DOCSLIB.ORG

Article Title

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Article Title International In-house Counsel Journal Vol. 11, No. 41, Autumn 2017, 1 Open Source, IP and Patent Pledges: AMANDA BROCK Visiting Research Fellow, Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary University, UK 1.0 Introduction to Open Source This article considers the use of patent promises or pledges, as a device to counter what are often seen in the Open Source world as undesirable consequences of the operation of the patent system. They have become particularly topical in 2017, as the world’s first billion dollar Open Source company, Red Hat, extended it’s patent pledge further in September 2017. 1.1 What is Open Source? In its simplest definition, “Open Source” is a term used for software, whereby the human readable source code is shared with users of the software by way of a licence. A licence enables free use, modification and distribution of that software. The human readable code is written in a computer coding language that can, like any other human language, can be read by someone who speaks that language. In traditional, proprietary software distribution, that human readable code is a closely guarded secret and not shared, as it contains the “secret sauce” of the software. Source code is compiled into machine- readable code and this then instructs a computer or device of the action to take. Without the source code it is not possible without extreme effort to maintain or modify a compiled software program hence its value and “secret sauce” nature. In the open source model, the source code is openly shared and freely available under licence allowing others to use, study, modify and add to the original open source code, and distribute the code so long as the terms of the licence on which the software is distributed are complied with (which may, depending on the licence, require redistribution under the same licence). 1.2 The History – free and Open Source software Open Source software is also referred to as “Free Software”. Richard Stallman is the Godfather of Free Software. “Every decision a person makes stems from the person's values and goals. People can have many different goals and values; fame, profit, love, survival, fun, and freedom, are just some of the goals that a good person might have. When the goal is a matter of principle, we call that idealism. My work on free software is motivated by an idealistic goal: spreading freedom and co-operation. I want to encourage free software to spread, replacing proprietary software that forbids cooperation, and thus make our society better.” “Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, the users have the freedom to run, copy, study, change and improve the software and distribute it as changed, or in the original form. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them.” The GNU web site goes on to say ““free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer”. The essence of “free” software is enshrined in the concept of copyleft. International In-house Counsel Journal ISSN 1754-0607 print/ISSN 1754-0607 online 2 Amanda Brock Stallman refers to free software and not to Open Source software. He is the “father” of the ideological free software movement and the creator of copyleft. Not all code in the world of free and open source software is copyleft [add copyleft logo here]. The term is not enshrined in law, but a pun from this man, with a symbol that is the reverse of the copyright symbol ©. To make this concept a reality Stallman and his advisers developed a legal tool in the licence of the free software which is a licence provision that ensures that any user who takes and modifies the code they received under a copyleft licence will, if they distribute the modified code, be required do so under the same free licence without any additional restrictions or conditions and will release the source code in the modified code they distribute, under those original terms. The GNU General Public License is probably the best known and most used example of this type of licensing1. Each party will own the copyright in what they have created but must license any new or modified version of the code under the same terms as the code they received, ie the licence being copyleft, the rights are left in the free code and the quid pro quo for usage of the free software is that new developments if distributed, must be contributed back. The licence terms are non-discriminatory and allow anyone to modify and extend the code subject to this restriction included by the guardians of free software for the user’s own protection. It is intended to preserve the freedom under which the software was initially distributed through the use of the concept of copyleft. As the creator of the original work owns the copyright in his work, despite the work being licensed under a copyleft licence for use by others, should any user not contribute back under the same licence, then that user would have stepped beyond their rights as granted under the licence and potentially be in breach of the original copyright holder’s copyright2. As Stallman states “All code added to a GPL3 program must be free software, even if it is put in a separate file. I make my code available for use in free software, and not for use in proprietary software, in order to encourage other people who write software to make it free as well. I figure that since proprietary software developers use copyright to stop us from sharing, we co-operators can use copyright to give other co-operators an advantage of their own: they can use our code.” As a concept, copyleft takes copyright (where the creator of a work is the owner of the copyright in code they develop and third parties may use it only with the owner’s consent) and turns it around practically as well as symbolically. This is achieved by requiring that both the work licensed for free use and any and all changes made to that work by a third party must be distributed subject to the same ongoing freedoms and that this freedom cannot be restricted without the owner of the original copyright work’s consent. 1 GPLv2 section 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. 2 GPLv2 section 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance. 3 GPL – the GNU General Public Licence, is an OSI approved standard open source licence published by the Free Software Foundation (“FSF”) on the terms of which free software may be distributed by anyone who meets the free software definition and complies with the licence terms. Open Source 3 Copyleft code when combined in certain ways with other code may create a new collective piece of code that may be a derivative work. Understanding the derivative work concept is something best compared to cracking eggs to make an omelette. Once the eggs are combined they become one new thing not individual eggs and cannot be put back into their constituent parts easily. That doesn’t mean to say that there are not alternative ways of putting together a different meal with the eggs without mixing them and in which the eggs stay as individual eggs and identifiable as such (like gammon with a lovely fried egg on top). But, once they are mixed together to make an omelette, they are combined to create a new and distinct thing. In software terms the combination of software to create a combined new work is a derivative work, which like the omelette is not easily reversed. Where this happens in software, the new derivative work, like the original copyleft licensed component, will also be subject to copyleft terms. This impact of copyleft has been referred to, (much to the annoyance of the software development community) as the “viral effect”, where the free copyleft software, if combined with other code to create a derivative work, “infects” that non copyleft code with its freedom and makes both the original free software and the additional software “free”. However, it should always be borne in mind that this is not the normal outcome or consequence of a combination of software. This has created considerable and often unnecessary fear in the minds of owners of proprietary and is perhaps the biggest single factor that dissuades some business usage of free software. In short the owners of proprietary code are concerned to use free software due to this fear that the copyleft code will virally affect their rights in their own proprietary code. Clearly this consequence fits the ideology Stallman espouses. His copyleft ideology creates a cascade of free software and freedom. As a paternalistic concept, it protects users from themselves in the interest of freedom.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Practice Tips for Open Source Licensing Adam Kubelka
    Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal Volume 22 | Issue 4 Article 4 2006 No Free Beer - Practice Tips for Open Source Licensing Adam Kubelka Matthew aF wcett Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Adam Kubelka and Matthew Fawcett, No Free Beer - Practice Tips for Open Source Licensing, 22 Santa Clara High Tech. L.J. 797 (2005). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj/vol22/iss4/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLE NO FREE BEER - PRACTICE TIPS FOR OPEN SOURCE LICENSING Adam Kubelkat Matthew Fawcetttt I. INTRODUCTION Open source software is big business. According to research conducted by Optaros, Inc., and InformationWeek magazine, 87 percent of the 512 companies surveyed use open source software, with companies earning over $1 billion in annual revenue saving an average of $3.3 million by using open source software in 2004.1 Open source is not just staying in computer rooms either-it is increasingly grabbing intellectual property headlines and entering mainstream news on issues like the following: i. A $5 billion dollar legal dispute between SCO Group Inc. (SCO) and International Business Machines Corp. t Adam Kubelka is Corporate Counsel at JDS Uniphase Corporation, where he advises the company on matters related to the commercialization of its products.
    [Show full text]
  • Governance: Funding Members
    Enabling freedom of action in open source technologies for the world’s largest patent non-aggression community. ABOUT: WHAT WE DO: Established in 2005, Open Invention Network (OIN) is the world’s ❖ Deliver royalty-free access to the Linux System patents largest patent non-aggression community and free defensive of our community members through cross- licensing patent pool. commitments ❖ Manage over 1,300 OIN patents and applications, licensed We remove patent friction in core open source technologies, FREE-of- charge to all our members which drives higher levels of innovation. Open Source Software Leverage our relationships to collect and share prior art (OSS) distills the collective intelligence of a global community. ❖ when needed MISSION: ❖ Challenge patent applications as appropriate We enable freedom of action for Open Invention Network ❖ Provide collective intelligence from a global community community members and users of Linux/OSS-based ❖ Support our members and those under attack from patent technology through our patent non-aggression cross- license in aggressors the Linux System, which defines the commitment. BY THE NUMBERS: We will continue to grow our worldwide membership and the ❖ OIN is 3,300 worldwide members strong and includes Linux System over time, thereby strengthening our patent non- start-ups to Fortune 100 corporations. aggression coverage through the power of the network effect. ❖ Members gain access to a cross-licensee pool of patents - in total, the OIN community owns more than 2 million VISION: patents and applications. We will execute our mission by growing our patent non- ❖ Our patent portfolio includes approximately 1,300 global aggression community and engaging with companies of all patents and applications with broad scope.
    [Show full text]
  • Software Wars, Business Strategies and IP Litigation
    Software Wars, Business Strategies and IP Litigation Immediately after Oracle America filed a patent infringement suit against Google Inc. in August 2010 the trade press labelled this a “software war.” Their interest was a trial featuring Oracle’s “star” counsel David Boies. In mid-January often cited Florian Mueller of NoSoftwarePatents, wrote “Google is patently too weak to protect Android—Google’s cell phone software.”1 (On April 4 Lead bidder Google offered $900 million for Nortel’s 6,000 patents and applications. A decision is expected in June}. By the end of March he had counted 39 patent infringement suits against Google.2 Whether Oracle wins Oracle v Google or not, Oracle and IBM may become losers. It is important that Oracle not alienate the software development community or its customers as it attempts to monetise the assets from the Sun Microsystems—now Oracle America— acquisition. The Oracle v. Google complaint was carefully targeted at Google’s Android software, avoiding the appearance of monetising the Java language and platform itself. The Android software was developed as open source in conjunction with the Open Handset Alliance. Android's mobile operating system is based on a modified version of the Linux kernel, subject to Linux patents. Google published all of the computer code under an Apache Software Foundation License.3 This license is royalty-free and places no restrictions on derivative products or commercial use. Based on IDC market share estimates by the fourth quarter of 2010, Android phones had 39% of the market. An Oracle asset gained through the acquisition of Sun was the OpenOffice open-source software—one of the only remaining substantial “competitors” to Microsoft’s document processing applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Elinux Status
    Status of Embedded Linux Embedded Linux Community Update December 2019 Tim Bird Sr. Staff Software Engineer, Sony Electronics Architecture Group Chair, Core Embedded Linux Project 1 110/23/2014 PA1 Confidential Nature of this talk… • Quick overview of lots of embedded topics • A springboard for further research • If you see something interesting, you have a link or something to search for • Not comprehensive! • Just stuff that I saw 2 210/23/2014 PA1 Confidential Outline Operating Systems Linux Kernel Technology Areas Conferences Industry News Resources 3 310/23/2014 PA1 Confidential Outline Operating Systems Linux Kernel Technology Areas Conferences Industry News Resources 4 410/23/2014 PA1 Confidential Operating Systems • NuttX • Zephyr • Android • Linux 510/23/2014 PA1 Confidential NuttX • NuttX continues to grow in support • SMP • WiFi • I saw a demo of NuttX on SiFive RiscV processor this week. • More companies are using it • Sony using on SPRESENCE board • With supporting code already upstream! 610/23/2014 PA1 Confidential NuttX events • Had a meetup in October • NuttX workshop • In Lyon, France, October 31 • Also, some NuttX content at ELCE • NuttX for Linux developers – Masayuki Ishikawa • More NuttX conferences in 2020 • In Japan! • January meetup at Sony Headquarters • NuttX International Conference – May 13-15 • Sponsored by Sony, in Tokyo 710/23/2014 PA1 Confidential Zephyr • Support for AMP and SMP • See ELCE talk: “Multicore Application Development with Zephyr RTOS” by Alexey Brodkin • https://elinux.org/images/e/e5/Multi-
    [Show full text]
  • Microsoft's Open-Source Move to Pay Dividends in the Cloud by Ryan Davis
    Portfolio Media. Inc. | 111 West 19th Street, 5th Floor | New York, NY 10011 | www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 | Fax: +1 646 783 7161 | [email protected] Microsoft's Open-Source Move To Pay Dividends In The Cloud By Ryan Davis Law360 (October 18, 2018, 8:51 PM EDT) -- Microsoft astonished some in the tech community by joining the Open Innovation Network, a group of companies that provide each other free licenses to patents covering the Linux operating system, but attorneys say it's a smart move to bolster Microsoft's cloud computing business. Microsoft Corp. announced on Oct. 10 that it was committing its entire portfolio of 60,000 patents to OIN, which serves as a patent nonaggression group designed to shield Linux, the open-source system that competes with Windows, from infringement suits. The group has over 2,700 members, including fellow titans like Google LLC and Sony Corp. The move came as a surprise given the hostility Microsoft has shown to open-source software like Linux under previous leaders, including filing patent suits against companies that use Linux. Former CEO Steve Ballmer said in a 2001 interview that "Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches." He also once likened the free operating system to communism. Tech reporters therefore met Microsoft's embrace of open source by joining OIN with dropped jaws last week. "It suddenly feels like we're living in an alternate timeline," according to a Forbes article. "After triple-checking and slapping myself across the face a few times, I can confirm that this is reality." "Microsoft has signed up to the Open Invention Network.
    [Show full text]
  • (OIN): Oracle Vs. Google Is Its Biggest Debacle So Far
    AUG 21, 2010 The Open Invention Network (OIN): Oracle vs. Google is its biggest debacle so far Right after I learned about Oracle's patent infringement suit against Google, I pointed out [http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/08/oracle-sues-google-says-android.html#oin] that this was "another big failure for the so-called Open Invention Network" (OIN), an organization that claims (without any credible evidence) to protect the Linux ecosystem against patent threats. The OIN has three stated goals, and a few commentators failed to look at all of them: 1. The OIN buys up patents at auctions and licenses them for free to companies who accept its license agreement. This part isn't relevant to Oracle vs. Google. Oracle asserts seven patents that previously belonged to Sun but never belonged to the OIN. 2. The OIN wants to serve as a deterrent because it might enforce those patents against other companies. Mutually assured damage. This isn't stated explicitly on its website but it's made pretty clear by some of its press releases, such as this one [http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/press_release08_10_10.php ] ("'We view an OIN license as one of the key methods through which open source leaders and innovators can deter software patent aggression,' said Lasse Andresen, CEO of ForgeRock."). Oracle sued Google without any fear of the OIN possibly enforcing against Oracle, as an act of retaliation, some of the patents it acquired. So the OIN has certainly failed on this count (until it proves the opposite, but I'm sure we won't see it happen).
    [Show full text]
  • Practical Practical
    PRACTICAL PRACTICAL GPLCOMPLIANCE GPLCOMPLIANCE A GUIDE FOR STARTUPS, SMALL ABUSINESSES GUIDE FOR STARTUPS, AND ENGINEERS SMALL BUSINESSES AND ENGINEERS ARMIJN HEMEL, MSC AND SHANE COUGHLAN ARMIJN HEMEL, MSC AND SHANE COUGHLAN Copyright © 2017 Linux Foundation All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. Printed in the United States of America First Edition, 2017 ISBN: 978-0-9989078-0-2 1 Letterman Drive Building D Suite D4700 San Francisco CA 94129 Phone/Fax: +1 415 723 9709 https://linuxfoundation.org About the Authors Shane Coughlan Shane Coughlan is an expert in communi- cation, security, and business development. His professional accomplishments include spearheading the licensing team that elevated Open Invention Network into the largest patent non-aggression community in history, establishing the leading professional network of open source legal experts, and aligning stakeholders to launch both the first law journal and the first law book dedicated to open source. He currently leads the OpenChain community as Program Manager. Shane has extensive knowledge of open source governance, internal process development, supply chain management, and community building. His experience includes engagement with the enterprise, embedded, mobile, and automotive industries. Armijn Hemel Armijn Hemel is the owner of Tjaldur Software Governance Solutions. He is an active re- searcher of and internationally recognized expert in open source license compliance and supply chain management. He studied computer science at Utrecht University in The Netherlands, where he pioneered reproducible builds with NixOS.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Patent Licensing Paper May 19 2014
    Hacking the Patent System A Guide to Alternative Patent Licensing for Innovators By Marta Belcher and John Casey Juelsgaard Intellectual Property & Innovation Clinic Stanford Law School May 2014 Table of Contents Introduction to Alternative Patent Licensing…………………………………….1 The Patent System Is Broken…………………………………………………………1 Innovators Are Hacking the System to Use Patents for Good………………...1 Opting Out of the Patent System May Not Solve the Problem…………..……2 Defensive Patent Aggregators………………………………………………..………3 Unified Patents………………………………………………......……………………..4 Allied Security Trust (AST)………………………………………………………….…5 RPX……………………………………………………………………………………..…7 Patent Pledges………………………………………………………………………………9 Defensive Patent License (DPL)…………………………………..…………………9 Open Invention Network (OIN) ……………………………………...……………11 Twitter’s Innovator’s Patent Agreement (IPA).……………………………….…12 Google’s License on Transfer (LOT) Agreement…………………………….….14 Comparison Tables………………………………………………………………………16 i Introduction to Alternative Patent Licensing The patent system is intended to incentivize innovation, but the current system often does the opposite. The traditional model of patent licensing—whereby a company pays a patent owner to license an invention that the company legitimately uses—has been hijacked by non-practicing entities (“patent trolls”) and other aggressive patent holders who assert overbroad patents that never should have been granted in the first place. Within this broken patent regime, companies are increasingly hacking the system—that is, finding alternatives to the traditional patent licensing model in order to both promote open innovation and protect the companies themselves. These patent system hacks can be organized into two broad categories: (1) defensive patent aggregators, which pool member companies’ resources to defensively purchase patents for the group and to fight patent trolls, and (2) patent pledges, whereby companies opt to openly and defensively license their patents to others.
    [Show full text]
  • Commercializing Open Source Software: Do Property Rights Still Matter?
    Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 2006 Commercializing Open Source Software: Do Property Rights Still Matter? Ronald J. Mann Columbia Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Computer Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Ronald J. Mann, Commercializing Open Source Software: Do Property Rights Still Matter?, 20 HARV. J. L. & TECH. 1 (2006). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/739 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HarvardJournal of Law & Technology Volume 20, Number 1 Fall 2006 COMMERCIALIZING OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE: Do PROPERTY RIGHTS STILL MATTER? Ronald J Mann* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. IN TRO DU CTIO N .................................................................................. 1 11. THE LANDSCAPE .......................................................................... 5 A. The ProprietarySoftware Model .............................................. 5 1. Formation and Maturation of the Proprietary Software Industry ......................................................................... 5 2. Software Licensing Under Proprietary Models .................... 8 3.
    [Show full text]
  • State of Open: the UK in 2021 Phase"State One of Open" March the 2021 UK in 2021
    State of Open: The UK in 2021 Phase"State One of Open" March The 2021 UK in 2021 32 02 “State of Open” - The UK in 2021 Introduction Purpose of the Report This Report will be published in 2021 in three report phases: phases and will seek to demonstrate: Phase One: Literature Review and Interviews • the exceptional leadership and centre of open with industry leaders source excellence in the UK; • Establishing where open source sits within • the uptake of open source software in UK the UK as documented and using existing business and industry; and information. • the value of open source software to the UK economy. Phase Two: Quantitative Survey demonstrating uptake across business Open source software has been described as • Quantitative survey of business to understand the “engine powering the digital economy”, the place of open source software in UK referenced as being in up to “90% of codebases” business and industry in 2021. and forming the vast majority of the code sitting under the public cloud. This inevitably contributes Phase Three: Economic Analysis of Value billions of pounds to the UK economy. In many generated by open source software cases the role played by open source software • Consider the value of open source to the UK is not understood by its users, sometimes even digital economy. its presence and generally its pervasive scale This report has been created by Smoothmedia on is missed. OpenUK believes that open source behalf of OpenUK. software is the submarine under the digital sea and will use this Report to share that information, OpenUK is sponsored by Arm, Google, Huawei, allowing business, industry and the public sector Microsoft, Red Hat, and a number of others to better understand, plan and take account of it.
    [Show full text]
  • OIN Overview OPEN INVENTION NETWORK
    Building a Community of Patent Non- Aggression Across the Open Source Technology Sector Private and Confidential - Not for Redistribution Software Rising Greater Diversity of Thought, Perspective and Talent Drives Higher Levels of Innovation - Barriers Between Participants are Falling Away as OSS Projects Provide a Modality to Distill the Collective Intelligence of a Global Community of Creatives - Project-based Innovation Co-opetition in Software and Hardware Higher Levels and Faster Paced Innovation Cycles Require We Leverage the Distilled Collective Intelligence of a Global Population of Inventors Therefore, we must cooperate on low in the stack “core” technology and Reserve competition for high in the stack largely application layer functionality, services and creative pricing models New Global Dynamic - Every Electronic Touch in the G10 Countries and Beyond is Linux/OSS Enabled OIN’s Role in Safeguarding Linux/OSS-Enabled Innovation OIN’S FULL/FUNDING MEMBERS Established in 2005 December 2013 June 2016 OIN Funding Member Make Up is ¼ European, ⅜ Asian and ⅜ American Reflecting Global Nature of Linux/OSS Private and Confidential - Not for Redistribution OIN Overview OPEN INVENTION NETWORK IS THE WORLD'S LARGEST PATENT NON-AGGRESSION COMMUNITY. ITS MISSION IS TO SAFEGUARD THE CORE OF LINUX AND OPEN SOURCE PARTICIPANTS ~2900 FROM START-UPS TO LARGE CORPORATIONS CROSS LICENSE POOL PATENTS AND (Sample Licensee Participants) ~5.0M APPLICATIONS OWNED BY OIN LICENSEES LINUX SYSTEM OIN PATENT PORTFOLIO OPEN SOURCE CORE LINUX >2800 TECHNOLOGY PACKAGES GLOBAL PATENTS COVERED ~1300 AND APPLICATIONS W/BROAD SCOPE SPENT ACQUIRING/ ~$100M INVENTING DEFENSIVE PATENTS Private and Confidential - Not for Redistribution OIN’S MISSION OIN’s mission is to enable freedom of action/operation for vendors and users of LINUX/OSS-based technology.
    [Show full text]
  • Future of Exiv2 2021-02-27 Agenda
    Future of Exiv2 2021-02-27 Agenda ■Join OIN (open invention network)? ■Exiv2 after v0.27.4? State of Exiv2 History Current Status Applications using Exiv2 ■ April 2017 v0.26 Released ■ darktable ■ hugin ■ Backlog of bugs and open issues was cleared ■ v0.27.3 shipped 2020-06-30 ■ ■ libgexiv2-2 Moved the repos from svn to github ■ All activity on ‘master’ has ceased ■ hugin-tools ■ Robin did 95% of the work ■ libmyth ■ Robin asked for help at LGM/Rio ■ ■ hdrmerge No CVEs in 2020 ■ viewnior ■ ---- Status May 2019 ----- ■ ■ gwenview ■ December 2018 v0.27 Released No open CVEs in 0.27-maintenance ■ pinot ■ 3 active contributors Robin, Luis and Dan ■ ■ ■ gthumb ■ GitHub attracted Luis and Dan v0.27.4 on track to ship 2021-05-22 phototonic ■ Build and test rewritten (Luis and Dan) ■ Contributor count is growing ■ pdf2djvu ■ gpscorrelate-gui ■ Lots of security fixes (team effort). ■ nomacs ■ gpscorrelate ■ ----- 2019/2020 0.27-maintenance ----- ■ Book completed ■ ■ The "dots" (2019 and 2020) ■ Robin was 70 in January luminance-hdr ■ gimp-lensfun ■ Bug/security fixes v0.27 ■ libqgis-analysis ■ Regular/Frequent Releases ■ gerbera ■ No API changes ■ libkf5kexiv2 ■ Deprecation warnings for features dropped in v0.28 ■ geeqie ■ libkf5filemetadata-bin ■ (Video, SSH and EPS) ■ ■ libextractor3 ffdiaporama ■ ----- 2019/2020 master ----- ■ exiv2 ■ v0.28 C++ Modernisation ■ krita ■ Most extensive "refactoring" in Exiv2 history ■ krename ■ digikam-private-libs ■ Requires C++11 ■ Remove Video, SSH and EPS support ■ kphotoalbum ■ libexiv2-dev ■ Code sanitisation
    [Show full text]