ESCBOS GPLv3 License selectsections 1. "The ‘Corresponding Source’ for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. . . . ” 6. Conveying Non-Source Forms: You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License 10. Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients: "...and you may not initiate litigation (including a cross- claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringedby making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it." 11. Patents: . . . Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty- free patent license. . . http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt
- 16. #ESCBOS A History ofLicense Options 19911988 2001 2004 2007 2012 BSD & MIT Licenses GPLv2 Apache 2.0 GPLv3 MPL 2.0CPL · Implied License &/or Estoppel · Implied License &/or Estoppel · Patent Disincentive Clause · Express Patent License · Broad Patent Retaliation Clause · Express Patent License · Patent Retaliation Clause · Broad Express Patent License · Anti-Tivoization clause · Patent Non-Assert · Patent Disincentive Clause · Express Patent License · Patent Retaliation Clause
- 17. #ESCBOS Thoughts on DerivativeWorks? Proprietary Software MIT License Static OR Dynamic Linking • Provide Copyright Notice • Provide License Proprietary Software LGPL v2.1 Dynamic Linking LibraryExecutable Proprietary Software LGPL v2.1 Static Linking Executable Proprietary Software GPL v3 Static OR Dynamic Linking • Provide Copyright Notice • Provide License • Provide Open Source code • Provide modifications & change log • Provide Disclaimer of warranty in the OSS • Provide Library Source Code • Provide Copyright Notice • Provide License • Provide Open Source code • Provide modifications & change log • Provide Disclaimer of warranty in the OSS • Provide proprietary Object Code and/or Source Code so that a modified Library can generate an executable • Provide Copyright Notice • Provide License • Provide Open Source code • Provide modifications & change log • Provide Disclaimer of warranty for all GPL code • Provide proprietary Object Code and/or Source Code • Provide License to all IP in the proprietary code that uses or is linked to GPL Related to linking or something else?
- 18.
- 19. #ESCBOS Infringement – Consequences •§ 504 – Damages (Actual or Statutory) • Actual damages to Owner and profits of the Infringer • Statutory (Timely Registration required) $750 - $30,000 per infringement, If willful up to $150,000! • § 505 – Costs and Attorney Fees • Usually linked with Willfullness (Pre-Registration required) • § 502 – Injunction, § 503 – Impounding, and § 506 – Criminal Prosecution
- 20. #ESCBOS Step 1: Havea license policy • You must decide which licenses are acceptable for your company (and potentially your customers). • The policy depends on how you plan to use the software. • GENIVI has the following policy • Red – GPLv3; LGPLv2/3; BSD 4; MPL1.1; Flora • Yellow – GPLv2; LGPL2.1; AFL 3; OSL 3; OpenSSL; Public domain • Green – MPL 2.0; BSD 2/3; MIT/X11; Apache 1.1/2; Artistic 2/1 http://docs.projects.genivi.org/License/Public_Policy_for_GENIVI_Licensing_and_Copyright_v_1.0.pdf NO OK ???
- 21. #ESCBOS Step 2: Educateyour Developers • Which software/licenses are acceptable and not • Which software licenses need to be discussed • How and who to contact with questions – Point Person • Disclosure of software use to Point Person
- 22. #ESCBOS Step 3: Compliance Apple- iPhone Mercedes-Benz
- 23. #ESCBOS Example Supply ChainComponent Manufacturer DevelopmentBoard –Drivers Sub-Assembly – Libraries Product Manufacturer OSS contribution Retailer
- 24.
- 25.
- 26. #ESCBOS Results of anaudit scan tool GPL v3.0 what do we do now ?
- 27. #ESCBOS27 Dependency Issues ImpactLicensing •OSS often depends on or bundles other OSS •Need to look at all the dependencies and bundled projects and their licenses • Important: The licenses may not be the same! •Example: • Geronimo (Apache license) uses MySQL (GPL) through the MySQL driver (formerly LGPL but now GPL)
- 28. #ESCBOS28 Multiple Packages, MultipleLicenses• When a developer downloads and installs those projects they also get additional open source components that are installed automatically (over 90 additional!!) AspectJ (19) - Ant (1.6.3) - Apache Avalon (4.1.2) - ASM (2.0) - ASM (2.2.1) - Batik (unknown) - BCEL (5.1) - Commons BeanUtils (unknown) - Commons Digester (unknown) - Commons Logging (unknown) - DocBook XML (4.1.2) - DocBook XSL Stylesheets (1.44) - FOP (0.20.5) - JDiff (unknown) - JUnit (3.8.1) - Jython (2.1) - Regexp (1.2) - Saxon (unknown) - Xalan (2.4.1) - JDK (1.4.2_12) Spring Framework (61) - ActiveMQ (1.1) - Ant (1.6.5) - ANTLR (2.7.5H3) - AOP Alliance (1.0) - Apache (OJB) (1.0.4) - Apache xml-apis (1.2.01) - c3p0 (0.9.0.4) - cglib (2.1.3) - com.oreilly.servlet (1.0) - Commons Attributes (2.1) - Commons BeanUtils (1.6) - Commons Codec (1.3) - Commons Collections (3.1) - Commons DBCP (1.2.1) - Commons Digester (1.6) - Commons Discovery (0.2) - Commons Fileupload (1.0) - Commons HttpClient (3.0) - Commons Lang (2.1) - Commons Logging (1.0.4) - Commons Pool (1.2) Ant (7 bundled) - Apache xml-apis (1.5) - Xerces (2.6.2) - BCEL (5.1) - BeanShell (1.3.0) - BSF (2.3.0) - JUnit (3.8.1) - JDK (1.4.2_12) MySQL Connector (9) - Ant-Contrib (1.0-b2) - AspectJ (1.2) - c3p0 (0.9.1-pre6) - Commons Logging (1.0.4) - JBoss Application Server (3.2.7) - JDBC (2_0) - JTA (1.0.1) - JUnit (3.8.1) - Log4j (1.2.9) - Commons Validator (1.1.4) - dom4j (1.6) - EasyMock (1.1) - Ehcache (1.1) - Enterprise Java Beans (2.0) - Free Marker (2.3.4) - Hessian (3.0.1) - Hibernate (2.1.7) - Hibernate (3.0.5) - HSQLDB (1.8.0) - iBATIS (2.1.7) - iText (1.3) - J2EE Connector Arch (1.0) - Jakarta JSTL (1.0.3) - Jamon (1.0) - Jasper Reports (1.0.3) - Java Servlet API (2.4) - JavaBeans (JAF) (1.0.1) - JavaMail (1.3) - JavaServer Faces (1.1) - JAX-RPC (1.1) - Jaxen (1.1-beta4) - JDBC (2_0) - JDO (2.0) - JMX (1.0) - JOTM (2.0.9) - JTA (1.0.1B) - JUnit (3.8.1) - jxl (2.6) - Log4j (1.2.13) - ORO (2.0.8) - POI (2.5.1) - Quartz (1.5.2) - Rowset (1.0.1) - Struts (1.2.8) - Tag Libs (1.0.6) - TOPLink (1.0) - Velocity (1.4) - Velocity Tools (1.1) - XDoclet (1.1)
- 29. #ESCBOS Bundling OSS intoother code Project Foo: GPL v2 Project Time: BSD Project Commercial: Restrictive EULA Project Foo: GPL v2 Project Time: BSD What if I take a file that is under one license and I distribute it under a different license–do I have to comply with the original license?
- 30. #ESCBOS Use of OSS underGPL Revisions made to FOSS Linked to or bundled with proprietary code Use by wholly owned sub Sub is sold to a 3rd party Internal Use Use by an outsourcer or contractor Software shared with “partner” during further development Software distributed to end users Using OSS Distributing OSS Changes in how FOSS is used can impact license compliance Example: How OSS is used may change...
- 31. #ESCBOS Jacobsen v. Katzer:Opens the door • Model train software under Artistic License • Distribution without notice (non-compliance) • Question: contract or copyright • Contract – State Court and no consideration (OSS is free) • Copyright – Federal Court, • OSS license obligations are conditions precedent to the license. • Failure to comply with obligations extinguishes license. • Case settled.
- 32. #ESCBOS Google v. Oracle:Make or Buy?
- 33. #ESCBOS Google v. Oracle:Make or Buy? Which should I choose ?
- 34. #ESCBOS Google v. Oracle:9 lines is enough “the jury reasonably found that Google’s copying of the rangeCheck files was more than de minimis;” - CAFC
- 35. #ESCBOS APIs/taxonomy are copyrightable •“the declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organization of the API packages are entitled to copyright protection” – CAFC (Google v. Oracle)
- 36. #ESCBOS Versata, Ameriprise, Ximpleware •“the GPL is a ‘viral’ license in the sense the incorporation of a GPL-covered software program into a new program ‘infects’ the new program and requires it to become open source , too” – District Court W.D. Texas • Take away: Compliance is important even for customers (Ameriprise)
- 37. #ESCBOS Welte v. Fantec– Germany • GPLv2.0 software used in a media player • Fantec : Fantec’s supplier assured them compliance with GPL terms. • Result: Welte was awarded Attorney’s fees and damages. • German Court stated: • “Here, Defendant was not allowed to rely merely on its suppliers’ assurances that the works supplied did not infringe any third-party rights. • In any case, Defendant should have performed its own review of the software, or have someone preform, by hiring knowledgable third parties, such a review of the software offered and provided by Defendant – even if this would have resulted in additional costs.”
- 38. #ESCBOS Roadmap to Compliance •1st appreciate Open Source Software’s benefits • 2nd develop an Open Source Software Strategy • 3rd know your code: Education, Point Person • 4th know the licenses associated with your code • 5th comply or use different software
- 39. #ESCBOS Thank you • RichardA. Leach – Intellectual Property Counsel Brooks Kushman, P.C. • Rod Cope – Chief Technology Officer Rogue Wave Software, Inc.