DOCSLIB.ORG

Impact of License Selection on Open Source Software Quality Benjamin J

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Purdue University Purdue e-Pubs Open Access Theses Theses and Dissertations Fall 2014 Impact of license selection on open source software quality Benjamin J. Cotton Purdue University Follow this and additional works at: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/open_access_theses Part of the Computer Engineering Commons, and the Computer Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Cotton, Benjamin J., "Impact of license selection on open source software quality" (2014). Open Access Theses. 314. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/open_access_theses/314 This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact [email protected] for additional information. PURDUE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL Thesis/Dissertation Acceptance Benjamin James Cotton ! ! Impact of license selection on open source software quality Master of Science Kevin Dittman Jeffrey Brewer Jeffrey Whitten To the best of my knowledge and as understood by the student in the Thesis/Dissertation Agreement, Publication Delay, and Certification/Disclaimer (Graduate School Form 32), this thesis/dissertation adheres to the provisions of Purdue University’s “Policy on Integrity in Research” and the use of copyrighted material. Kevin Dittman Jeffrey Whitten 11/24/2014 IMPACT OF LICENSE SELECTION ON OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE QUALITY AThesis Submitted to the Faculty of Purdue University by Benjamin J. Cotton In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science December 2014 Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana ii Dedicated to my wife, Angela, and my daughters, Eleanor and Bridget, whose unconditional love and support made this possible. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS No thesis is ever completed without support, advice, and encouragement. I would like to thank the following people for their contributions to my e↵orts. Professors Kevin Dittman, Je↵rey Whitten, and Je↵rey Brewer whose guidance and input as I developed the idea for this work kept me on the right track. Professors Dittman and Whitten also taught several classes that kept me motivated in the pursuit of my degree. Gerry McCartney, whose creation of the ITaP Scholarship Program inspired me to apply to graduate school in the first place. Preston Smith, Randy Herban, Carol Song, and Rob Futrick, who were my supervisors at various times through the course of my graduate studies and graciously allowed me time to attend class in the middle of the work day. Similarly, I must acknowledge the coworkers who had to deal with my sporadic absences. Finally, but not least, members of various open source communities including the Fedora Documentation team and the Greater Lafayette Open Source Symposium. Their ideas, both related to my thesis and not, have shaped my interest in open source and community collaboration. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ................................ vi LIST OF FIGURES ............................... vii ABBREVIATIONS ................................ viii GLOSSARY .................................... ix ABSTRACT ................................... x CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ........................ 1 1.1 Statement of the Problem ....................... 1 1.2 Significance of the Problem ...................... 2 1.3 Research Question ........................... 4 1.4 Licenses ................................. 4 1.4.1 Copyleft ............................. 4 1.4.2 Permissive ............................ 5 1.5 Assumptions ............................... 5 1.6 Limitations ............................... 6 1.7 Delimitations .............................. 6 1.8 Summary ................................ 7 CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .............. 8 2.1 Definition of Quality .......................... 8 2.2 Quality Metrics ............................. 9 2.2.1 Bug reports ........................... 9 2.2.2 Selecting metrics ........................ 9 2.2.3 Static Analysis ......................... 12 2.3 Technical Debt ............................. 12 2.3.1 Definition ............................ 12 2.3.2 Measurement .......................... 13 2.4 SonarQube ................................ 15 2.5 Summary ................................ 15 CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY ........................ 16 3.1 Hypotheses ............................... 16 3.2 Data Collection ............................. 16 3.2.1 Software Selection ........................ 16 3.2.2 Metrics Collected ........................ 20 v Page 3.2.3 Collection Environment .................... 21 3.3 Analysis Methods ............................ 21 3.4 Threats to Validity ........................... 21 3.5 Summary ................................ 22 CHAPTER 4. PRESENTATION OF DATA AND FINDINGS ........ 23 4.1 Presentation of the data ........................ 23 4.2 Analysis of the data .......................... 27 4.3 Summary ................................ 29 CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 31 5.1 Conclusion ................................ 31 5.2 Future Work ............................... 32 5.3 Summary ................................ 32 LIST OF REFERENCES ............................ 33 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1.1 The open source licenses included in this study. ............. 7 2.1 Attributes of software quality as defined by Boehm, Brown, and Lipow (1976). .................................... 11 3.1 Software projects included in this study ................. 17 3.2 The measures used to evaluate projects. ................. 20 4.1 Complexity and technical debt measurements .............. 23 4.2 Mean technical debt of projects by language and paradigm. ....... 30 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 4.1 Distribution of technical debt for programs in this study ........ 27 4.2 Distribution of programming languages for programs in this study ... 28 4.3 Technical debt of projects analyzed in this study ............. 29 4.4 Technical debt of Java programs in this study .............. 30 viii ABBREVIATIONS BSD Berkeley Software Distribution CDDL Common Development and Distribution License GPL GNU General Public License FSF Free Software Foundation KLOC thousand lines of code LGPL ”Lesser” GNU General Public License LOC lines of code ISO International Standards Organization MPL Mozilla Public License MTBF mean time between failures MTTF mean time to failure OSI Open Source Initiative OSS open source software PMI Project Management Institute SQALE software quality assessment based on life-cycle expectations ix GLOSSARY free software software under a license that provides the four freedoms defined by the Free Software Foundation (2013b) open source software under a license that meets the definition given by the Open Source Initiative (n.d.) permissive software under a license that is open source but not free software x ABSTRACT Cotton, Benjamin J. M.S., Purdue University, December 2014. Impact of license selection on open source software quality. Major Professor: Kevin C. Dittman. Open source software plays an important part in the modern world, powering businesses large and small. However, little work has been done to evaluate the quality of open source software. Two di↵erent license paradigms exist within the open source world, and this study examines the di↵erence in software quality between them. In this thesis, the author uses technical debt as a measure of software quality. Eighty open source projects (40 from each paradigm) were downloaded from the popular open source hosting website SourceForge. Using complexity, code duplication, comments, and unit test coverage as inputs to the SonarQube technical debt model, each project was evaluated. The technical debt was normalized based on the cyclomatic complexity and the paradigms were compared with the Mann-Whitney test. The results showed a clear di↵erence between the two paradigms. However, the results presented in this thesis are only a starting point. The collected data suggest that the programming language used in a project has an impact on the project’s quality. In addition, SonarQube plugins for the popular C and C++ languages were beyond the budget of this work, excluding many projects from consideration. This thesis closes with several suggestions for further avenues of investigation. 1 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the foundation of the study. It begins with a statement of the problem and its significance. The research question is stated in clear terms. Important definitions, including explanations of the license paradigms referenced throughout the study, are provided. Assumptions, limitations, and delimitations applicable to the study are enumerated. 1.1 Statement of the Problem The development of open source software has grown from the purview of hobbyist programmers into a major source of revenue. In 2012, Red Hat became the first open source company to record a billion dollars in revenue (Babcock, 2012). Red Hat has seen steady growth in revenue in the past decade and reported net revenue above $100 million in 2011 and 2012 (Red Hat, 2013). Other companies such as Oracle also generate revenue from support of their open source o↵erings. Many large Internet corporations such as Google, Facebook, and Amazon make heavy use of open source software to run their business. Small businesses especially rely on the open source Word Press and MySQL projects for their web presence (Hendrickson, Magoulas, & O’Reilly, 2012). Researchers (Kuan, 2002; Mockus, Fielding, & Herbsleb, 2002) have investigated the quality of open source projects in comparison to their proprietarily-developed counterparts.
Recommended publications
  • Intellectual Property Law Week Helpful Diversity Or Hopeless Confusion?

    Intellectual Property Law Week Helpful Diversity Or Hopeless Confusion?

    Intellectual Property Law Week Open Source License Proliferation: Helpful Diversity or Hopeless Confusion? Featuring Professor Robert Gomulkiewicz University of Washington School of Law Thursday, March 18, 2010 12:30-2:00 PM Moot Courtroom Abstract: One prominent issue among free and open source software (FOSS) developers (but little noticed by legal scholars) has been "license proliferation." "Proliferation" refers to the scores of FOSS licenses that are now in use with more being created all the time. The Open Source Initiative ("OSI") has certified over seventy licenses as conforming to the Open Source Definition, a key measure of whether a license embodies FOSS principles. Many believe that license proliferation encumbers and retards the success of FOSS. Why does proliferation occur? What are the pros and cons of multiple licenses? Does the growing number of FOSS licenses represent hopeless confusion (as many assume) or (instead) helpful diversity? To provide context and color, these issues are examined using the story of his creation of the Simple Public License (SimPL) and submission of the SimPL to the OSI for certification. Professor Robert Gomulkiewicz joined the UW law school faculty in 2002 to direct the graduate program in Intellectual Property Law and Policy. Prior to joining the faculty, he was Associate General Counsel at Microsoft where he led the group of lawyers providing legal counsel for development of Microsoft's major systems software, desktop applications, and developer tools software (including Windows and Office). Before joining Microsoft, Professor Gomulkiewicz practiced law at Preston, Gates & Ellis where he worked on the Apple v. Microsoft case. Professor Gomulkiewicz has published books and law review articles on open source software, mass market licensing, the UCITA, and legal protection for software.
  • ADS Chapter 557 Website Management and Public Information

    ADS Chapter 557 Website Management and Public Information

    ADS Chapter 557 Website Management and Public Information Full Revision Date: 03/10/2021 Responsible Office: LPA/WM File Name: 557_031021 03/10/2021 Full Revision Functional Series 500 – Management Services ADS 557 – Website Management and Public Information POC for ADS 557: Gregory Your, (202) 712-0301, [email protected] *This chapter has been revised in its entirety. Table of Contents 557.1 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................... 3 557.2 PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITIES ................................................................ 3 557.3 POLICY DIRECTIVES AND REQUIRED PROCEDURES ........................ 5 557.3.1 Public Information ................................................................................... 5 557.3.2 USAID.gov External Website .................................................................. 5 557.3.3 Externally-Facing Microsites on Subdomains of USAID.gov ............... 6 557.3.3.1 USAID Websites and .gov Domains .......................................................... 8 557.3.4 Standalone Project Websites .................................................................. 8 557.3.4.1 Project Websites Financed Under Acquisition Instruments ........................ 9 557.3.4.2 Websites Financed Under Assistance Instruments .................................... 9 557.3.4.3 USAID Websites and .gov Domains Exceptions ...................................... 10 557.4 MANDATORY REFERENCES ................................................................ 10
  • Comodo System Cleaner Version 3.0

    Comodo System Cleaner Version 3.0

    Comodo System Cleaner Version 3.0 User Guide Version 3.0.122010 Versi Comodo Security Solutions 525 Washington Blvd. Jersey City, NJ 07310 Comodo System Cleaner - User Guide Table of Contents 1.Comodo System-Cleaner - Introduction ............................................................................................................ 3 1.1.System Requirements...........................................................................................................................................5 1.2.Installing Comodo System-Cleaner........................................................................................................................5 1.3.Starting Comodo System-Cleaner..........................................................................................................................9 1.4.The Main Interface...............................................................................................................................................9 1.5.The Summary Area.............................................................................................................................................11 1.6.Understanding Profiles.......................................................................................................................................12 2.Registry Cleaner............................................................................................................................................. 15 2.1.Clean.................................................................................................................................................................16
  • Content Governance

    Content Governance

    GUIDE FOR CONTENT GOVERNANCE Improve your content quality, your operational efficiency and protect the value of your brand 3 Content Introduction 5 Crucial challenges and opportunities 9 The purpose of content governance 15 The scale of content governance 17 Developing a content governance framework 19 Step 1 Choose your governance model 21 Step 2 Assess your current situation 23 Step 3 Define the work processes and roles 27 Step 4 Determine the policies and standards 37 Step 5 Set the Key Performance Indicators 41 Step 6 Automate 45 Content governance checklist 47 INTRODUCTION 5 Discover why content governance is essential to your organisation Content is important. As a company or organisation, you create and publish content to add character to your brand, to train your employees, to attract applicants or investors and to inform journalists or the general public. You use content in different ways, involving many people inside and outside the organisation. It is becoming increasingly clear that content is no longer a question of top-down publishing, but involves conversation and commitment. Today, marketers and communication managers even use content channels to build a community. They have apps, websites, Facebook, blogs, e-books, webinars, serious games, mash-ups, podcasts, virtual learning, content curation, crowdsourcing, online video and a wide range of traditional print channels. In order to maintain a certain level of control in the ever more complex world of content, publishing, conversation, channels and technology, you need content governance. Content governance has become an indispensable tool to protect and strengthen the value of your brand and improve the operational efficiency and quality of your content.
  • Report of Research Into How a Regulator Could Monitor and Enforce a Proposed UK Human Rights Due Diligence Law

    Report of Research Into How a Regulator Could Monitor and Enforce a Proposed UK Human Rights Due Diligence Law

    Report of research into how a regulator could monitor and enforce a proposed UK Human Rights Due Diligence law Dr Rachel Chambers, University of Connecticut Sophie Kemp, Partner, Kingsley Napley LLP Katherine Tyler, Senior Associate (Barrister), Kingsley Napley LLP 21 August 2020 Contents Executive Summary I Introduction The proposed law Scope of instruction Methodology II Analysis of ambit of proposed law and key definitions Summary of proposed law Key definitions Human rights Environmental impacts Adverse human rights or environmental impacts Serious human rights or environmental impacts III Current obstacles to access to remedy Civil liability: Obstacles Remedy in civil lawsuits Discussion Criminal prosecution: Obstacles Remedy in criminal prosecutions Directors Disqualification and Deferred Prosecution Agreements Alternative routes to criminal liability IV Criminal liability – Important Considerations Key considerations V Key Features of a BHR Regulator Introduction and section methodology Institutional framework Funding Guidance and capacity building Internal quality assurance Enforcement – introduction Complaint and concern handling Inspection and monitoring Investigatory powers Market investigations Adjudication and penalties Adjudication in the context of civil sanctions Penalties Follow on damages claims Referral to criminal prosecution Mediation Appeal against civil sanctions National co-operation Supranational cooperation Future development of the BHR regulator Prioritisation of resources Statutory Review Process VI Conclusion
  • State-Of-The-Practice and Lessons Learned on Implementing Open Data and Open Source Policies

    State-Of-The-Practice and Lessons Learned on Implementing Open Data and Open Source Policies

    State-of-the-Practice and Lessons Learned on Implementing Open Data and Open Source Policies www.its.dot.gov/index.htm Final Report — May 2012 FHWA-JPO-12-030 Produced by the John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration ITS Joint Program Office Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. The U.S. Government is not endorsing any manufacturers, products, or services cited herein and any trade name that may appear in the work has been included only because it is essential to the contents of the work. | 2 Acknowledgements The Volpe Center team would like to acknowledge the leadership of Walter During, P.E., of the Office of Transportation Management (HOTM) within the Office of Operations, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, in providing the guidance necessary to conduct the review and analysis of lessons learned that form the basis for this document. | 3 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA-JPO-12-030 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date State-of-the-Practice and Lessons Learned on Implementing Open May 2012 Data and Open Source Policies 6. Performing Organization Code 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Aviva Brecher, Matt Cuddy, Josh Hassol, and Suzanne Sloan 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10.
  • Technology Tips and Tricks for the Legal Practitioner

    Technology Tips and Tricks for the Legal Practitioner

    New Lawyer Column Technology Tips and Tricks for the Legal Practitioner By Israel F. Piedra ingly, apply text recognition, and allow you Outlook’s Rules & Alerts settings. The rel- it relatively intuitive, DocFetcher does have a to save/email the document as a PDF. Among evant “rule” option is to “defer delivery by a learning curve. Second, the software does not While computers can be exasperating at the most popular of these apps for iPhone and number of minutes.” apply its own PDF text recognition – mean- times, they can also be extraordinary tools. Android are Scanbot, Scannable, and Scan- After this rule is in place, emails you ing that PDFs must be made searchable be- With the New Hampshire Supreme Court ner Pro. One practical use for lawyers: mak- send will remain in your outbox for the speci- fore they can be indexed by the program. and Superior Court ing quick PDFs of documents from a court fi ed amount of time before disappearing into transitioning to e- fi le at the clerk’s offi ce. cyberspace. If you want to re-read or revise, Webpage Screenshot Add-ons fi ling, it is more you merely open the email from the outbox In a variety of contexts, it is becom- important than ever Microsoft Word shortcuts and re-send when it’s ready. There are some ing increasingly important to preserve in- that Bar attorneys Though they will only save you a few drawbacks and the function does take some ternet information such as Facebook pages, are profi cient with seconds at most, these two Microsoft Word getting used to.
  • Information Technology: Applications DLIS408

    Information Technology: Applications DLIS408

    Information Technology: Applications DLIS408 Edited by: Jovita Kaur INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: APPLICATIONS Edited By Jovita Kaur Printed by LAXMI PUBLICATIONS (P) LTD. 113, Golden House, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002 for Lovely Professional University Phagwara DLP-7765-079-INFO TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION C-4713/012/02 Typeset at: Shubham Composers, Delhi Printed at: Sanjay Printers & Publishers, Delhi SYLLABUS Information Technology: Applications Objectives: • To understand the applications of Information technology in organizations. • To appreciate how information technology can help to improve decision-making in organizations. • To appreciate how information technology is used to integrate the business disciplines. • To introduce students to business cases, so they learn to solve business problems with information technology. • To introduce students to the strategic applications of information technology. • To introduce students to the issues and problems involved in building complex systems and organizing information resources. • To introduce students to the social implications of information technology. • To introduce students to the management of information systems. S. No. Topics Library automation: Planning and implementation, Automation of housekeeping operations – Acquisition, 1. Cataloguing, Circulation, Serials control OPAC Library management. 2. Library software packages: RFID, LIBSYS, SOUL, WINISIS. 3. Databases: Types and generations, salient features of select bibliographic databases. 4. Communication technology: Fundamentals communication media and components. 5. Network media and types: LAN, MAN, WAN, Intranet. 6. Digital, Virtual and Hybrid libraries: Definition and scope. Recent development. 7. Library and Information Networks with special reference to India: DELNET, INFLIBNET, ERNET, NICNET. Internet—based resources and services Browsers, search engines, portals, gateways, electronic journals, mailing 8. list and scholarly discussion lists, bulletin board, computer conference and virtual seminars.
  • Terms of Reference for Webmaster/Short-Term Consultant

    Terms of Reference for Webmaster/Short-Term Consultant

    Terms of Reference for Webmaster/Short-term Consultant General Description Webmaster, is responsible for the designing and maintenance of the World Bank Tokyo Office (ECRJP) Japanese website, from day-to-day site management to enhancing outreach toward wider audience for increased awareness. Additionally, s/he provides coordination and quality monitoring on web related issues for ECRJP. The webmaster is also expected to work on the dissemination of the World Bank Group’s message through ECRJP’s various multimedia tools including Facebook and Twitter. Management and Reporting Line S/he carries out the job with full understanding of the World Bank Group’s mission, and in a proactive manner after the initial guidance provided by Communications Officer (TTL) and will report to Special Representative, Japan (Manager). To carry out these jobs, S/he ensures the sensitivities of the website governance and complies with legal requirements to protect private information. Scope of Work Repurposes and formats content received in a variety of formats from content experts to align with ECRJP’s communication strategy and publishes the materials on-line. Ensures that site content and design attracts maximum audience while complies with World Bank web policies and regulations at the same time. Follows evolving industry best practices in web and internet technology, content management, and usability; proposes improvements to ECRJP web sites accordingly. Pro-actively ensures integrity, accessibility, and optimum performance of web sites, through mechanisms such as regular web site audits. Develops and enforces metadata, such as descriptions and keywords to aid in site indexing and improved searchability. Functions in a help-desk system by interpreting and addressing user requests and troubleshooting users' technical web-related problems.
  • Cuteftp Pro V8 Utorrent

    Cuteftp Pro V8 Utorrent

    1 / 2 CuteFTP Pro V8 Utorrent 2.1 Server ... FileZilla FTP Client, WS FTP, Bullet Proof FTP, CuteFTP ... Vuze (formerly Azureus), utorrent, Transmission, Deluge, qBittorrent, .... Nero 8 Ultra Edition 8 3 13 0 crack. Utorrent 1.8.3 serial keygen. Globalscape Cuteftp Pro 8 3 3 054 key code generator. Betterzip 1.8.3 crack.. CuteFTP Pro V8 Utorrent cuteftp, cuteftp free, cuteftp mac, cuteftp server, cuteftp vs filezilla, cuteftp sftp, cuteftp portable, cuteftp crack, cuteftp 8 professional, .... Download CCProxy 8 is easy-to-use and powerful. ... allows use of ICQ, MSN Messenger, Yahoo Messenger, CuteFTP, CuteFTP Pro and WS-FTP. ... Previous uTorrent Pro Crack 3.5.4 Build 44590 & Key Free Download.. Find SophosLabs data about viruses, spyware, suspicious behavior and files, adware, PUAs, and controlled applications and devices. · ABC · ABC Client · ANts P2P .... FCleaner 1.3.1.621Jul 12th; Registry Gear 2.1.1.609Jun 9th; CuteFTP Pro 8.3.4Jun 2nd; CuteFTP Lite 8.3.4Jun 2nd ... [Show All]8 softwares in this category. 8 September 2012 at 16:11 Reply ... [SOFTWARE] uTorrent Turbo Booster · [GAMES] JUST CAUSE 2 SKIDROW + DLC LIMITED CONTENT · [OS] ... [CUSTOM] AlienWare Full Pack · [SOFTWARE] CuteFTP / Cute FTP Professional v8.3.3.. Cakewalk Dimension Pro DXi and VSTi sampler synthesizer works great with ... FXsound DFX Audio Enhancement v8.0 for Windows Media Player & Winamp ... GlobalSCAPE CuteFTP 4.2; GlobalSCAPE CuteFTP 8, 8.0.4 Pro (Error ... Beta (Chinese Simplified/Traditional); uTorrent 1.6; WinMX 3.54 (Beta 4).. Able2Extract Professional v8.0.28.0 Incl Crack [TorDigger] utorrent · SpyKey.rar Serial Key keygen · PATCHED Win 10 Pro RS3 En-us (x86 x64) ...
  • The General Public License Version 3.0: Making Or Breaking the FOSS Movement Clark D

    The General Public License Version 3.0: Making Or Breaking the FOSS Movement Clark D

    Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review Volume 14 | Issue 2 2008 The General Public License Version 3.0: Making or Breaking the FOSS Movement Clark D. Asay Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.law.umich.edu/mttlr Part of the Computer Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Clark D. Asay, The General Public License Version 3.0: Making or Breaking the FOSS Movement, 14 Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 265 (2008). Available at: http://repository.law.umich.edu/mttlr/vol14/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE VERSION 3.0: MAKING OR BREAKING THE FOSS MOVEMENT? Clark D. Asay* Cite as: Clark D. Asay, The GeneralPublic License Version 3.0: Making or Breaking the Foss Movement? 14 MICH. TELECOMM. TECH. L. REV. 265 (2008), available at http://www.mttlr.org/volfourteen/asay.pdf I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... 266 II. FREE SOFTWARE V. OPEN SOURCE ........................................... 268 A. The FSF's Vision of Free Software..................................... 268 B. The OSI's Vision: A Different Movement? ......................... 270 C. PracticalDifferences? ....................................................... 271 III. G PLv3: ITS T ERM S................................................................... 274 A. GPLv3 's Anti-DRM Section ............................................... 274 1. Its C ontents ................................................................. 274 2. FSF's Position on DRM .............................................. 276 3. The Other Side of the Coin? OSI Sympathizers ........
  • Complaint of ) ) Free Press and Public Knowledge ) ) __- ______Against Comcast Corporation ) ) for Secretly Degrading Peer-To-Peer Applications ) ) To: Ms

    Complaint of ) ) Free Press and Public Knowledge ) ) __- ______Against Comcast Corporation ) ) for Secretly Degrading Peer-To-Peer Applications ) ) To: Ms

    Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 Formal Complaint of ) ) Free Press and Public Knowledge ) ) __- _______ Against Comcast Corporation ) ) For Secretly Degrading Peer-to-Peer Applications ) ) To: Ms. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC ) Formal Complaint Marvin Ammori, General Counsel Andy Schwartzman Ben Scott, Policy Director Harold Feld Free Press Parul Desdai 501 Third Street NW, Suite 875 Media Access Project Washington, DC 20001 1625 K Street, NW 202-265-1490 Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 232-4300 November 1, 2007 Table of Contents Summary ..................................................................................................................................i I. Facts ........................................................................................................................1 A. Parties..................................................................................................................1 B. Network Neutrality Background...........................................................................2 C. Comcast Blocks Innovative Applications .............................................................5 D. Comcast’s Methods are Deliberately Secretive.....................................................9 II. Legal Argument .....................................................................................................12 A. Degrading Applications Violates the Commission’s Internet Policy Statement, Which the FCC Has Vowed to Enforce..............................................................12