DOCSLIB.ORG

Legal Aspects of Free and Open Source Software, Compilation of Briefing

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Legal Aspects of Free and Open Source Software, Compilation of Briefing DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT C: CITIZENS' RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS LEGAL AFFAIRS Legal aspects of free and open source software COMPILATION OF BRIEFING NOTES WORKSHOP Tuesday, 9 July 2013 JAN 4 Q 1 PE 474.400 EN This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs. RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATORS Danai PAPADOPOULOU Policy Department C: Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] Rosa RAFFAELLI Policy Department C: Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] EDITORIAL ASSISTANCE Marcia MAGUIRE Policy Department C: Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN ABOUT THE EDITOR To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to its monthly newsletter please write to: [email protected] European Parliament, manuscript completed in July 2013. © European Union, Brussels, 2013. This document is available on the Internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy. Workshop: Legal aspects of free and open source software ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CONTENTS An introduction to the most used FOSS license: the GNU GPL license 6 Dr. Eben Moglen, JD and Ian Sullivan, Columbia Law School Developing an EU model: the EUPL license 13 Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz, Developer of the EUPL A discussion of the different software licensing regimes 30 Avv. Carlo Piana, Lawyer Legal aspects of free and open source software in procurement: guidelines developed at the EU level 50 Rishab Ghosh, UNU-MERIT Legal aspects of free and open source software in procurement: national case studies 68 Philippe Laurent, University of Namur Legal aspects of free and open source software in procurement: the example of the City of Munich 89 Oliver Altehage, Kirsten Böge & Dr. Jutta Kreyss 3 Policy Department C: Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs ____________________________________________________________________________________________ LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AGPL Affero General Public License APL Apache Public License BSD Berkeley Software Distribution EC European Commission EIF European Interoperability framework EPL Eclipse Public Licence EU European Union EUPL European Union Public Licence FDL Free Documentation License FOSS Free and/or Open Source Software FLA Fiduciary Licensing Agreement FLOSS Free/Libre Open Source Software FRAND Fair, Reasonable and Non Discriminatory (licensing terms) FSF Free Software Foundation GCC GNU C Compiler GNU GNU's Not Unix GPL GNU General Public License IMIO Intercommunale de Mutualisation Informatique et Organisationnelle IP Intellectual Property ISA Interoperable Solutions for Administrations (a EC programme, complementing the previous IDA and IDABC) ISV Independent Software Vendor IT (ICT) Information (& Communication) Technology 4 Workshop: Legal aspects of free and open source software ____________________________________________________________________________________________ KDE K Desktop Environment LGPL Lesser General Public License MPL Mozilla Public Licence NIF National Interoperability Framework NOIV Nederland Open In Verbinding OSI Open Source Initiative OSS Open Source Software (see: FOSS) SaaS Software as a Service (i.e. applications used in the cloud) PAs Public Administrations SDO Standard Definition Organisation SFLC Software Freedom Law Center W3C World Wide Web Consortium 5 Policy Department C: Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs ____________________________________________________________________________________________ An introduction to the most used FOSS license: the GNU GPL license Dr. Eben Moglen, JD and Ian Sullivan, Columbia Law School ABSTRACT The public drafting and discussion of GPLv3 in 2006-07 was a landmark in non­ governmental transnational law-making. Free and open source software production communities are held together by copyright licensing, as are free cultural production communities like Wikipedia. Their efforts to improve those licenses—to increase their utility in multiple legal systems, to take account of technical and economic changes in the field, and to increase their efficiency of operation and enforcement—are among the most important examples of genuinely democratic, participatory law-making that we have experienced so far in the 21st century. CONTENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 1 THE GPL AND COPYLEFT 7 2 CREATING VERSION THREE OF THE GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE (GPLV3) 8 3 THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION 9 4 THE DRAFTS 11 CONCLUSION 12 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The public drafting and discussion of GPLv3 in 2006-07 was a landmark in non­ governmental transnational lawmaking. Free and open source software production communities are held together by copyright licensing, as are free cultural production communities like Wikipedia. Their efforts to improve those licenses—to increase their utility in multiple legal systems, to take account of technical and economic changes in the field, and to increase their efficiency of operation and enforcement—are among the most important examples of genuinely democratic, participatory law-making that we have experienced so far in the 21st century. In the interest of improving both the European Parliament’s access to the details of this particular process, and to assist it in self-scrutiny, with respect to its extraordinary consistency in missing its opportunities in this area, Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) submits the records of this process, which it assisted its client, the Free Software Foundation, to design and execute. 1 1 While this 19 month transnational consultation process operated entirely on Free Software, the procedures of this Parliament require the use of proprietary document production tools and formats in order to discuss it on the public record. This document is the closest approximation to those formats that can be produced using internationally recognized standard formats and Free Software document production tools that are available to all 6 Workshop: Legal aspects of free and open source software ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 THE GPL AND COPYLEFT The GPL is the world's most widely used Free Software licence.2 The Free Software Foundation, the founders of the Free Software movement, defines free software as: [S]oftware that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them.3 The GPL preserves these freedoms for its users through a series of requirements in the licence. Originally designed for use in the GNU project to build a fully free computer operating system, these licence requirements are collectively referred to as “Copyleft”. The GNU project's explanation of Copyleft follows. 1.1. What is Copyleft?4 Copyleft5 is a general method for making a program free software and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free software as well. The simplest way to make a program free is to put it in the public domain,6 uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the program and their improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software.7 They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a proprietary product. People who receive the program in that modified form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the middleman has stripped it away. In the GNU project,8 the aim is to give all users the freedom to redistribute and change GNU software. If middlemen could strip off the freedom, there might be many users, but those users would not have freedom. So, instead of putting GNU software in the public domain, it has been “copylefted”. Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to further copy and change it. Copyleft guarantees that every user has freedom. Copyleft also provides an incentive9 for other programmers to add to free software. Important free programs (such as the GNU C++ compiler) exist only because of this. Copyleft also helps programmers who want to contribute improvements10 to free software11 get permission to do that. These programmers often work for companies or universities that would do almost anything to get more money. A programmer may want to contribute his/her changes to the community, but her employer may want to turn the changes into a proprietary software product. When the employer is told that it is illegal to distribute the improved version except as free software, the employer usually decides to release it as free software rather than throw it away. To copyleft a program, it is first stated that it is copyrighted; then, distribution terms are added, which are a legal instrument that gives everyone the rights to use, modify, and redistribute the program's code or any program derived from it but
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Free Software, Open Source Software, Licenses. a Short Presentation Including a Procedure for Research Software and Data Dissemination Teresa Gomez-Diaz
    Free software, Open source software, licenses. A short presentation including a procedure for research software and data dissemination Teresa Gomez-Diaz To cite this version: Teresa Gomez-Diaz. Free software, Open source software, licenses. A short presentation including a procedure for research software and data dissemination. 2014. hal-01062383v2 HAL Id: hal-01062383 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01062383v2 Preprint submitted on 11 Sep 2014 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution - ShareAlike| 4.0 International License Free software, Open source software, licenses. A short presentation including a procedure for research software and data dissemination T. Gomez-Diaz CNRS, Universit´eParis-Est, Laboratoire d’informatique Gaspard-Monge 77454 Marne-la-Vall´ee Cedex 2, France Contact: [email protected] 9 september 2014, V.1.2 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC-BY-SA v4.0), http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ 1 Introduction As H2020 approaches and open access policies spread in the European research community ([9]), it becomes more important to revisit the basic concepts in software distribution such as free software, open source software, licenses: they should be considered before any research software dissemination.
    [Show full text]
  • Licensing 101 December 3, 2020 Meet the Speakers
    Licensing 101 December 3, 2020 Meet The Speakers Sushil Iyer Adam Kessel Principal Principal fr.com | 2 Roadmap • High level, introductory discussion on IP licensing • Topics – Types of IP – Monetization strategies – Key parts of a license agreement – Certain considerations • Licensing software, especially open source software • Licensing pharmaceutical patents • Trademarks • Trade secrets • Know-how fr.com | 3 Types of IP Patents Trademarks Copyrights Know-how (including trade secrets) fr.com | 4 Monetization Strategies • IP licensing – focus of this presentation – IP owner (licensor) retains ownership and grants certain rights to licensee – IP licensee obtains the legal rights to practice the IP – Bundle of rights can range from all the rights that the IP owner possesses to a subset of the same • Sale – IP owner (assignor) transfers ownership to the purchaser (assignee) • Litigation – Enforcement, by IP owner, of IP rights against an infringer who impermissibly practices the IP owner’s rights – Damages determined by a Court fr.com | 5 What is an IP License? • Contract between IP owner (Licensor) and Licensee – Licensor’s offer – grant of Licensor’s rights in IP • Patents – right to sell products that embody claimed inventions of Licensor’s US patents • Trademarks – right to use Licensor’s US marks on products or when selling products • Copyright – right to use and/or make derivative works of Licensor’s copyrighted work • Trade Secret – right to use and obligation to maintain Licensor’s trade secret – Licensee’s consideration – compensation
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Licensing Open Government Data Jyh-An Lee
    Hastings Business Law Journal Volume 13 Article 2 Number 2 Winter 2017 Winter 2017 Licensing Open Government Data Jyh-An Lee Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_business_law_journal Part of the Business Organizations Law Commons Recommended Citation Jyh-An Lee, Licensing Open Government Data, 13 Hastings Bus. L.J. 207 (2017). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_business_law_journal/vol13/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Business Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 2 - LEE MACROED.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 5/5/2017 11:09 AM Licensing Open Government Data Jyh-An Lee* Governments around the world create and collect an enormous amount of data that covers important environmental, educational, geographical, meteorological, scientific, demographic, transport, tourism, health insurance, crime, occupational safety, product safety, and many other types of information.1 This data is generated as part of a government’s daily functions.2 Given government data’s exceptional social and economic value, former U.S. President Barack Obama described it as a “national asset.”3 For various policy reasons, open government data (“OGD”) has become a popular governmental practice and international * Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Law in the Chinese University
    [Show full text]
  • Download (PDF)
    CULTIVATING OPEN INFORMATION PLATFORMS: A LAND TRUST MODEL MOLLY SHAFFER VAN HOUWELING* INTRODUCTION James Boyle has led a recent call for intellectual property “environmentalism”—a movement to fend off perceived threats to the public interest posed by expansions in the scope and term of intellectual property protection.1 Inspired in part by Boyle’s message, a number of organizations have sprung up that aspire to expand and cultivate the body of intellectual works that are not subject to proprietary control.2 The Internet’s original development as a non-proprietary in- formation platform is another source of inspiration for this incip- ient movement.3 The Internet is built on a suite of protocols— * Assistant Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School. Thanks to Kenneth Bamberger, Stefan Bechtold, Glenn Otis Brown, Julie Cohen, Bruce Damer, Rebecca Eisenberg, Edward Felten, Frank Hecker, Daphne Keller, Thom LeDoux, Mark Lemley, Lawrence Lessig, Douglas Lichtman, Ronald Mann, Thomas Nachbar, Maureen O’Rourke, Timothy Schoechle, Theodore Ts’o, Robert Van Houweling, and Jonathan Zittrain for comments. This essay was the basis for a presentation at the Silicon Flatirons Telecommunications Program Conference on Regulation of Information Platforms. Thanks to Philip Weiser for organizing the conference and to him and the other conference participants for their comments. 1. See, e.g., James Boyle, A Politics of Intellectual Property: Environmentalism for the Net?, 47 DUKE L.J. 87, 108-16 (1997); James Boyle, The Second Enclosure Movement and the Construction of the Public Domain, 39-43 (paper presented at the Duke conference on the Public Domain, Nov. 2001), discussion draft available at http://www.law.duke.edu/pd/papers/boyle.pdf; see also Seth Shulman, Intellectual- Property Ecology, TECHNOLOGY REVIEW, Mar.
    [Show full text]
  • SFLC V Conservancy
    Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov ESTTA Tracking number: ESTTA863914 Filing date: 12/11/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Proceeding 92066968 Party Defendant Software Freedom Conservancy Correspondence PAMELA S CHESTECK Address CHESTEK LEGAL P O BOX 2492 RALEIGH, NC 27602 UNITED STATES Email: [email protected] Submission Motion for Summary Judgment Yes, the Filer previously made its initial disclosures pursuant to Trademark Rule 2.120(a); OR the motion for summary judgment is based on claim or issue pre- clusion, or lack of jurisdiction. The deadline for pretrial disclosures for the first testimony period as originally set or reset: 07/20/2018 Filer's Name Pamela S Chestek Filer's email [email protected] Signature /Pamela S Chestek/ Date 12/11/2017 Attachments Motion for SJ on affirmative defenses-signed.pdf(756280 bytes ) Kuhn-Declara- tion_summary-judgment_as-submitted_reduced-size-signed.pdf(2181238 bytes ) Sandler-declara- tion_summary-judgment_as-submitted-reduced-size-signed.pdf(1777273 bytes ) Chestek declaration_summary-judgment-signed-with-exhibits.pdf(2003142 bytes ) IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD In the Mater of Registraion No. 4212971 Mark: SOFTWARE FREEDOM CONSERVANCY Registraion date: September 25, 2012 Sotware Freedom Law Center Peiioner, v. Cancellaion No. 92066968 Sotware Freedom Conservancy Registrant. RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Introducion The Peiioner, Sotware Freedom Law Center (“SFLC”), is a provider of legal services. It had the idea to create an independent enity that would ofer inancial and administraive services for free and open source sotware projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Classification of Computer Software for Legal Protection: International Perspectivest
    RAYMOND T. NIMMER* PATRICIA KRAUTHAUS** ARTICLES Classification of Computer Software for Legal Protection: International Perspectivest Computer and software technology are international industries in the full sense of the term. United States and foreign companies compete not only in U.S. markets, but also in the international marketplace. These are new industries created during an era in which all major areas of commerce have obviously international, rather than purely domestic frameworks. The technology industries are viewed as central to national economic development in many countries. However, the technology and products are internationally mobile. They entail an information base that can be recreated in many countries, and is not closely confined by local resources. International protection in this context is highly dependent on reciprocal and coordinated legal constraints. The computer industry deals in new and unique products that have no clear antecedents. Defining the character of international legal protection entails not merely defining a framework for protection of particular products, but also developing frameworks of international technology transfer, information flow, and the like. International patterns of legal protection and classification of computer software serve as a case study of legal policy adaptations to new technologies; undoubtedly, in this era of high technology many more such adaptations will be necessary. In this article, we review the developing patterns of international legal protection for software. This review documents a marked differentiation of technology protection themes. In technologically advanced countries, *Professor of Law, University of Houston, Houston, Texas. **Attorney at Law, Houston, Texas. tThe Editorial Reviewer for this article is Larry D. Johnson. 734 THE INTERNATIONAL LAWYER national decisions about software protection reflect an emerging consen- sus that supports copyright as the primary form of product and technology protection.
    [Show full text]
  • Android (Operating System) 1 Android (Operating System)
    Android (operating system) 1 Android (operating system) Android Home screen displayed by Samsung Nexus S with Google running Android 2.3 "Gingerbread" Company / developer Google Inc., Open Handset Alliance [1] Programmed in C (core), C++ (some third-party libraries), Java (UI) Working state Current [2] Source model Free and open source software (3.0 is currently in closed development) Initial release 21 October 2008 Latest stable release Tablets: [3] 3.0.1 (Honeycomb) Phones: [3] 2.3.3 (Gingerbread) / 24 February 2011 [4] Supported platforms ARM, MIPS, Power, x86 Kernel type Monolithic, modified Linux kernel Default user interface Graphical [5] License Apache 2.0, Linux kernel patches are under GPL v2 Official website [www.android.com www.android.com] Android is a software stack for mobile devices that includes an operating system, middleware and key applications.[6] [7] Google Inc. purchased the initial developer of the software, Android Inc., in 2005.[8] Android's mobile operating system is based on a modified version of the Linux kernel. Google and other members of the Open Handset Alliance collaborated on Android's development and release.[9] [10] The Android Open Source Project (AOSP) is tasked with the maintenance and further development of Android.[11] The Android operating system is the world's best-selling Smartphone platform.[12] [13] Android has a large community of developers writing applications ("apps") that extend the functionality of the devices. There are currently over 150,000 apps available for Android.[14] [15] Android Market is the online app store run by Google, though apps can also be downloaded from third-party sites.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Copyleft, -Right and the Case Law on Apis on Both Sides of the Atlantic 5
    Less may be more: copyleft, -right and the case law on APIs on both sides of the Atlantic 5 Less may be more: copyleft, -right and the case law on APIs on both sides of the Atlantic Walter H. van Holst Senior IT-legal consultant at Mitopics, The Netherlands (with thanks to the whole of the FTF-legal mailinglist for contributing information and cases that were essential for this article) DOI: 10.5033/ifosslr.v5i1.72 Abstract Like any relatively young area of law, copyright on software is surrounded by some legal uncertainty. Even more so in the context of copyleft open source licenses, since these licenses in some respects aim for goals that are the opposite of 'regular' software copyright law. This article provides an analysis of the reciprocal effect of the GPL- family of copyleft software licenses (the GPL, LGPL and the AGPL) from a mostly copyright perspective as well as an analysis of the extent to which the SAS/WPL case affects this family of copyleft software licenses. In this article the extent to which the GPL and AGPL reciprocity clauses have a wider effect than those of the LGPL is questioned, while both the SAS/WPL jurisprudence and the Oracle vs Google case seem to affirm the LGPL's “dynamic linking” criterium. The net result is that the GPL may not be able to be more copyleft than the LGPL. Keywords Law; information technology; Free and Open Source Software; case law; copyleft, copyright; reciprocity effect; exhaustion; derivation; compilation International Free and Open Source Software Law Review Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • 50109195.Pdf
    UNIVERSIDAD DE EL SALVADOR FACULTAD MULTIDISCIPLINARIA ORIENTAL DEPARTAMENTO DE INGENIERÍA Y ARQUITECTURA TRABAJO DE GRADO: IMPACTO DEL SOFTWARE LIBRE EN LAS INSTITUCIONES DE EDUCACIÓN MEDIA DEL MUNICIPIO DE SAN MIGUEL DURANTE EL AÑO 2019 Y CREACIÓN DE PLATAFORMA VIRTUAL PARA EL REGISTRO DE DICHA INFORMACIÓN. PARA OPTAR AL TÍTULO DE: INGENIERO DE SISTEMAS INFORMÁTICOS PRESENTADO POR: EVER FERNANDO ARGUETA CONTRERAS. ROBERTO CARLOS CÁRDENAS RAMÍREZ. GERSON ALEXANDER SANDOVAL GUERRERO. DOCENTE ASESOR: INGENIERO LUIS JOVANNI AGUILAR CIUDAD UNIVERSITARIA ORIENTAL, 11 DE SEPTIEMBRE DE 2020 SAN MIGUEL, EL SALVADOR, CENTRO AMÉRICA UNIVERSIDAD DE EL SALVADOR AUTORIDADES Msc. ROGER ARMANDO ARIAS RECTOR PhD. RAÚL ERNESTO AZCÚNAGA LÓPEZ VICERECTOR ACADÉMICO INGENIERO JUAN ROSA QUINTANILLA VICERECTOR ADMINISTRATIVO INGENIERO FRANCISCO ALARCÓN SECRETARIO GENERAL LICENCIADO RAFAEL HUMBERTO PEÑA MARÍN FISCAL GENERAL LICENCIADO LUIS ANTONIO MEJÍA LIPE DEFENSOR DE LOS DERECHOS UNIVERSITARIOS FACULTAD MULTIDISCIPLINARIA ORIENTAL AUTORIDADES LICENCIADO CRISTÓBAL HERNÁN RÍOS BENÍTEZ DECANO LICENCIADO OSCAR VILLALOBOS VICEDECANO LICENCIADO ISRRAEL LÓPEZ MIRANDA SECRETARIO INTERINO LICENCIADO JORGE PASTOR FUENTES CABRERA DIRECTOR GENERAL DE PROCESOS DE GRADUACIÓN DEPARTAMENTO DE INGENIERIA Y ARQUITECTURA AUTORIDADES INGENIERO JUAN ANTONIO GRANILLO COREAS. JEFE DEL DEPARTAMENTO. INGENIERA LIGIA ASTRID HERNANDEZ BONILLA COORDINADORA DE LA CARRERA DE INGENIERIA EN SISTEMAS INFORMATICOS INGENIERA MILAGRO DE MARÍA ROMERO DE GARCÍA COORDINADORA DE PROCESOS DE GRADUACIÓN TRIBUNAL EVALUADOR INGENIERO LUIS JOVANNI AGUILAR JURADO ASESOR INGENIERO LUDWIN ALDUVÍ HERNÁNDEZ VÁSQUEZ DOCENTE JURADO CALIFICADOR INGENIERA LIGIA ASTRID HERNANDEZ BONILLA DOCENTE JURADO CALIFICADOR AGRADECIMIENTOS A DIOS: Por darme la oportunidad de vivir y por haberme dado la sabiduría para poder culminar mis estudios y por fortalecer mi corazón e iluminar mi mente, por haber puesto en mi camino a aquellas personas que han sido mi soporte y compañía durante todo el periodo de estudio.
    [Show full text]
  • Mcafee Potentially Unwanted Programs (PUP) Policy March, 2018
    POLICY McAfee Potentially Unwanted Programs (PUP) Policy March, 2018 McAfee recognizes that legitimate technologies such as commercial, shareware, freeware, or open source products may provide a value or benefit to a user. However, if these technologies also pose a risk to the user or their system, then users should consent to the behaviors exhibited by the software, understand the risks, and have adequate control over the technology. McAfee refers to technologies with these characteristics as “potentially unwanted program(s),” or “PUP(s).” The McAfee® PUP detection policy is based on the process includes assessing the risks to privacy, security, premise that users should understand what is being performance, and stability associated with the following: installed on their systems and be notified when a ■ Distribution: how users obtain the software including technology poses a risk to their system or privacy. advertisements, interstitials, landing-pages, linking, PUP detection and removal is intended to provide and bundling notification to our users when a software program or technology lacks sufficient notification or control over ■ Installation: whether the user can make an informed the software or fails to adequately gain user consent to decision about the software installation or add- the risks posed by the technology. McAfee Labs is the ons and can adequately back out of any undesired McAfee team responsible for researching and analyzing installations technologies for PUP characteristics. ■ Run-Time Behaviors: the behaviors exhibited by the technology including advertisements, deception, and McAfee Labs evaluates technologies to assess any impacts to privacy and security risks exhibited by the technology against the degree of user notification and control over the technology.
    [Show full text]