Open Source History And Licenses (15 04 2009)

1,393 views

Published on

My slides for af 2,5 hours seminar in Malmoe 15 April 2009 for a Purple Scout client

Published in: Technology, News & Politics
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,393
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
9
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
107
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide











  • Ad pind 1) Hvad kræver persondataloven?

    Ad pind 2) Og hvad hvis det er en medarbejder, som har oprettet profilen for virksomheden?
  • Ad pind 1) Hvad kræver persondataloven?

    Ad pind 2) Og hvad hvis det er en medarbejder, som har oprettet profilen for virksomheden?
  • Ad pind 1) Hvad kræver persondataloven?

    Ad pind 2) Og hvad hvis det er en medarbejder, som har oprettet profilen for virksomheden?
  • Ad pind 1) Hvad kræver persondataloven?

    Ad pind 2) Og hvad hvis det er en medarbejder, som har oprettet profilen for virksomheden?
  • Ad pind 1) Hvad kræver persondataloven?

    Ad pind 2) Og hvad hvis det er en medarbejder, som har oprettet profilen for virksomheden?
  • Ad pind 1) Hvad kræver persondataloven?

    Ad pind 2) Og hvad hvis det er en medarbejder, som har oprettet profilen for virksomheden?
  • Ad pind 1) Hvad kræver persondataloven?

    Ad pind 2) Og hvad hvis det er en medarbejder, som har oprettet profilen for virksomheden?
  • Ad pind 1) Hvad kræver persondataloven?

    Ad pind 2) Og hvad hvis det er en medarbejder, som har oprettet profilen for virksomheden?



















































































  • If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.

    By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.

    SYSTEM LIBRARIES
    However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
  • If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.

    By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.

    SYSTEM LIBRARIES
    However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
  • If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.

    By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.

    SYSTEM LIBRARIES
    However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
  • If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.

    By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.

    SYSTEM LIBRARIES
    However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
  • If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.

    By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.

    SYSTEM LIBRARIES
    However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
  • If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.

    By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.

    SYSTEM LIBRARIES
    However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
  • If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.

    By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.

    SYSTEM LIBRARIES
    However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
  • If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.

    By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.

    SYSTEM LIBRARIES
    However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
  • If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.

    By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.

    SYSTEM LIBRARIES
    However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
  • If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.

    By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.

    SYSTEM LIBRARIES
    However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
  • If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.

    By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.

    SYSTEM LIBRARIES
    However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.










































































































  • Open Source History And Licenses (15 04 2009)

    1. 1. Open Source History and Licenses Advokat Martin von Haller Groenbaek Partner, Bender von Haller Dragsted SonyEricsson / Purple Scout, Malmö 2
    2. 2. Personalia 2
    3. 3. Personalia • Attorney-at-law, Bender von Haller Dragsted 2
    4. 4. Personalia • Attorney-at-law, Bender von Haller Dragsted • Co-founder, Open Source Vendors Ass. (OSL) 2
    5. 5. Personalia • Attorney-at-law, Bender von Haller Dragsted • Co-founder, Open Source Vendors Ass. (OSL) • Co-founder, Creative Commons DK 2
    6. 6. Personalia • Attorney-at-law, Bender von Haller Dragsted • Co-founder, Open Source Vendors Ass. (OSL) • Co-founder, Creative Commons DK • Co-founder, Danish Internet Society Chapter 2
    7. 7. Personalia • Attorney-at-law, Bender von Haller Dragsted • Co-founder, Open Source Vendors Ass. (OSL) • Co-founder, Creative Commons DK • Co-founder, Danish Internet Society Chapter 2
    8. 8. Personalia • Attorney-at-law, Bender von Haller Dragsted • Co-founder, Open Source Vendors Ass. (OSL) • Co-founder, Creative Commons DK • Co-founder, Danish Internet Society Chapter • http://suse.groenbaek.net/openlife 2
    9. 9. Personalia • Attorney-at-law, Bender von Haller Dragsted • Co-founder, Open Source Vendors Ass. (OSL) • Co-founder, Creative Commons DK • Co-founder, Danish Internet Society Chapter • http://suse.groenbaek.net/openlife • http://www.linkedin.com/in/vonhaller 2
    10. 10. Personalia • Attorney-at-law, Bender von Haller Dragsted • Co-founder, Open Source Vendors Ass. (OSL) • Co-founder, Creative Commons DK • Co-founder, Danish Internet Society Chapter • http://suse.groenbaek.net/openlife • http://www.linkedin.com/in/vonhaller • http://www.23hq.com/mhg 2
    11. 11. Personalia • Attorney-at-law, Bender von Haller Dragsted • Co-founder, Open Source Vendors Ass. (OSL) • Co-founder, Creative Commons DK • Co-founder, Danish Internet Society Chapter • http://suse.groenbaek.net/openlife • http://www.linkedin.com/in/vonhaller • http://www.23hq.com/mhg • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=672056156 2
    12. 12. Personalia • Attorney-at-law, Bender von Haller Dragsted • Co-founder, Open Source Vendors Ass. (OSL) • Co-founder, Creative Commons DK • Co-founder, Danish Internet Society Chapter • http://suse.groenbaek.net/openlife • http://www.linkedin.com/in/vonhaller • http://www.23hq.com/mhg • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=672056156 2
    13. 13. Agenda 3
    14. 14. Agenda 3
    15. 15. Agenda • The History of FLOSS 3
    16. 16. Agenda • The History of FLOSS • Copyright and OSS 3
    17. 17. Agenda • The History of FLOSS • Copyright and OSS • Patents and OSS 3
    18. 18. Agenda • The History of FLOSS • Copyright and OSS • Patents and OSS • OSS Licenses 3
    19. 19. Agenda • The History of FLOSS • Copyright and OSS • Patents and OSS • OSS Licenses • Copyleft 3
    20. 20. Agenda • The History of FLOSS • Copyright and OSS • Patents and OSS • OSS Licenses • Copyleft • Business models 3
    21. 21. Agenda • The History of FLOSS • Copyright and OSS • Patents and OSS • OSS Licenses • Copyleft • Business models • Cases 3
    22. 22. http://vodpod.com/watch/ 46377-revolution-os-1hr-25- mins 4
    23. 23. Free Software 5
    24. 24. Free Software • Hacker culture 5
    25. 25. Free Software • Hacker culture • Richard Stallman 5
    26. 26. Free Software • Hacker culture • Richard Stallman • Free Software Foundation 5
    27. 27. Free Software • Hacker culture • Richard Stallman • Free Software Foundation • Software should be free 5
    28. 28. Free Software • Hacker culture • Richard Stallman • Free Software Foundation • Software should be free • GNU “GNU is not Unix” 5
    29. 29. Free Software • Hacker culture • Richard Stallman • Free Software Foundation • Software should be free • GNU “GNU is not Unix” • BSD and ATT 5
    30. 30. Linux and Open source 6
    31. 31. Linux and Open source • Linus Torvalds 6
    32. 32. Linux and Open source • Linus Torvalds – Linux released under the GPL v2 6
    33. 33. Linux and Open source • Linus Torvalds – Linux released under the GPL v2 • Eric Raymonds 6
    34. 34. Linux and Open source • Linus Torvalds – Linux released under the GPL v2 • Eric Raymonds – Cathedral and the Bazaar 6
    35. 35. Linux and Open source • Linus Torvalds – Linux released under the GPL v2 • Eric Raymonds – Cathedral and the Bazaar • Bruce Perens 6
    36. 36. Linux and Open source • Linus Torvalds – Linux released under the GPL v2 • Eric Raymonds – Cathedral and the Bazaar • Bruce Perens – Open Source Initiative 6
    37. 37. OSS and Microsoft 7
    38. 38. OSS and Microsoft • 2002 7
    39. 39. OSS and Microsoft • 2002 – Steve Balmer: “Copyright cancer”, “communism” 7
    40. 40. OSS and Microsoft • 2002 – Steve Balmer: “Copyright cancer”, “communism” • 2004 7
    41. 41. OSS and Microsoft • 2002 – Steve Balmer: “Copyright cancer”, “communism” • 2004 – SCO, Patent threaths, “Beware of infectious GPL” 7
    42. 42. OSS and Microsoft • 2002 – Steve Balmer: “Copyright cancer”, “communism” • 2004 – SCO, Patent threaths, “Beware of infectious GPL” • 2008 7
    43. 43. OSS and Microsoft • 2002 – Steve Balmer: “Copyright cancer”, “communism” • 2004 – SCO, Patent threaths, “Beware of infectious GPL” • 2008 – Peaceful co-existence, Novell dea 7
    44. 44. OSS Business 8
    45. 45. OSS Business • 1998 8
    46. 46. OSS Business • 1998 – Netscape 8
    47. 47. OSS Business • 1998 – Netscape • 1999 8
    48. 48. OSS Business • 1998 – Netscape • 1999 – Cygnus 8
    49. 49. OSS Business • 1998 – Netscape • 1999 – Cygnus • 2000 8
    50. 50. OSS Business • 1998 – Netscape • 1999 – Cygnus • 2000 – VA Linux, RedHat 8
    51. 51. OSS Business • 1998 – Netscape • 1999 – Cygnus • 2000 – VA Linux, RedHat • 2005 8
    52. 52. OSS Business • 1998 – Netscape • 1999 – Cygnus • 2000 – VA Linux, RedHat • 2005 – IBM, SUN 8
    53. 53. OSS Business • 1998 – Netscape • 1999 – Cygnus • 2000 – VA Linux, RedHat • 2005 – IBM, SUN • 2006 8
    54. 54. OSS Business • 1998 – Netscape • 1999 – Cygnus • 2000 – VA Linux, RedHat • 2005 – IBM, SUN • 2006 – Purple Scout, Redpill Linpro 8
    55. 55. OSS Business • 1998 – Netscape • 1999 – Cygnus • 2000 – VA Linux, RedHat • 2005 – IBM, SUN • 2006 – Purple Scout, Redpill Linpro • 2008 8
    56. 56. OSS Business • 1998 – Netscape • 1999 – Cygnus • 2000 – VA Linux, RedHat • 2005 – IBM, SUN • 2006 – Purple Scout, Redpill Linpro • 2008 – MySQL sold to SUN, Symbian 8
    57. 57. Names 9
    58. 58. Names • Free software 9
    59. 59. Names • Free software • Open source software 9
    60. 60. Names • Free software • Open source software • Free Libre Open Source Software 9
    61. 61. Names • Free software • Open source software • Free Libre Open Source Software • Copyleft 9
    62. 62. Names • Free software • Open source software • Free Libre Open Source Software • Copyleft • Free Software Foundation 9
    63. 63. Names • Free software • Open source software • Free Libre Open Source Software • Copyleft • Free Software Foundation • Open Source Initiative 9
    64. 64. Free Software ideology 10
    65. 65. Free Software ideology • “All software should be free” 10
    66. 66. Free Software ideology • “All software should be free” • You get the four freedoms 10
    67. 67. Free Software ideology • “All software should be free” • You get the four freedoms • You shall preserve these freedoms 10
    68. 68. Free Software ideology • “All software should be free” • You get the four freedoms • You shall preserve these freedoms • So when you redistribute, copyleft secures that the next persons gets the same freedoms 10
    69. 69. Open Source principles 11
    70. 70. Open Source principles • Free redistribution 11
    71. 71. Open Source principles • Free redistribution • Source code 11
    72. 72. Open Source principles • Free redistribution • Source code • Derived work 11
    73. 73. Open Source principles • Free redistribution • Source code • Derived work • Integrity of The Author's Source Code 11
    74. 74. Open Source principles • Free redistribution • Source code • Derived work • Integrity of The Author's Source Code • 5-10: Non-discrimination 11
    75. 75. Copyright The programmer or the producer owns the ● software Property rights are limited ● Copyright is limited in time ● The user is a user not an owner ● The license is an agreement not a law ● The license grants positively defined user ● rights. All residual rights belongs to the licensor ● Without copyright no licenses ●
    76. 76. Patents 13
    77. 77. Patents • “A set of exclusive rights granted by a state to an inventor or his assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for a disclosure of an invention” 13
    78. 78. Patents • “A set of exclusive rights granted by a state to an inventor or his assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for a disclosure of an invention” • FSF: “a patent on any performance of a computer realised by means of a computer programquot; 13
    79. 79. Patents • “A set of exclusive rights granted by a state to an inventor or his assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for a disclosure of an invention” • FSF: “a patent on any performance of a computer realised by means of a computer programquot; • Licensor shall not restrict use by patents 13
    80. 80. Patents • “A set of exclusive rights granted by a state to an inventor or his assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for a disclosure of an invention” • FSF: “a patent on any performance of a computer realised by means of a computer programquot; • Licensor shall not restrict use by patents • OSS licensee shall not claim patents against licensor or sublicensee 13
    81. 81. Licenses 14
    82. 82. Licenses • Academic or permissive licenses 14
    83. 83. Licenses • Academic or permissive licenses – Apache License v2 14
    84. 84. Licenses • Academic or permissive licenses – Apache License v2 – MIT License 14
    85. 85. Licenses • Academic or permissive licenses – Apache License v2 – MIT License – New BSD license 14
    86. 86. Licenses • Academic or permissive licenses – Apache License v2 – MIT License – New BSD license • Copyleft, reciprocal or hereditary licences 14
    87. 87. Licenses • Academic or permissive licenses – Apache License v2 – MIT License – New BSD license • Copyleft, reciprocal or hereditary licences – Weak copyleft 14
    88. 88. Licenses • Academic or permissive licenses – Apache License v2 – MIT License – New BSD license • Copyleft, reciprocal or hereditary licences – Weak copyleft • Artistic license v1 14
    89. 89. Licenses • Academic or permissive licenses – Apache License v2 – MIT License – New BSD license • Copyleft, reciprocal or hereditary licences – Weak copyleft • Artistic license v1 • Eclipse Public License 14
    90. 90. Licenses • Academic or permissive licenses – Apache License v2 – MIT License – New BSD license • Copyleft, reciprocal or hereditary licences – Weak copyleft • Artistic license v1 • Eclipse Public License • Mozilla Public License v.1.1 14
    91. 91. Licenses • Academic or permissive licenses – Apache License v2 – MIT License – New BSD license • Copyleft, reciprocal or hereditary licences – Weak copyleft • Artistic license v1 • Eclipse Public License • Mozilla Public License v.1.1 – Strong copyleft 14
    92. 92. Licenses • Academic or permissive licenses – Apache License v2 – MIT License – New BSD license • Copyleft, reciprocal or hereditary licences – Weak copyleft • Artistic license v1 • Eclipse Public License • Mozilla Public License v.1.1 – Strong copyleft • GNU GPL v1 and v2 14
    93. 93. Licenses • Academic or permissive licenses – Apache License v2 – MIT License – New BSD license • Copyleft, reciprocal or hereditary licences – Weak copyleft • Artistic license v1 • Eclipse Public License • Mozilla Public License v.1.1 – Strong copyleft • GNU GPL v1 and v2 • GNU LGPL v1 and v2 14
    94. 94. Copyleft - the basics 15
    95. 95. Copyleft - the basics • You don’t have to redistribute or distribute 15
    96. 96. Copyleft - the basics • You don’t have to redistribute or distribute • (Exception: “written offer valid for any third party” in GPL, v. 2) 15
    97. 97. Copyleft - the basics • You don’t have to redistribute or distribute • (Exception: “written offer valid for any third party” in GPL, v. 2) • Comply or cease use, or call back distribution 15
    98. 98. Copyleft - the basics • You don’t have to redistribute or distribute • (Exception: “written offer valid for any third party” in GPL, v. 2) • Comply or cease use, or call back distribution • Make combined program, including modifications and otherwise closed code available under GPL (or compatible licens) 15
    99. 99. Derivative work 16
    100. 100. Derivative work • A work based on one or more pre- existing works 16
    101. 101. Derivative work • A work based on one or more pre- existing works • Improvement, translation, correction 16
    102. 102. Derivative work • A work based on one or more pre- existing works • Improvement, translation, correction • Not collective work 16
    103. 103. Derivative work • A work based on one or more pre- existing works • Improvement, translation, correction • Not collective work • Modifications are copyrighted themselves 16
    104. 104. Derivative work • A work based on one or more pre- existing works • Improvement, translation, correction • Not collective work • Modifications are copyrighted themselves • Very few court cases 16
    105. 105. Derivative work • A work based on one or more pre- existing works • Improvement, translation, correction • Not collective work • Modifications are copyrighted themselves • Very few court cases • GPL: Combinations 16
    106. 106. Combination 17
    107. 107. Combination • Combination of code into a whole 17
    108. 108. Combination • Combination of code into a whole • NB: All combinations are permitted and “private” combinations have no restrictions 17
    109. 109. Combination • Combination of code into a whole • NB: All combinations are permitted and “private” combinations have no restrictions • Mechanism of communication 17
    110. 110. Combination • Combination of code into a whole • NB: All combinations are permitted and “private” combinations have no restrictions • Mechanism of communication • Semantics of the communication 17
    111. 111. Combination • Combination of code into a whole • NB: All combinations are permitted and “private” combinations have no restrictions • Mechanism of communication • Semantics of the communication • Output not covered 17
    112. 112. Combination • Combination of code into a whole • NB: All combinations are permitted and “private” combinations have no restrictions • Mechanism of communication • Semantics of the communication • Output not covered • (Exc: GPL program copies text into output) 17
    113. 113. Combination • Combination of code into a whole • NB: All combinations are permitted and “private” combinations have no restrictions • Mechanism of communication • Semantics of the communication • Output not covered • (Exc: GPL program copies text into output) • Output of language interpreter 17
    114. 114. Combination • Combination of code into a whole • NB: All combinations are permitted and “private” combinations have no restrictions • Mechanism of communication • Semantics of the communication • Output not covered • (Exc: GPL program copies text into output) • Output of language interpreter • (Exc: “bindings” interpreter to program) 17
    115. 115. Combination • Combination of code into a whole • NB: All combinations are permitted and “private” combinations have no restrictions • Mechanism of communication • Semantics of the communication • Output not covered • (Exc: GPL program copies text into output) • Output of language interpreter • (Exc: “bindings” interpreter to program) • Library is under GPL, program is not 17
    116. 116. Combination • Combination of code into a whole • NB: All combinations are permitted and “private” combinations have no restrictions • Mechanism of communication • Semantics of the communication • Output not covered • (Exc: GPL program copies text into output) • Output of language interpreter • (Exc: “bindings” interpreter to program) • Library is under GPL, program is not • Program is under GPL, module is not 17
    117. 117. Combination cont. 18
    118. 118. Combination cont. • CMS Templates 18
    119. 119. Combination cont. • CMS Templates – Exc: Javascript calls 18
    120. 120. Combination cont. • CMS Templates – Exc: Javascript calls • Microsoft Visual C++ (or Visual Basic) DLLs 18
    121. 121. Combination cont. • CMS Templates – Exc: Javascript calls • Microsoft Visual C++ (or Visual Basic) DLLs • Plug-ins under a GPL program 18
    122. 122. Combination cont. • CMS Templates – Exc: Javascript calls • Microsoft Visual C++ (or Visual Basic) DLLs • Plug-ins under a GPL program – dynamically linked plug-ins 18
    123. 123. Combination cont. • CMS Templates – Exc: Javascript calls • Microsoft Visual C++ (or Visual Basic) DLLs • Plug-ins under a GPL program – dynamically linked plug-ins – fork and exec to invoke plug-ins 18
    124. 124. Combination cont. • CMS Templates – Exc: Javascript calls • Microsoft Visual C++ (or Visual Basic) DLLs • Plug-ins under a GPL program – dynamically linked plug-ins – fork and exec to invoke plug-ins • System library exception 18
    125. 125. Combination cont. • CMS Templates – Exc: Javascript calls • Microsoft Visual C++ (or Visual Basic) DLLs • Plug-ins under a GPL program – dynamically linked plug-ins – fork and exec to invoke plug-ins • System library exception • Aggregate work is not combined work 18
    126. 126. Combination cont. • CMS Templates – Exc: Javascript calls • Microsoft Visual C++ (or Visual Basic) DLLs • Plug-ins under a GPL program – dynamically linked plug-ins – fork and exec to invoke plug-ins • System library exception • Aggregate work is not combined work • Linking exception 18
    127. 127. Combination cont. • CMS Templates – Exc: Javascript calls • Microsoft Visual C++ (or Visual Basic) DLLs • Plug-ins under a GPL program – dynamically linked plug-ins – fork and exec to invoke plug-ins • System library exception • Aggregate work is not combined work • Linking exception • LGPL allows linking to closed applications 18
    128. 128. Combination cont. • CMS Templates – Exc: Javascript calls • Microsoft Visual C++ (or Visual Basic) DLLs • Plug-ins under a GPL program – dynamically linked plug-ins – fork and exec to invoke plug-ins • System library exception • Aggregate work is not combined work • Linking exception • LGPL allows linking to closed applications – Java archive files 18
    129. 129. Distribution 19
    130. 130. Distribution • GPL v2: Distribution 19
    131. 131. Distribution • GPL v2: Distribution • GPL v3: Propagation and Conveyance 19
    132. 132. Distribution • GPL v2: Distribution • GPL v3: Propagation and Conveyance • In soft- and hardware 19
    133. 133. Distribution • GPL v2: Distribution • GPL v3: Propagation and Conveyance • In soft- and hardware • ASP loophole og network exception 19
    134. 134. Distribution • GPL v2: Distribution • GPL v3: Propagation and Conveyance • In soft- and hardware • ASP loophole og network exception • Affero Public License 19
    135. 135. Distribution • GPL v2: Distribution • GPL v3: Propagation and Conveyance • In soft- and hardware • ASP loophole og network exception • Affero Public License • Contractors on/off-site 19
    136. 136. Distribution • GPL v2: Distribution • GPL v3: Propagation and Conveyance • In soft- and hardware • ASP loophole og network exception • Affero Public License • Contractors on/off-site • Outsourcing 19
    137. 137. Distribution • GPL v2: Distribution • GPL v3: Propagation and Conveyance • In soft- and hardware • ASP loophole og network exception • Affero Public License • Contractors on/off-site • Outsourcing • Mergers and Acquisitions 19
    138. 138. Distribution • GPL v2: Distribution • GPL v3: Propagation and Conveyance • In soft- and hardware • ASP loophole og network exception • Affero Public License • Contractors on/off-site • Outsourcing • Mergers and Acquisitions • Let recipient download the GPL’ed code 19
    139. 139. Distribution • GPL v2: Distribution • GPL v3: Propagation and Conveyance • In soft- and hardware • ASP loophole og network exception • Affero Public License • Contractors on/off-site • Outsourcing • Mergers and Acquisitions • Let recipient download the GPL’ed code 19
    140. 140. Distribution • GPL v2: Distribution • GPL v3: Propagation and Conveyance • In soft- and hardware • ASP loophole og network exception • Affero Public License • Contractors on/off-site • Outsourcing • Mergers and Acquisitions • Let recipient download the GPL’ed code 19
    141. 141. Escapes 20
    142. 142. Escapes • Make deal with licensor 20
    143. 143. Escapes • Make deal with licensor • Replace code 20
    144. 144. Escapes • Make deal with licensor • Replace code • Work around 20
    145. 145. Escapes • Make deal with licensor • Replace code • Work around • GPL v3, sec. 8 20
    146. 146. Escapes • Make deal with licensor • Replace code • Work around • GPL v3, sec. 8 – Termination notice 20
    147. 147. Escapes • Make deal with licensor • Replace code • Work around • GPL v3, sec. 8 – Termination notice • NDA: Developer can agree not to release changes at all 20
    148. 148. Escapes • Make deal with licensor • Replace code • Work around • GPL v3, sec. 8 – Termination notice • NDA: Developer can agree not to release changes at all • NDA: Developer can agree only to release changes to customer 20
    149. 149. Enforcement 21
    150. 150. Enforcement • The GPL is enforceable! 21
    151. 151. Enforcement • The GPL is enforceable! – Germany 2004: Netfilter/Iptables; 2006: D-Link 21
    152. 152. Enforcement • The GPL is enforceable! – Germany 2004: Netfilter/Iptables; 2006: D-Link – US 2007: BusyBox; 2008: Jacobsen vs. Katzer 21
    153. 153. Enforcement • The GPL is enforceable! – Germany 2004: Netfilter/Iptables; 2006: D-Link – US 2007: BusyBox; 2008: Jacobsen vs. Katzer – SCO 21
    154. 154. Enforcement • The GPL is enforceable! – Germany 2004: Netfilter/Iptables; 2006: D-Link – US 2007: BusyBox; 2008: Jacobsen vs. Katzer – SCO • Copyright holder 21
    155. 155. Enforcement • The GPL is enforceable! – Germany 2004: Netfilter/Iptables; 2006: D-Link – US 2007: BusyBox; 2008: Jacobsen vs. Katzer – SCO • Copyright holder • Licensee 21
    156. 156. Enforcement • The GPL is enforceable! – Germany 2004: Netfilter/Iptables; 2006: D-Link – US 2007: BusyBox; 2008: Jacobsen vs. Katzer – SCO • Copyright holder • Licensee • GPL-VIOLATIONS.ORG 21
    157. 157. Damages 22
    158. 158. Damages • Compensation under copyright 22
    159. 159. Damages • Compensation under copyright • No penal damages or stipulated damages 22
    160. 160. Damages • Compensation under copyright • No penal damages or stipulated damages • Economic loss suffered by licensor 22
    161. 161. Damages • Compensation under copyright • No penal damages or stipulated damages • Economic loss suffered by licensor • Rule of thumb: 2 x license fee 22
    162. 162. Damages • Compensation under copyright • No penal damages or stipulated damages • Economic loss suffered by licensor • Rule of thumb: 2 x license fee • Injunction 22
    163. 163. Damages • Compensation under copyright • No penal damages or stipulated damages • Economic loss suffered by licensor • Rule of thumb: 2 x license fee • Injunction • Legal fees 22
    164. 164. Business models 23
    165. 165. Business models • Dual licensing 23
    166. 166. Business models • Dual licensing – Warranties 23
    167. 167. Business models • Dual licensing – Warranties – Copyleft exemptions 23
    168. 168. Business models • Dual licensing – Warranties – Copyleft exemptions • Services 23
    169. 169. Business models • Dual licensing – Warranties – Copyleft exemptions • Services – Warranties 23
    170. 170. Business models • Dual licensing – Warranties – Copyleft exemptions • Services – Warranties – Support and maintenance 23
    171. 171. Business models • Dual licensing – Warranties – Copyleft exemptions • Services – Warranties – Support and maintenance – Consultancy 23
    172. 172. Business models • Dual licensing – Warranties – Copyleft exemptions • Services – Warranties – Support and maintenance – Consultancy – Accesories 23
    173. 173. Business models • Dual licensing – Warranties – Copyleft exemptions • Services – Warranties – Support and maintenance – Consultancy – Accesories • Marketing and distribution 23
    174. 174. Business models • Dual licensing – Warranties – Copyleft exemptions • Services – Warranties – Support and maintenance – Consultancy – Accesories • Marketing and distribution • Hardware sales 23
    175. 175. The Mindstorm story
    176. 176. The Mindstorm story
    177. 177. LEGO goes open source
    178. 178. LEGO goes open source 1 May 2006. LEGO press release Hackers, Get Ready! LEGO Group Announces Open Source Firmware, Developer Kits for LEGO® MINDSTORMS® NXT Consumer-directed robotics experience creation to enter “NXT” phase with open firmware, Software, Hardware and Bluetooth Developer Kits to launch in August
    179. 179. Background
    180. 180. Background Mindstorms robots launched in 1998 ●
    181. 181. Background Mindstorms robots launched in 1998 ● The best-selling LEGO product ever ●
    182. 182. Background Mindstorms robots launched in 1998 ● The best-selling LEGO product ever ● Huge Mindstorm community ●
    183. 183. Background Mindstorms robots launched in 1998 ● The best-selling LEGO product ever ● Huge Mindstorm community ● LEGO was and is not a software ● company
    184. 184. Background Mindstorms robots launched in 1998 ● The best-selling LEGO product ever ● Huge Mindstorm community ● LEGO was and is not a software ● company Only minor upgrades to the firmware ●
    185. 185. Background Mindstorms robots launched in 1998 ● The best-selling LEGO product ever ● Huge Mindstorm community ● LEGO was and is not a software ● company Only minor upgrades to the firmware ● Several parallel Mindstorms OS’s ●
    186. 186. Challenges
    187. 187. Challenges LEGO was not comfortable with “openess” ●
    188. 188. Challenges LEGO was not comfortable with “openess” ● LEGO has been and is extremely reliant ● on strong IPRs
    189. 189. Challenges LEGO was not comfortable with “openess” ● LEGO has been and is extremely reliant ● on strong IPRs ”You don't give away IPRs for free” ●
    190. 190. Challenges LEGO was not comfortable with “openess” ● LEGO has been and is extremely reliant ● on strong IPRs ”You don't give away IPRs for free” ● Turbulent period for LEGO in general ●
    191. 191. Challenges LEGO was not comfortable with “openess” ● LEGO has been and is extremely reliant ● on strong IPRs ”You don't give away IPRs for free” ● Turbulent period for LEGO in general ● Third party software included ●
    192. 192. Solution
    193. 193. Solution Embrace User driven innovation ●
    194. 194. Solution Embrace User driven innovation ● Open source as the enabler ●
    195. 195. Solution Embrace User driven innovation ● Open source as the enabler ● Third party permission for ● redistribution under an OS license
    196. 196. Solution Embrace User driven innovation ● Open source as the enabler ● Third party permission for ● redistribution under an OS license Choice of license ●
    197. 197. Solution Embrace User driven innovation ● Open source as the enabler ● Third party permission for ● redistribution under an OS license Choice of license ● ”Genuine” open source licence −
    198. 198. Solution Embrace User driven innovation ● Open source as the enabler ● Third party permission for ● redistribution under an OS license Choice of license ● ”Genuine” open source licence − Permissive (Academic) or Copyleft − (reciprocal license)
    199. 199. The OS license choice 29
    200. 200. The OS license choice Mozilla Public license v. 1.1 ● 29
    201. 201. The OS license choice Mozilla Public license v. 1.1 ● Weak copyleft ● 29
    202. 202. The OS license choice Mozilla Public license v. 1.1 ● Weak copyleft ● Modification is limited altering ● the files 29
    203. 203. The OS license choice Mozilla Public license v. 1.1 ● Weak copyleft ● Modification is limited altering ● the files “I did not understand GPL v.2” ● 29
    204. 204. The OS license choice Mozilla Public license v. 1.1 ● Weak copyleft ● Modification is limited altering ● the files “I did not understand GPL v.2” ● LEGO was only concerned with ● modifications of the actual files 29
    205. 205. The “beauty” of the solution! 30
    206. 206. The “beauty” of the solution! • Huge press coverage and goodwill 30
    207. 207. The “beauty” of the solution! • Huge press coverage and goodwill • Large number of downloads of code 30
    208. 208. The “beauty” of the solution! • Huge press coverage and goodwill • Large number of downloads of code • Much more “intelligence” in the bricks 30
    209. 209. The “beauty” of the solution! • Huge press coverage and goodwill • Large number of downloads of code • Much more “intelligence” in the bricks • Convincing strategy towards competitors 30
    210. 210. The “beauty” of the solution! • Huge press coverage and goodwill • Large number of downloads of code • Much more “intelligence” in the bricks • Convincing strategy towards competitors • Option to “close” the code again 30
    211. 211. The “beauty” of the solution! • Huge press coverage and goodwill • Large number of downloads of code • Much more “intelligence” in the bricks • Convincing strategy towards competitors • Option to “close” the code again • Many more bricks sold! 30
    212. 212. CASE: MySQL Dual-licensing 31
    213. 213. CASE: MySQL Dual-licensing • The software company perspective 31
    214. 214. CASE: MySQL Dual-licensing • The software company perspective • The same code is licensed under two different licences: 31
    215. 215. CASE: MySQL Dual-licensing • The software company perspective • The same code is licensed under two different licences: – MySQL Community Server: GPL v. 2 with FOSS exception 31
    216. 216. CASE: MySQL Dual-licensing • The software company perspective • The same code is licensed under two different licences: – MySQL Community Server: GPL v. 2 with FOSS exception – MySQL Enterprise: Commercial license 31
    217. 217. Owner's prerogative
    218. 218. Owner's prerogative The owner can decide to release under ● any and as many terms she likes
    219. 219. Owner's prerogative The owner can decide to release under ● any and as many terms she likes Dual licensing is only possible for ● owner's own modfications
    220. 220. Owner's prerogative The owner can decide to release under ● any and as many terms she likes Dual licensing is only possible for ● owner's own modfications Or assigned modifications ●
    221. 221. Owner's prerogative The owner can decide to release under ● any and as many terms she likes Dual licensing is only possible for ● owner's own modfications Or assigned modifications ● Control is necessary to mitigate liability ●
    222. 222. Owner's prerogative The owner can decide to release under ● any and as many terms she likes Dual licensing is only possible for ● owner's own modfications Or assigned modifications ● Control is necessary to mitigate liability ● ”Closing in” the code again ●
    223. 223. Copyright and control 33
    224. 224. Copyright and control • MySQL has exclusive copyright to the code 33
    225. 225. Copyright and control • MySQL has exclusive copyright to the code • MySQL controls and certifies the code 33
    226. 226. Copyright and control • MySQL has exclusive copyright to the code • MySQL controls and certifies the code • The GPL does not give any rights to use MySQLs trademarks 33
    227. 227. Why pay? 34
    228. 228. Why pay? • Certification of the code 34
    229. 229. Why pay? • Certification of the code • Warranties 34
    230. 230. Why pay? • Certification of the code • Warranties • Maintenance and support 34
    231. 231. Why pay? • Certification of the code • Warranties • Maintenance and support • Copyleft exemption 34
    232. 232. Still not convinced? 35
    233. 233. Still not convinced? • MySQL AB was in 2008 bought by Sun Microsystem, Inc. for approximately USD $1 billion in total consideration 35
    234. 234. CASE: NITA 36
    235. 235. CASE: NITA • Danish National IT and Telecom Agency 36
    236. 236. CASE: NITA • Danish National IT and Telecom Agency • eFaktura (eInvoice) 36
    237. 237. CASE: NITA • Danish National IT and Telecom Agency • eFaktura (eInvoice) • Electronic invoices to, from and between public agencies 36
    238. 238. CASE: NITA • Danish National IT and Telecom Agency • eFaktura (eInvoice) • Electronic invoices to, from and between public agencies • Core service: UDDI registry for webservice to identify senders and receivers 36
    239. 239. Challenges 37
    240. 240. Challenges • Two applications provided by NITA to user (e.g. ERP vendors) 37
    241. 241. Challenges • Two applications provided by NITA to user (e.g. ERP vendors) • API between users’ ERPs and UDDI WS 37
    242. 242. Challenges • Two applications provided by NITA to user (e.g. ERP vendors) • API between users’ ERPs and UDDI WS • Reference implementation integrating API with ERP 37
    243. 243. Challenges • Two applications provided by NITA to user (e.g. ERP vendors) • API between users’ ERPs and UDDI WS • Reference implementation integrating API with ERP • NITA wanted to release the application under an OS license 37
    244. 244. Goals 38
    245. 245. Goals • Satisfying the politicians 38
    246. 246. Goals • Satisfying the politicians • Wide adoption of UDDI 38
    247. 247. Goals • Satisfying the politicians • Wide adoption of UDDI • Community based improvement of the API 38
    248. 248. Goals • Satisfying the politicians • Wide adoption of UDDI • Community based improvement of the API • Many vendors should integrate API into their ERP 38
    249. 249. Solutions 39
    250. 250. Solutions • API 39
    251. 251. Solutions • API – Copyleft 39
    252. 252. Solutions • API – Copyleft – Mozilla public license v. 1.1 (maybe EUPL v. 1.1) 39
    253. 253. Solutions • API – Copyleft – Mozilla public license v. 1.1 (maybe EUPL v. 1.1) • Reference implementation 39
    254. 254. Solutions • API – Copyleft – Mozilla public license v. 1.1 (maybe EUPL v. 1.1) • Reference implementation – Permissive licence 39
    255. 255. Solutions • API – Copyleft – Mozilla public license v. 1.1 (maybe EUPL v. 1.1) • Reference implementation – Permissive licence – FreeBSD license 39

    ×