DOCSLIB.ORG

A Quick Guide to Software Licensing for the Scientist-Programmer

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Quick Guide to Software Licensing for the Scientist-Programmer A Quick Guide to Software Licensing for the Scientist-Programmer The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Morin, Andrew, Jennifer Urban, and Piotr Sliz. 2012. A quick guide to software licensing for the scientist-programmer. PLoS Computational Biology 8(7): e1002598. Published Version doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002598 Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:10445641 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Education A Quick Guide to Software Licensing for the Scientist- Programmer Andrew Morin1, Jennifer Urban2, Piotr Sliz1* 1 Department of Biological Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America, 2 Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic, School of Law, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, California, United States of America Computing is ubiquitous in every institutional TTO when choosing soft- intellectual property (IP) rights. Under domain of scientific research. Software is ware licenses. the policies of most academic and the means by which scientists harness the research institutions, researchers who power of computers, and much scientific Why Software Licenses Are have created a piece of software are computing relies on software conceived Important unlikely to own full rights to their works. and developed by other practicing re- Instead, the institution generally holds or searchers. The task of creating scientific Licenses are important tools for setting shares legal right to developed software. software, however, does not end with the specific terms on which software may be Institutions’ policies on IP ownership publication of computed results. Making used, modified, or distributed. Based on vary, but in most cases your institution the developed software available for in- the copyright protection automatically will be the legal ‘‘rights owner,’’ and will spection and use by other scientists is granted to all original works, a software be the entity that actually grants the essential to reproducibility, peer-review, license—essentially, a set of formal per- license you choose for your software. and the ability to build upon others’ work missions from the copyright holder—may Although many types of licenses, espe- [1,2]. In fulfilling expectations to distribute include specific ‘‘conditions’’ of use, and cially of the ‘‘free and open source’’ and disseminate their software, scientist- are an important part of the legally variety, are simple enough for the non- programmers are required to be not only binding contract between program author legal expert to understand and apply proficient scientists and coders, but also (or rights owner) and end-user. (Figure 1), it is generally necessary to knowledgeable in legal strategies for li- Without a license agreement, software consult your institutions’ TTO before censing their software. Navigating the may be left in a state of legal uncertainty in imposing a license. See below for more often complex legal landscape of software which potential users may not know which information about working with your licensing can be overwhelming, even for limitations owners may want to enforce, institution in applying a license. sophisticated programmers. Institutional and owners may leave themselves vulner- technology transfer offices (TTOs) exist able to legal claims or have difficulty Types of Software Licenses to help address this need, but due to controlling how their work is used. This is mismatches in expectations or specific equally true for software that is commer- Colloquially speaking, the spectrum of domain knowledge, interactions between cialized and offered for a fee, and software software licensing strategies can be divided scientists and TTO staff can result in that is made available without cost to into three categories: ‘‘proprietary,’’ ‘‘free suboptimal outcomes. others. While end-users often balk at overly and open source,’’ or a hybrid of the two. As practitioners in the scientific com- restrictive software licenses, the uncertainty puting and technology law fields, we caused when no license is given can also Proprietary Licensing have witnessed firsthand the confusion discourage those wishing to make use of a This strategy is familiar from the ‘‘click- and difficulties associated with licensing piece of code. It is important to note that thru’’ agreements that govern commercial scientifically generated software. SBGri- licenses can be used to facilitate access to software packages. The primary purpose d.org is a consortium of scientific software as well as restrict it. of a proprietary software license is to limit software developers and users in hun- the use of software according to the rights dreds of biomedical research laborato- Software Licensing in Academic owner’s business strategy. As a result, ries worldwide. As facilitator and mid- and Research Environments proprietary licenses are often very restric- dleman between developers and end- tive for end-users. They typically allow use users, we commonly assist in the dissem- Foralicensetobevaliditmustbe of the software only for its stated purpose, ination and use of scientifically generat- granted by the owner of the work’s often only on a single computer, forbid ed software. Through research and advocacy, the Samuelson Law, Technol- Citation: Morin A, Urban J, Sliz P (2012) A Quick Guide to Software Licensing for the Scientist- ogy and Public Policy Clinic works with Programmer. PLoS Comput Biol 8(7): e1002598. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002598 software developers and other creators Editor: Fran Lewitter, Whitehead Institute, United States of America on licensing issues, particularly issues Published July 26, 2012 related to facilitating ‘‘open access’’ to Copyright: ß 2012 Morin et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative scientific, technical, or creative materi- Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, als. Together, we offer a primer on provided the original author and source are credited. software licensing with a focus on the Funding: The work was supported by the National Science Foundation grant 0639193 (PS). The funders had particular needs of the scientist software no role in the preparation of the manuscript. developer. The aim of this guide is to Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. help scientists better engage with their * E-mail: [email protected] PLoS Computational Biology | www.ploscompbiol.org 1 July 2012 | Volume 8 | Issue 7 | e1002598 Figure 1. Example of FOSS license with ‘‘academic’’ style copyright statement. The example shown is the entirety of a 2-Clause BSD [8] license with copyright statement (at top, within quotes). The text of the license is in black. Red highlighted text is where the copyright holder applying the license inserts their specific information. Application of this and many FOSS licenses simply require that the text of the license be included (usually as ‘‘License.txt’’) in the directory containing the distributed program binary and or source code. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002598.g001 users from copying, redistributing, or common misconception is that FOSS is called dual- or multi-licensing) approach- altering the work, and specifically prohibit synonymous with ‘‘noncommercial.’’ In es—combining a FOSS license with a the creation of derivatives using parts of fact, as described by the two most proprietary ‘‘closed’’ license—are some- the work. Importantly, programs under influential definitions of FOSS [3,4], times used. Under this strategy, the rights proprietary licenses are typically distribut- ‘‘non-discriminatory’’ means that no cate- owner chooses which license to apply on a ed only in binary form and forbid gory of user or distributor can be prohib- case-by-case basis. When ownership and examination of the program code or ited, including for-profit commercial enti- licensing rights are clear, these licensing reverse engineering of any part of the ties. As such, FOSS-licensed software can schemes can maintain some of the benefits program. In academic settings, proprietary be, and regularly is, commercially exploit- of FOSS while also permitting creators to software may occasionally release source ed. Some cited benefits of a FOSS strategy employ multiple business models [6]. The code ‘‘for inspection purposes only’’ due to include widespread adoption, user contri- downside can be a significant added scientific publishing and peer-review re- butions, and ease of collaboration [5]. burden for the rights owner in applying, quirements (Table 1). Additionally, because of their open and administering, and enforcing multiple non-discriminatory nature, FOSS licenses licenses. This has generally limited the Free and Open Source Software can simplify continued development and adoption of hybrid license models to large (FOSS) Licensing collaboration when researchers switch software development initiatives. Free and open source software (FOSS) institutions, and when they collaborate represents a fundamentally different ap- across institutions. FOSS can also help to Terms, Concepts, and Examples extend the useful
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Introduction to Software Licensing
    An Introduction to Software Licensing James Willenbring Software Engineering and Research Department Center for Computing Research Sandia National Laboratories David Bernholdt Oak Ridge National Laboratory Please open the Q&A Google Doc so that I can ask you Michael Heroux some questions! Sandia National Laboratories http://bit.ly/IDEAS-licensing ATPESC 2019 Q Center, St. Charles, IL (USA) (And you’re welcome to ask See slide 2 for 8 August 2019 license details me questions too) exascaleproject.org Disclaimers, license, citation, and acknowledgements Disclaimers • This is not legal advice (TINLA). Consult with true experts before making any consequential decisions • Copyright laws differ by country. Some info may be US-centric License and Citation • This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). • Requested citation: James Willenbring, David Bernholdt and Michael Heroux, An Introduction to Software Licensing, tutorial, in Argonne Training Program on Extreme-Scale Computing (ATPESC) 2019. • An earlier presentation is archived at https://ideas-productivity.org/events/hpc-best-practices-webinars/#webinar024 Acknowledgements • This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR), and by the Exascale Computing Project (17-SC-20-SC), a collaborative effort of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science and the National Nuclear Security Administration. • This work was performed in part at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which is managed by UT-Battelle, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725. • This work was performed in part at Sandia National Laboratories.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Source Software Notice
    Open Source Software Notice This document describes open source software contained in LG Smart TV SDK. Introduction This chapter describes open source software contained in LG Smart TV SDK. Terms and Conditions of the Applicable Open Source Licenses Please be informed that the open source software is subject to the terms and conditions of the applicable open source licenses, which are described in this chapter. | 1 Contents Introduction............................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Open Source Software Contained in LG Smart TV SDK ........................................................... 4 Revision History ........................................................................................................................ 5 Terms and Conditions of the Applicable Open Source Licenses..................................................................................... 6 GNU Lesser General Public License ......................................................................................... 6 GNU Lesser General Public License ....................................................................................... 11 Mozilla Public License 1.1 (MPL 1.1) ....................................................................................... 13 Common Public License Version v 1.0 .................................................................................... 18 Eclipse Public License Version
    [Show full text]
  • Juridische Aandachtspunten Bij Het Gebruik Van Open Source Software
    Juridische aandachtspunten bij het gebruik van Open Source Software [email protected] 1 Inhoud Achtergrond en open source definitie Voorbeelden open source software en licenties Welke licentie is van toepassing? Enkele bepalingen uitgelicht Praktijktips 2 Technische achtergrond 3 Conceptuele achtergrond 4 Open source definitie 1. De licentie mag niemand verbieden de software gratis weg te geven óf te verkopen. 2. De broncode moet met de software meegeleverd worden of vrij beschikbaar zijn. 3. Wederverspreiding van afgeleide werken en aangepaste versies van de software moet toegestaan zijn. 4. Licenties mogen vereisen dat aanpassingen alleen als patch verspreid worden. 5. De licentie mag niet discrimineren tegen gebruikers(groepen). 6. De licentie mag niet discrimineren tegen gebruiksomgeving van de software. 7. De rechten verbonden aan het programma moeten opgaan voor iedereen aan wie het programma gedistribueerd wordt. 8. De rechten verbonden aan het programma moeten niet afhangen van softwaredistributies waarvan de software een onderdeel is. 9. De licentie mag niet verlangen dat andere software die samen met de software verspreid wordt onder dezelfde licentie valt. 10. Geen van de bepalingen van de licentie mag slaan op een bepaalde technologie of interface-stijl. 5 Voorbeelden Apache License, 2.0 BSD licenses GNU General Public License (GPL) GNU Library or "Lesser" General Public License (LGPL) MIT license Mozilla Public License 1.1 (MPL) Common Development and Distribution License Common Public License 1.0 Eclipse Public License
    [Show full text]
  • Eg, Right Now the "Street Address 2 Is Required, but Not "
    You are just a few moments a way from creating your new browser. For fields that are required, make sure to be All fields are required except consistent (e.g., right now the "Street those marked with an asterisk * Address 2 is required, but not "Street Address 1") [note: no need to say that this is your basic account info....”] [remove all of the rest of the copy at the top of the page as it is repeated in the right-hand column] UPDATE: will call this “profile” Under account details, simplify to: “We require some information about you or your organization in order to register. This information is only used by Mozilla and will never be shared. Remove this If select personal, hide "organization name" and "organization type" fields Remove this -- add it to the field name: “Full legal name of the organization” Remove this remove star from fax Change field name to organization mailing address - use a header in that form Simplify this copy to something like: “The information in this section will show up in the browser directory [note is there a way not to have this publicly available?]. Simplify this copy to something like: Headline: Thank you for registering! Youʼre almost ready to create a customized browser! Youʼll receive an email shortly confirming that your account is approved. Please follow the instructions in order to finalize your registration. If for some reason you donʼt receive an email after 24 hours, please contact us at [email protected] (check your SPAM filter first!). Alternatively, click the button below to re-send your activation information now.
    [Show full text]
  • IFIP AICT 404, Pp
    Identifying Success Factors for the Mozilla Project Robert Viseur1,2 1 University of Mons (FPMs), Rue de Houdain, 9, B-7000 Mons, Belgium [email protected] 2 CETIC, Rue des Frères Wright, 29/3, B-6041 Charleroi, Belgium [email protected] Abstract. The publication of the Netscape source code under free software li- cense and the launch of the Mozilla project constitute a pioneering initiative in the field of free and open source software. However, five years after the publi- cation came years of decline. The market shares rose again after 2004 with the lighter Firefox browser. We propose a case study covering the period from 1998 to 2012. We identify the factors that explain the evolution of the Mozilla project. Our study deepens different success factors identified in the literature. It is based on authors' experience as well as the abundant literature dedicated to the Netscape company and the Mozilla project. It particularly highlights the im- portance of the source code complexity, its modularity, the responsibility as- signment and the existence of an organisational sponsorship. 1 Introduction After the launch of the GNU project in 1984 and the emergence of Linux in 1991, the Mozilla project was probably one of the most important events in the field of free and open source software at the end of the nineteenth century (Viseur, 2011). It was a pioneering initiative in the release of proprietary software, while commercial involvement in the development of free and open source software has accelerated over the last ten years (Fitzgerald, 2006). Netscape was the initiator.
    [Show full text]
  • Diplomarbeit
    Max Schlager Einsatzmöglichkeiten von freier und Open-Source-Software in Klein- und Mittelbetrieben als Alternative zu proprietärer Software Eine Betrachtung im Kontext von Sprachdienstleistungsunternehmen eingereicht als DIPLOMARBEIT an der HOCHSCHULE MITTWEIDA ___________________________________________ UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES Fachbereich Wirtschaftswissenschaften Klagenfurt, 2009 Erstprüfer: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Hartmut Linder Zweitprüfer: Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Christian-Andreas Schumann Vorgelegte Arbeit wurde verteidigt am: Bibliographische Beschreibung Bibliographische Beschreibung Schlager, Max: Einsatzmöglichkeiten von freier und Open‐Source‐Software in Klein‐ und Mittelbetrieben als Alternative zu proprietärer Software. Eine Betrachtung im Kontext von Sprachdienstleistungsunternehmen. – 2009. – 114 S. Klagenfurt, Hochschule Mittweida (FH), Fachbereich Wirtschaftswissen‐ schaften, Diplomarbeit, 2009 Referat: Ziel der Diplomarbeit ist es herauszufinden, ob freie und Open‐Source‐ Software eine sinnvolle Alternative für Klein‐ und Mittelbetriebe darstellen könnte. Als Untersuchungsobjekt wurde die Sparte der Sprachdienstleistungsunternehmungen gewählt, um einerseits eine thematische Abgrenzung des Umfanges an Softwareprogrammen zu gewährleisten und andererseits eine Empfehlung für eine spezielle Sparte der Softwareanwender abgeben zu können. Nach der thematischen Abgrenzung und einer theoretischen Einführung in die Aspekte der Softwarelizenzierung erfolgt ein Auszug über die auf dem Markt befindliche freie und Open‐Source‐Software.
    [Show full text]
  • A Framework for Purposeful Open Source
    Open Source Archetypes: A frameworkFramework For For Purposeful Open Source May 2018 Open Source Archetypes: A Framework For Purposeful Open Source Table of Contents Preface. 03 Introduction . 04 How to Use This Document. 05 Benefits of Open Source . 06 Open Source Project Archetypes. 10 Business-to-Business (B2B) Open Source . 11 Multi-Vendor Infrastructure . 12 Rocket Ship to Mars . 14 Controlled Ecosystem . 16 Wide Open. .. 17 Mass Market . 19 Specialty Library . 21 Trusted Vendor . 22 Upstream Dependency . 24 Bathwater . 25 Quick-Reference Comparison Of All Archetypes . 28 Practical Questions To Ask About A Project . 29 Basics of Open Source Licensing . 33 Methodology . 37 Acknowledgements . 38 Appendix – Work On ‘Openness’ At Mozilla . 38 BACK TO CONTENTS 02 Open Source Archetypes: A Framework For Purposeful Open Source Preface This report was originally commissioned by Mozilla for internal purposes. Mozilla wanted a shared framework for discussing its options in running open source projects, and requested a survey and comparative analysis of open source project archetypes — the various shapes that open source projects take in order to meet their various goals. For example, should a project prioritize development momentum over early collaborator acquisition, or vice versa? Should it optimize for individual contributors or for institutional partners? Different projects will have different answers to these and many other questions. The benefits of having a common vocabulary of archetypes extend beyond Mozilla, however, and the vocabulary is more useful and more easily improvable the more widely it is shared. Accordingly, Mozilla decided to release the report publicly. Very little has been changed from the original internal version: the Mozilla-specific orientation has been left intact, on the theory that the analysis will be clearer if tuned to a specific (and fortunately well-known) organization rather than rewritten for a hypothetical general audience.
    [Show full text]
  • Oracle Database Licensing Information, 11G Release 2 (11.2) E47877-17
    Oracle®[1] Database Licensing Information 11g Release 2 (11.2) E47877-17 September 2021 Oracle Database Licensing Information, 11g Release 2 (11.2) E47877-17 Copyright © 2004, 2021, Oracle and/or its affiliates. Contributor: Manmeet Ahluwalia, Charlie Berger, Michelle Bird, Carolyn Bruse, Rich Buchheim, Sandra Cheevers, Leo Cloutier, Bud Endress, Prabhaker Gongloor, Kevin Jernigan, Anil Khilani, Mughees Minhas, Trish McGonigle, Dennis MacNeil, Paul Narth, Anu Natarajan, Paul Needham, Martin Pena, Jill Robinson, Jenny Tsai-Smith This software and related documentation are provided under a license agreement containing restrictions on use and disclosure and are protected by intellectual property laws. Except as expressly permitted in your license agreement or allowed by law, you may not use, copy, reproduce, translate, broadcast, modify, license, transmit, distribute, exhibit, perform, publish, or display any part, in any form, or by any means. Reverse engineering, disassembly, or decompilation of this software, unless required by law for interoperability, is prohibited. The information contained herein is subject to change without notice and is not warranted to be error-free. If you find any errors, please report them to us in writing. If this is software or related documentation that is delivered to the U.S. Government or anyone licensing it on behalf of the U.S. Government, then the following notice is applicable: U.S. GOVERNMENT END USERS: Oracle programs (including any operating system, integrated software, any programs embedded, installed or activated on delivered hardware, and modifications of such programs) and Oracle computer documentation or other Oracle data delivered to or accessed by U.S. Government end users are "commercial computer software" or "commercial computer software documentation" pursuant to the applicable Federal Acquisition Regulation and agency-specific supplemental regulations.
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to Free and Open Source Software
    Competence Center in Digital Law www.ccdigitallaw.ch [email protected] Podcast series A Guide to Free and Open Source Software Episode 2: Free and Open Source Software Licenses Summary of Episode 1 Hello and welcome to the second part of the CCdigitallaw podcast with the focus on free and open source software. In the first part on free and open source software you went through the simplified process of developing software. You wrote a code for an email program and learned that to make your code free and open source you have to make the human readable source code accessible to everyone. You have to license your copyrights so that everyone is able and allowed to use, copy, share, modify and share modifications of your computer program. The easiest way to do that is to choose one of the many free and open source software licenses available online. Introduction to Episode 2 In this second part, you will learn where to find all the free and open source software licenses. To do that I have to differentiate between the free software definition and the open source software definition. Definition of Free Software and Open Source Software The term free and open source software pulls together two definitions. One is the free software definition made by the Free Software Foundation, the other is the open source software definition made by the Open Source Initiative. The two definitions are very similar in their content but not a hundred percent the same. “Free software” is defined by the free software foundation it says1 that a computer program is free software if the users of the program have the following four freedoms: .
    [Show full text]
  • Open Source Software
    Open Source Software Clemens Zeidler May 19, 2017 1 / 42 Table of Content Open Source Software Open Source Software Licences Creative Commons Open source not only for software 2 / 42 What is open source software (OSS)1? Proprietary Software/ Closed Source Software I a person, team, or organization has exclusive control over the code/software I source code is not available to others Open Source Software I source code is publicly available I shareable I can be modified/enhanced I can be redistributed (depends on license) 1opensource.com/resources/what-open-source 3 / 42 OSS is everywhere... Kernels: Linux, BSD I servers, super computers, embedded devices, mobile, desktop Android I Linux kernel + open source user land (often with proprietary firmware) I most shipped mobile devices running Android 4 / 42 OSS is everywhere... Web Browsers I Firefox (Gecko engine) (originates from Netscape) I WebKit and Blink web engine (forked from the KHTML/KJS project) I Chrome Web server I Apache, NGINX... 5 / 42 OSS is everywhere... Software Development I most programming languages are open source I many libs are open source, e.g. standard libs, Qt, Apache Commons,... I dev tools: Git, Eclipse, Intellij IDEA,... I build tools: maven, gradle,... 6 / 42 OSS is everywhere... Applications I Gimp, LibreOffice, Inkscape, Thunderbird,... 7 / 42 Motivation: User’s Point of View Code quality/security I public code reviews/ code analysis I review security issues, check for backdoors, is the software spying on me? I doesn’t mean all OSS code is secure/ has high quality..
    [Show full text]
  • For Fields That Are Required, Make Sure to Be Consistent (E.G., Right Now The
    You are just a few moments a way from creating your new browser. For fields that are required, make sure to be All fields are required except consistent (e.g., right now the "Street those marked with an asterisk * Address 2 is required, but not "Street Address 1") [note: no need to say that this is your basic account info....”] [remove all of the rest of the copy at the top of the page as it is repeated in the right-hand column] Under account details, simplify to: “We require some information about you or your organization in order to register. This information is only used by Mozilla and will never be shared. Remove this If select personal, hide "organization name" and "organization type" fields Remove this -- add it to the field name: “Full legal name of the organization” Remove this remove star from fax Change field name to organization mailing address - use a header in that form Simplify this copy to something like: “The information in this section will show up in the browser directory [note is there a way not to have this publicly available?]. Simplify this copy to something like: Headline: Thank you for registering! Youʼre almost ready to create a customized browser! Youʼll receive an email shortly confirming that your account is approved. Please follow the instructions in order to finalize your registration. If for some reason you donʼt receive an email after 24 hours, please contact us at [email protected] (check your SPAM filter first!). Alternatively, click the button below to re-send your activation information now.
    [Show full text]
  • Licensing, Multi-Licensing
    Software Licenses, Free and Open Source Software Péter Jeszenszky Faculty of Informatics, University of Debrecen [email protected] Last modified: April 16, 2020 Terminology ● Non-Free Software, Closed-Source Software, Proprietary Software ● Free Software ● Open-Source Software ● Free and Open-Source Software (FOSS) ● Commercial Software ● Freeware, Shareware ● Software License ● End-User License Agreement (EULA) ● License Compatibility ● Copyleft, Copyleft License ● Public Domain ● Dual Licensing, Multi-Licensing 2 Non-Free Software ● Non-free software is any software that is not free. – Its use, redistribution or modification is prohibited or restricted, or requires permission. – It is also called as closed source software or proprietary software. – Non-free software is the complementary set of free software. 3 Free Software ● The four essential freedoms: – The freedom to run the program for any purpose. – The freedom to study how the program works. – The freedom to redistribute copies of the program. – The freedom to modify the program. ● Access to the source code is a precondition for the second and the fourth freedom. ● See: The Free Software Definition https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en 4 Open Source Software (1) ● The terms “free software” and “open source software” refer to almost the same range of software. However, they represent two different approaches. – Definition: The Open Source Definition https://opensource.org/docs/osd ● The term “open source” is more suitable for marketing purposes than the “term free” software. – Free is an ambiguous word. One meaning of the word is “at no cost”. ● See, for example, “free speech” vs “free beer”. 5 Open Source Software (2) ● The free software movement emphasizes the ethical aspects of freedom.
    [Show full text]