DOCSLIB.ORG

Open Source Licensing

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Open Source Licensing CHAPTER 2.6 Open Source Licensing JaneT hope, Project Director, Co-operative Intellectual Property Management, Centre for Governance of Knowledge and Development, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, Australia ABSTRACT This chapter provides an introduction to open source In fact, the only context in which the term software licensing. The chapter seeks to demystify the open source has a generally accepted definition is concept of open source so that intellectual property (IP) 1 owners and managers can decide whether an open source in software development. This chapter uses the approach is worth pursuing. The chapter explains the term in as far as possible the same sense as it is principles of free and open source software licensing and used in the software context but suggests that the outlines the decisions that an innovator must make when underlying IP management approach could be deciding which strategy to use for developing a new in- novation. Also explained are the differences between open applied in other contexts. source and public domain, and between the uses of the Conventional software development is some- terms copyleft and academic to describe open source li- times termed cathedral building because it pro- censes, as well as the incentives (financial and otherwise) ceeds according to the hierarchical directions of for open source licensing. Finally, the author identifies one or more software architects (the word archi- important considerations regarding the possibilities for open source licensing in fields other than software de- tect is derived from words meaning “chief build- velopment, particularly biomedicine and agricultural er”). Conventional software is usually protected biotechnology. through IP rights, as a strategy to exclude some or all prospective users of the technology. By contrast, open source software develop- 1. Introduction ment projects, such as those that produced Linux, Open source software has had remarkable tech- Apache, and BIND, are decentralized and self-or- nological and commercial success. Since the late ganized. Open source software development is an 1990s, many people have been interested in ap- evolutionary process: the contributions of self-se- plying the principles of open source to other lected project participants are subjected to trial- fields, including biomedicine and agriculture. and-error testing in diverse use environments, The term open source is sometimes used very and the resulting information influences further broadly to mean any approach to intellectual asset development. This mode of production has been management that entails a higher level of trans- termed “the bazaar” and is also known as collective parency, or greater access to information, than is or commons-based peer production.2 usual in a proprietary setting. This broad use of In order for open source software develop- the term is of little value to IP managers because ment to work, would-be users and developers it is too imprecise. must be authorized to access the source code. In Hope J. 2007. Open Source Licensing. In Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Hand- book of Best Practices (eds. A Krattiger, RT Mahoney, L Nelsen, et al.). MIHR: Oxford, U.K., and PIPRA: Davis, U.S.A. Available online at www.ipHandbook.org. © 2007. J Hope. Sharing the Art of IP Management: Photocopying and distribution through the Internet for noncommer- cial purposes is permitted and encouraged. HANDBOOK OF BEST PRACTICES | 10 HOPE the conventional “proprietary” approach to soft- The OSD’s definition could be summed up even ware development, source code is not freely avail- more concisely: in open source software licens- able for two reasons: (1) source code is treated ing, anyone, anywhere, and for any purpose must as a trade secret and (2) the original expression be allowed to copy, modify, and distribute the contained in a program’s source code is subject software (either for free or for a fee) and, there- to copyright protection. To enable open source fore, must be allowed full access to the software’s development, therefore, the software owner must source code.6 (1) refrain from keeping the source code secret and (2) grant an IP license to others so that they 2.2 The free software definition (FSD) have the legal right to access and manipulate The OSI is not the only de facto standard-setting copyright-protected aspects of the code. body in the field of free and open source soft- Open source licensing should not, in theory, ware licensing. Others include the Free Software pose any antitrust problem (at least in jurisdic- Foundation (FSF)7 and the Debian Linux tions where the relevant test takes into account community8. substantive effects on competition), because its According to the FSF’s Free Software effects are fundamentally pro-competitive.3 Definition (FSD), software “freedom” is the freedom to use, copy, study, modify and redis- tribute both modified and unmodified copies 2. WHAT IS Open source? of software programs, all without having to pay for or otherwise obtain specific permission. To 2.1 The open source definition (OSD) give practical effect to this freedom the licensor An open source software license is one that con- must allow users access to the software’s source forms to the latest version of the open source defi- code.9 nition (OSD), published on the Web site of the Clearly, the FSD is very similar to the OSD. Open Source Initiative (OSI), a nonprofit cor- There are ongoing debates about the differences poration established in 1998 by a small group of between what constitutes free software and open programmers who wanted to promote the wider source software, but in fact the two are virtually adoption of open source licenses.4 Licenses that identical: with very few exceptions, free software conform to the OSD are permitted to carry a reg- conforms to the OSD, and open source software istered certification mark. conforms to the FSD.10 A summary of the requirements of the OSD is that in order for a software license to be open source, licensees must be free 1) to use the soft- . The pRocess of dEvELopInG ware for any purpose whatsoever; 2) to make cop- a licenSIng strategy ies and distribute them without paying royalties Open source licensing is just one kind of IP to the licensor; 3) to prepare derivative works and strategy. Figure 1 depicts the process of choosing distribute them, also without payment of royal- which licensing strategies (if any) to use. ties; 4) to access and use the source code; and 5) The first thing to do when formulating an to use the open source software in combination appropriate strategy for exploiting new technol- with other software, including proprietary (that ogy is to make a careful cost-benefit analysis of all is, non-open source) software.5 An open source the possible avenues for development. license may not restrict the number of products This analysis will require certain a licensee is allowed to distribute, the identity or considerations: geographic location of the recipients, or the price • The first decision. If the technology is to the licensee asks them to pay. Optionally, these be disseminated rather than kept in-house, same guidelines may be stipulated to apply to cer- resources must be committed to market- tain improvements or other downstream uses of ing the technology, demonstrating and the original software. improving its usefulness, and establishing it 10 | HANDBOOK OF BEST PRACTICES CHAPTER 2. within extended research and development born out of altruism or ideology: it can in- networks.11 stead be born out of healthy self-interest. • The second decision. If an innovator de- • The third decision. If an innovator decides cides to disseminate the technology, it is on a nonproprietary strategy, the innova- not always advantageous for him or her to tion can be licensed on an open source basis restrict public access to it. Sometimes, an in- or placed in the public domain: that is, the novation can be freely offered to the public innovator can refrain from obtaining any and still generate at least as much economic IP or other property rights at all. Licensing advantage for the innovator as would a pro- an innovation is costly and time-consum- prietary strategy. Nonproprietary strategies ing and should be considered only if there can be more advantageous to the research is good reason to obtain or retain owner- community, society as a whole, and the in- ship of the technology. novator. Open source licensing generally • The fourth decision. After choosing an creates fewer transaction costs and is inher- open source approach, an innovator must ently more transparent than a proprietary choose between an academic open source licensing strategy. The decision to follow a license and a copyleft-style license (both nonproprietary strategy does not have to be terms are defined in a later section). If the Figure 1: Decision Tree to Determine the Type of license New Technology Disseminate Keep in-house Non-proprietary Proprietary Public domain Open source Academic/BSD-style Copyleft license license Narrow copyleft Broad copyleft obligation obligation HANDBOOK OF BEST PRACTICES | 10 HOPE main objective is to encourage widespread In some contexts, claiming ownership over an adoption of the technology in its current innovation may also create a negative effect with state, the more permissive academic license respect to ongoing collaborations. It may create is likely to be preferable. If the main objec- ill will among prospective users and decrease the tive is to guarantee access for the innova- chances that a technology will be widely adopted tor or others to improved versions of the or improved. Such negative effects are especially technology, or to other innovations built likely when the ownership claim is particularly upon it, a copyleft-style license is worth broad (as in the case of the non-coding DNA se- considering.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Diverted Derived Design
    Diverted Derived Design Table of Contents Introduction 0 Motivations 1 Licenses 2 Design (as a) process 3 Distributions 4 Economies 5 Propositions 6 This book 7 Glossary 8 2 Diverted Derived Design Introduction The term open source is becoming popular among product designers. We see websites and initiatives appear with a lot of good intentions but sometimes missing the point and often creating confusion. Design magazines and blogs are always rushing into calling an openly published creation open source but rarely question the licenses or provide schematics or design files to download. We are furniture designers, hackers and artists who have been working with free/libre and open source software for quite some time. For us, applying these prirciples to product design was a natural extension, providing new areas to explore. But we also realized that designers coming to this with no prior open source experience had a lot of information to grasp before getting a clear picture of what could be open source product design. So we set ourselves to mobilize our knowledge in this book. We hope that this tool can be a base for teaching and learning about open source product design; a collective understanding of what one should know today to get started and join the movement; a reference students, amateurs and educators can have in their back pocket when they go out to explain what they are passionate about. How to read this book We have divided this book in sections that make sense for us. Each of these tries to address what we think is a general question you might have about open source product design.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Using Public Domain Tools
    Creative Commons makes sharing easy Public domain works are valuable because anyone What is the difference between can freely build upon, enhance, and reuse them for CC0 and the Public Domain Mark? any purposes without restriction under copyright or database law. CC0 (“CC Zero”) is intended for use only That’s why it’s important for creators to have a clear and by authors or holders of copyright and legally robust way to place their works in the public domain as related rights (including database rights), in connection Guide to completely as possible, and it’s also important for publishers with works that are still subject to those rights in one or and archives to have a standardized way to identify works that are already in the public domain. more countries. Creative Commons supports two distinct public domain tools, When CC0 is applied to a work, copyright and related using public rights are relinquished worldwide, making the work free the CC0 Public Domain Dedication and the Public Domain Mark. Creative Commons copyright licenses help authors from those restrictions to the greatest extent possible. manage their copyright on terms they choose. Conversely, CC0 domain tools enables authors and copyright owners who want to dedicate The Public Domain Mark (PDM) is used their works to the worldwide public domain to do so, and PDM to label works that are already free of facilitates the labeling and discovery of works that are already known copyright restrictions. Unlike CC0, PDM doesn’t free of known copyright restrictions. change the copyright status of a work.
    [Show full text]
  • Fifty Years of Open Source Movement: an Analysis Through the Prism of Copyright Law
    FIFTY YEARS OF OPEN SOURCE MOVEMENT: AN ANALYSIS THROUGH THE PRISM OF COPYRIGHT LAW V.K. Unni* I. INTRODUCTION The evolution of the software industry is a case study in itself. This evolution has multiple phases and one such important phase, termed open source, deals with the manner in which software technology is held, developed, and distributed.1 Over the years, open source software has played a leading role in promoting the Internet infrastructure and thus programs utilizing open source software, such as Linux, Apache, and BIND, are very often used as tools to run various Internet and business applications.2 The origins of open source software can be traced back to 1964–65 when Bell Labs joined hands with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and General Electric (GE) to work on the development of MULTICS for creating a dynamic, modular computer system capable of supporting hundreds of users.3 During the early stages of development, open source software had a very slow beginning primarily because of some preconceived notions surrounding it. Firstly, open source software was perceived as a product of academics and hobbyist programmers.4 Secondly, it was thought to be technically inferior to proprietary software.5 However, with the passage of time, the technical issues got relegated to the backside and issues pertaining to copyright, licensing, warranty, etc., began to be debated across the globe.6 * Professor—Public Policy and Management, Indian Institute of Management Calcutta; Thomas Edison Innovation Fellow (2016–17), Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, George Mason University School of Law. 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Unlicense Yourself: Set Your Code Free
    Unlicense Yourself: Set Your Code Free Like 232 Follow on Tumblr 138 What is the Unlicense? The Unlicense is a template for disclaiming copyright monopoly interest in software you've written; in other words, it is a template for dedicating your software to the public domain. It combines a copyright waiver patterned after the very successful public domain SQLite project with the no-warranty statement from the widely-used MIT/X11 license. Why Use the Unlicense? Because you have more important things to do than enriching lawyers or imposing petty restrictions on users of your code. How often have you passed up on utilizing and contributing to a great software library just because its open source license was not compatible with your own preferred flavor of open source? How many precious hours of your life have you spent deliberating how to license your software or worrying about licensing compatibility with other software? You will never get those hours back, but here's your chance to start cutting your losses. Life's too short, let's get back to coding. The Unlicense To opt out of the copyright industry's game altogether and set your code free, put your next software project into the public domain using the following (un)licensing statement: This is free and unencumbered software released into the public domain. Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or distribute this software, either in source code form or as a compiled binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any means. In jurisdictions that recognize copyright laws, the author or authors of this software dedicate any and all copyright interest in the software to the public domain.
    [Show full text]
  • The Copyleft Movement: Creative Commons Licensing
    Centre for the Study of Communication and Culture Volume 26 (2007) No. 3 IN THIS ISSUE The Copyleft Movement: Creative Commons Licensing Sharee L. Broussard, MS APR Spring Hill College AQUARTERLY REVIEW OF COMMUNICATION RESEARCH ISSN: 0144-4646 Communication Research Trends Table of Contents Volume 26 (2007) Number 3 http://cscc.scu.edu The Copyleft Movement:Creative Commons Licensing Published four times a year by the Centre for the Study of Communication and Culture (CSCC), sponsored by the 1. Introduction . 3 California Province of the Society of Jesus. 2. Copyright . 3 Copyright 2007. ISSN 0144-4646 3. Protection Activity . 6 4. DRM . 7 Editor: William E. Biernatzki, S.J. 5. Copyleft . 7 Managing Editor: Paul A. Soukup, S.J. 6. Creative Commons . 8 Editorial assistant: Yocupitzia Oseguera 7. Internet Practices Encouraging Creative Commons . 11 Subscription: 8. Pros and Cons . 12 Annual subscription (Vol. 26) US$50 9. Discussion and Conclusion . 13 Payment by check, MasterCard, Visa or US$ preferred. Editor’s Afterword . 14 For payments by MasterCard or Visa, send full account number, expiration date, name on account, and signature. References . 15 Checks and/or International Money Orders (drawn on Book Reviews . 17 USA banks; for non-USA banks, add $10 for handling) should be made payable to Communication Research Journal Report . 37 Trends and sent to the managing editor Paul A. Soukup, S.J. Communication Department In Memoriam Santa Clara University Michael Traber . 41 500 El Camino Real James Halloran . 43 Santa Clara, CA 95053 USA Transfer by wire: Contact the managing editor. Add $10 for handling. Address all correspondence to the managing editor at the address shown above.
    [Show full text]
  • Tilburg University Free and Open Source Software Schellekens, M.H.M
    Tilburg University Free and Open Source Software Schellekens, M.H.M. Published in: The Future of the Public Domain Publication date: 2006 Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): Schellekens, M. H. M. (2006). Free and Open Source Software: An Answer to Commodification? In L. Guibault, & B. Hugenholtz (Eds.), The Future of the Public Domain: Identifying the Commons in Information Law (pp. 303- 323). (Information Law Series; No. 16). Kluwer Law International. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 27. sep. 2021 Free and open source software: an answer to commodification? Maurice Schellekens 1. Introduction Linux is a PC operating system which is distributed under the General Public License (hereinafter: GPL). The GPL allows for the (royalty-)free use, modification and redistribution of the software. Given these license conditions, Linux users believed they could use the operating system without too many license worries.
    [Show full text]
  • Elements of Free and Open Source Licenses: Features That Define Strategy
    Elements Of Free And Open Source Licenses: Features That Define Strategy CAN: Use/reproduce: Ability to use, copy / reproduce the work freely in unlimited quantities Distribute: Ability to distribute the work to third parties freely, in unlimited quantities Modify/merge: Ability to modify / combine the work with others and create derivatives Sublicense: Ability to license the work, including possible modifications (without changing the license if it is copyleft or share alike) Commercial use: Ability to make use of the work for commercial purpose or to license it for a fee Use patents: Rights to practice patent claims of the software owner and of the contributors to the code, in so far these rights are necessary to make full use of the software Place warranty: Ability to place additional warranty, services or rights on the software licensed (without holding the software owner and other contributors liable for it) MUST: Incl. Copyright: Describes whether the original copyright and attribution marks must be retained Royalty free: In case a fee (i.e. contribution, lump sum) is requested from recipients, it cannot be royalties (depending on the use) State changes: Source code modifications (author, why, beginning, end) must be documented Disclose source: The source code must be publicly available Copyleft/Share alike: In case of (re-) distribution of the work or its derivatives, the same license must be used/granted: no re-licensing. Lesser copyleft: While the work itself is copyleft, derivatives produced by the normal use of the work are not and could be covered by any other license SaaS/network: Distribution includes providing access to the work (to its functionalities) through a network, online, from the cloud, as a service Include license: Include the full text of the license in the modified software.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright, an Incentive Or a Burden?
    Copyright, an Incentive or a Burden? Wolfgang Bein University of Nevada Las Vegas, USA, [email protected] Abstract A copyright provides protection for original artistic or literary work and is valid for the life of the owner plus 70 years. There is a growing tension between creative practices that require access to content that is often copyrighted, and increasingly restrictive intellectual property laws and policies governing access to copyrighted content. Very recently this has played out in the law suit between the media corporation Viacom and the Internet portal YouTube, which is owned by Google. This is against the background of a steadily emerging open source and creative commons culture. Milestones in the open source movement are the OpenOffice office suite, Netscape’s publication of the source code for its product as open software, Google’s library project, various free archives for scientific dissemination, such as Cornell University’s ArXiv. I. INTRODUCTION The gap between the cost of digital media and storage, and a copyrighted digital item (a CD or DVD) continually increases, as Internet is readily available, and the price of digitally duplicating anything capable of being transmitted via digital media dropped to near zero [1]. The use of a copyrighted material is less restrictive than other intellectual properties (patents, trademarks, service marks), even though the copyrighted material cannot be photocopied, scanned or copied in any way. But portions of it can be used for non-commercial purposes. The First Sale Doctrine (Copyright Act, 1976) does allow you to resell or give away the copy of the copyrighted item you bought.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Source Software Licenses
    Open Source Software Licences User Guide If you are working on a piece of software and you want to make it open source (i.e. freely available for others to use), there are questions you may need to consider, for example, whether you need a licence and why; and if so, how to choose a licence. This guide will help with those questions so that you have a better idea of what you need for your particular project. What is Open Source Software? ......................................................................................................... 1 Why do I need a licence for Open Source software? .......................................................................... 1 How do I choose a license? ................................................................................................................. 2 What if I have dependencies or my work is a derivative? .................................................................. 5 Combined Works and Compatibility ................................................................................................... 5 What if I want to change licenses? ..................................................................................................... 6 What if my software is protected by a patent? .................................................................................. 6 Can I commercialise Open Source Software? ..................................................................................... 6 Who should I speak to if I need help? ................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mapping the Digital Public Domain: Threats and Opportunities
    SAMUELSON_FMT(3).DOC 03/20/03 3:44 PM MAPPING THE DIGITAL PUBLIC DOMAIN: THREATS AND OPPORTUNITIES PAMELA SAMUELSON* I INTRODUCTION Whether the public domain is a virtual wasteland of undeserving detritus or the font of all new creation is the subject of some debate.1 Those who adhere to the former perspective do not worry about “threats” to this domain any more than they would worry about scavengers who go to garbage dumps to look for abandoned property. Adherents of the latter view, interestingly enough, are not of one mind about “threats” to this domain. Some believe that propertizing value residing in the public domain will produce more social benefit than letting content languish there,2 while others regard propertization itself as the main threat to the public domain.3 At the risk of seeming a contrarian, I concur with all three views: some of what is in the public domain is detritus; some of what is valuable in the public domain might be better utilized if propertized to some degree; other parts of the public domain need to remain open and unownable as sources for future creations. In the course of explaining why I embrace this seemingly contradic- Copyright © 2003 by Pamela Samuelson This article is also available at http://law.duke.edu/journals/66LCPSamuelson. * Chancellor’s Professor of Law and of Information Management, University of California at Berkeley. This article is a derivative work of a paper presented at a conference on the public domain held at Duke University School of Law on November 9-10, 2001.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Source Software: a History David Bretthauer University of Connecticut, [email protected]
    University of Connecticut OpenCommons@UConn Published Works UConn Library 12-26-2001 Open Source Software: A History David Bretthauer University of Connecticut, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/libr_pubs Part of the OS and Networks Commons Recommended Citation Bretthauer, David, "Open Source Software: A History" (2001). Published Works. 7. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/libr_pubs/7 Open Source Software: A History —page 1 Open Source Software: A History by David Bretthauer Network Services Librarian, University of Connecticut Open Source Software: A History —page 2 Abstract: In the 30 years from 1970 -2000, open source software began as an assumption without a name or a clear alternative. It has evolved into a s ophisticated movement which has produced some of the most stable and widely used software packages ever produced. This paper traces the evolution of three operating systems: GNU, BSD, and Linux, as well as the communities which have evolved with these syst ems and some of the commonly -used software packages developed using the open source model. It also discusses some of the major figures in open source software, and defines both “free software” and “open source software.” Open Source Software: A History —page 1 Since 1998, the open source softw are movement has become a revolution in software development. However, the “revolution” in this rapidly changing field can actually trace its roots back at least 30 years. Open source software represents a different model of software distribution that wi th which many are familiar. Typically in the PC era, computer software has been sold only as a finished product, otherwise called a “pre - compiled binary” which is installed on a user’s computer by copying files to appropriate directories or folders.
    [Show full text]
  • Designing the Public Domain
    DESIGNING THE PUBLIC DOMAIN Over the years, copyright and patent scholars have had an increas- ingly intense love affair with the public domain,1 and for good reason — the public domain is said to be necessary for a “just and attractive” democratic culture,2 for meaningful freedom of speech,3 and for the economically efficient production of information.4 Though each of these justifications counsels robust access to information, what kind of public domain we should have depends largely on why we want one in the first place. This Note argues that social science research on human motivation suggests that we make the public domain most efficient only by making it more liberal and more republican. In other words, the leading economic theory of the public domain, enriched by an un- derstanding of pro-social motivation, is compatible with liberal and republican theories. This Note organizes research on pro-social moti- vation around the motivation-fostering effects of empowerment, com- munity, and fairness. By incorporating these norms into the cultural architecture of the public domain, we can promote greater information production at less cost than by relying solely on the intellectual prop- erty system’s traditional tools of exclusion. After an introduction to core concepts, Part I presents the three standard arguments in favor of a robust public domain. Part II de- scribes recent social science research on human motivation, explains how this research should shape an understanding of incentives in the public domain, and organizes the myriad available policy levers into three intrinsic motivation–fostering strategies that shape the analysis in Part III.
    [Show full text]