DOCSLIB.ORG

Open Source Software

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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... Less dependent (as a private user and as a company) I on a single company (software can live on after bankruptcy) I on the core developer ! forks possible Often free of charge 8 / 42 Motivation: OSS for Developers Reuse and learning I able to reuse existing OSS libraries I learn from existing libraries I better understanding of 3rd party code Community I OSS may get reviewed by more people I "free" testing by the community (win win situation) I other can contribute to your software I a strong community can be an argument for a product 9 / 42 Disadvantages of OSS Community I interaction with the community is required I keep the community happy I security issues and bad code quality may become visible Forks and “stolen” code I your project may get forked and distributed for free I code can get "stolen" by competitor to create better software I OSS makes it easier to copy feature (e.g. unique features that are a selling point for your software) 10 / 42 OSS does not mean free of charge Business models based on OSS I e.g. Ubuntu, Redhat, IDEA, Catalyst, Android Service Model I provide service for open source product Community/Business Model I dual license OSS Friendly Model I using, developing or supporting OSS/ libs I building specialized solutions for customers based on OSS 11 / 42 OSS Licences: Motivation Use and publish OSS I what are the rules to use OSS? I which rules should apply when releasing OSS? I code building on OSS has to comply with licence 2 I 25/4/17 federal US court ruled GPL as a contract Stick to existing/ proven licences I avoid incompatibilities with other licences I avoid corner cases 2qz.com/981029/ a-federal-court-has-ruled-that-an-open-source-license-is-an-enforceable-contract/ 12 / 42 OSS Licences Overview I GPL, LGPL, AGPL I BSD I Apache I Mozilla Public License (MPL) I Licence Compatibility I Creative Commons (not for software) 13 / 42 GNU General Public License GPL4 History3 I GNU project (GNU’s Not UNIX) started in 1984 by Richard Stallman I as alternative to upcoming proprietary licenses I 1985 Free Software Foundation (FSF) I 1989 GPLv1 I 1991 GPLv2 I 2007 GPLv3 3oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/gpl 4opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php 14 / 42 General Public License GPL (from oss-watch5) Licensee can: I modify the code I copy and distribute the unmodified/modified code I distribute compiled versions (modified and unmodified) Conditions: I all distributed copies (modified or not) carry a copyright notice and exclusion of warranty I all modified copies are distributed under the GPL I all compiled versions are accompanied by the source code 5oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/gpl 15 / 42 General Public License GPL Other properties: I GPL software stays GPL software no additional restrictions I ensures that modified versions remain free and open source I if there are patents, no charge for patents I GPL software can be bundled with other software but all code must be licenced under GPL I no-one can place additional restrictions on a GPL-licensed piece of software Dual licence possible I owner retains all rights I e.g. Qt toolkit has GPL and commercial license 16 / 42 Issues with GPLv26 “Tivoisation” and Technological Protection Methods I TiVo video recorder uses GPLv2 software but the recorder only runs cryptographically signed versions ! no way to run a modified version I GPLv3: all information must be public to run modified software Others: I unintended incompatibilities I US-specific legal terminology I web apps, software patent wars 6oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/gpl3final 17 / 42 GNU Lesser General Public License LGPL Linking to libs I linking to a GPL lib is considered modifying the program! I you have put your code under GPL if you link to a GPL lib What if an author want to write a GPL lib that can be linked to possibly closed software?7 I solution LGPL I keeps modified versions of the library itself open source I allows non-open source software to use the library, and be distributed with it 7oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/lgpl 18 / 42 GNU Affero General Public License ASP (Application Service Provider) loophole I a web service does not distribute software ! modified GPL code does not need to be distributed Affero I a web services company I provides their source code under a GPLv2 modified version that became AGPL I AGPL fixes the ASP loophole I AGPL can be combined with GPLv3 code 19 / 42 BSD License History8 I first published 1988 (University of California at Berkeley) I one of the oldest open source licences Early version was very short and simple: 1 Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holder>. 2 All rights reserved. 3 4 Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted 5 provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 6 duplicated in all such forms and that any documentation, 7 advertising materials, and other materials related to such 8 distribution and use acknowledge that the software was developed 9 by the <organization>. The name of the 10 <organization> may not be used to endorse or promote products derived 11 from this software without specific prior written permission. 12 THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ‘ ‘AS IS ’ ’ AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR 13 IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION , THE IMPLIED 14 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 8oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/modbsd 20 / 42 BSD (3 clauses) License Licensee can use, copy and distribute the I unmodified source or binary forms I modified source or binary forms Conditions: I all distributed copies are accompanied by the licence I the names of the previous contributors are not used to endorse any modified versions This allows to incorporate BSD code in closed source software Another comparable very permissive licence is MIT9 9mit-license.org 21 / 42 Apache License10 History I Apache Software Foundation (e.g. Apache HTTP server) I 1995 licence v1 was mostly based on BSD I 2004 Apache license v2 Use by: I Apache, Android, Intellij,... 10oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/apache2 22 / 42 Apache Licence 2.0 Allows to: I copy, modify and distribute the covered software in source and/or binary forms I exercise patent rights that would normally only extend to the licensor Conditions: I all copies, modified or unmodified, are accompanied by a copy of the licence I all modifications are clearly marked I all notices of copyright, trademark and patent rights are reproduced accurately in distributed copies I the licensee does not use any licensor’s trademarks 23 / 42 Apache Licence 2.0 Condition (patent retaliation): I patent rights are withdrawn if: the licensee starts legal action against the licensor(s) over patent infringements within the covered software I patent restriction makes it incompatible with GPLv2 (but compatible with GPLv3) Summary: I explicitly grants patent rights where necessary to operate, modify and distribute the software I can be used in closed source projects (but lib and licence must be mentioned, e.g. about window) 24 / 42 Mozilla Public License (MPL)11 History: I 1998 Netscape Communications decided to open source their browser I GPLv2 was to restrictive; own licence: Netscape Public License (NPL) I Mozilla Public License was designed to interact with NPL I 2012 MPLv2 by the Mozilla Foundation 11http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/mpl 25 / 42 Mozilla Public License v2 Contributor grants rights: I to use, reproduce, modify, display, perform, sublicense and distribute the source, and modified versions of the source I use patents from licenced code I to distribute work in combination with new code, and to license the new code in any way the distributor wishes 26 / 42 Mozilla Public License v2 Conditions: I for all distributed copies (original or modified): the source code must be available I all modifications are described in accompanying documentation I any patent rights necessary to operate the software are clearly described in accompanying documentation I all copies have a statement of copyright and an exclusion of warranties attached I all modified files (not new files) must
Load more

Recommended publications
  • AMNESIA 33: How TCP/IP Stacks Breed Critical Vulnerabilities in Iot
    AMNESIA:33 | RESEARCH REPORT How TCP/IP Stacks Breed Critical Vulnerabilities in IoT, OT and IT Devices Published by Forescout Research Labs Written by Daniel dos Santos, Stanislav Dashevskyi, Jos Wetzels and Amine Amri RESEARCH REPORT | AMNESIA:33 Contents 1. Executive summary 4 2. About Project Memoria 5 3. AMNESIA:33 – a security analysis of open source TCP/IP stacks 7 3.1. Why focus on open source TCP/IP stacks? 7 3.2. Which open source stacks, exactly? 7 3.3. 33 new findings 9 4. A comparison with similar studies 14 4.1. Which components are typically flawed? 16 4.2. What are the most common vulnerability types? 17 4.3. Common anti-patterns 22 4.4. What about exploitability? 29 4.5. What is the actual danger? 32 5. Estimating the reach of AMNESIA:33 34 5.1. Where you can see AMNESIA:33 – the modern supply chain 34 5.2. The challenge – identifying and patching affected devices 36 5.3. Facing the challenge – estimating numbers 37 5.3.1. How many vendors 39 5.3.2. What device types 39 5.3.3. How many device units 40 6. An attack scenario 41 6.1. Other possible attack scenarios 44 7. Effective IoT risk mitigation 45 8. Conclusion 46 FORESCOUT RESEARCH LABS RESEARCH REPORT | AMNESIA:33 A note on vulnerability disclosure We would like to thank the CERT Coordination Center, the ICS-CERT, the German Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) and the JPCERT Coordination Center for their help in coordinating the disclosure of the AMNESIA:33 vulnerabilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of Firmware Security in Embedded ARM Environments
    Analysis of Firmware Security in Embedded ARM Environments Dane A. Brown Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Computer Engineering T. Charles Clancy, Chair Ryan Gerdes Yaling Yang Jonathan Black Patrick Schaumont August 13, 2019 Arlington, Virginia Keywords: Security, Firmware, Embedded Devices, ARM Copyright 2019, Dane A. Brown Analysis of Firmware Security in Embedded ARM Environments Dane A. Brown (ABSTRACT) Modern enterprise-grade systems with virtually unlimited resources have many options when it comes to implementing state of the art intrusion prevention and detection solutions. These solutions are costly in terms of energy, execution time, circuit board area, and capital. Sus- tainable Internet of Things devices and power-constrained embedded systems are thus forced to make suboptimal security trade-offs. One such trade-off is the design of architectures which prevent execution of injected shell code, yet have allowed Return Oriented Program- ming (ROP) to emerge as a more reliable way to execute malicious code following attacks. ROP is a method used to take over the execution of a program by causing the return address of a function to be modified through an exploit vector, then returning to small segments of otherwise innocuous code located in executable memory one after the other to carry out the attacker’s aims. We show that the Tiva TM4C123GH6PM microcontroller, which utilizes an ARM Cortex-M4F processor, can be fully controlled with this technique. Firmware code is pre-loaded into a ROM on Tiva microcontrollers which can be subverted to erase and rewrite the flash memory where the program resides.
    [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]
  • Coreboot - the Free firmware
    coreboot - the free firmware Linux Club of Peking University April 9th, 2016 . Linux Club of Peking University coreboot - the free firmware April 9th, 2016 1 / 30 1 History 2 Why use coreboot 3 How coreboot works 4 Building and using coreboot 5 Flashing 6 Utilities and Debugging 7 Contribute to coreboot 8 Proprietary Components 9 References . Linux Club of Peking University coreboot - the free firmware April 9th, 2016 2 / 30 History: from LinuxBIOS to coreboot coreboot has a very long history, stretching back more than 15 years to when it was known as LinuxBIOS. While the project has gone through lots of changes over the years, many of the earliest developers still contribute today. Linux Club of Peking University coreboot - the free firmware April 9th, 2016 3 / 30 LinuxBIOS v1: 1999-2000 The coreboot project originally started as LinuxBIOS in 1999 at Los Alamos National Labs (LANL) by Ron Minnich. Ron needed to boot a cluster made up of many x86 mainboards without the hassles that are part of the PC BIOS. The goal was to do minimal hardware initilization in order to boot Linux as fast as possible. Linux already had the drivers and support to initialize the majority of devices. Ron and a number of other key contributors from LANL, Linux NetworkX, and other open source firmware projects successfully booted Linux from flash. From there they were able to discover other nodes in the cluster, load a full kernel and user space, and start the clustering software. Linux Club of Peking University coreboot - the free firmware April 9th, 2016 4 / 30 LinuxBIOS v2: 2000-2005 After the initial success of v1, the design was expanded to support more CPU architectures (x86, Alpha, PPC) and to support developers with increasingly diverse needs.
    [Show full text]
  • Linux Kernel. LTS? LTSI?
    ARM Reference Kernel of Tizen 3 MyungJoo Ham, Ph.D. MyungJoo Ham Tizen “System Domain” & System SW Lab “Base Domain” Architect SW Platform Team SWC Samsung Electronics ARM Reference Kernel of Tizen 3 1. What is it? 2. Idea & Principle 3. Design & Updates 4. Discussion What is “Tizen Reference Kernel” • Kernel (& BSP) for Tizen Reference Devices BSP Validated & Tested for the Reference Devices Image from seoz.com 3 What is “Tizen Reference Kernel” • Kernel (& BSP) for Tizen Reference Devices BSP Validated & Tested for the Reference Devices Yet Another BSP? Image from seoz.com 4 Need for “Tizen Reference Kernel” • Distribute reference devices • Tizen-common kernel features & interface • Basis for next-gen Tizen development 1 KDBUS, User PM-QoS, PASS, DMABUF Sync FW, … 2 CMA, DRM-Exynos, Devfreq, Extcon, Charger-manager, LAB/Turboboost … • Support Tizen Vendors! • Well-known and well-written example. • Code basis for vendors. 5 Previous Tizen ARM Reference Kernel (~2.2.1) • Linux 3.0.15 • Obsolete LTS. (Current: 3.4 & 3.10) • Support RD-PQ (Tizen 2) & RD-210 (Tizen 1 & 2) • RD-PQ: Exynos4412 • RD-210: Exynos4210 (Linux 2.6.36 for Tizen 1) • Not Good as Reference • Too many backported features. • Too OLD! No LTS/LTSI support • Many kernel hacks & dirty patches • git history removed. 1. Forked from production kernel. 2. Hard to read 6 Status of Tizen 3 Reference Kernels • Two Reference Kernels: ARM / Intel • ARM (armv7, aarch64) • Linux 3.10.y • 3.10.33 @ 2014/05 • Full git history. • armv6 support (Raspberry Pi) coming soon. (Thanks to Univ. of Warsaw) • Test & validation phase (integration test with userspace) • Intel (x86, x86_64) • Linux 3.14.1 • Recent ATOM SoC support merged @ 3.14 • Test & validation phase (integration test with userspace) 7 ARM Reference Kernel of Tizen 3 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Introductory Lecture & FLOSS
    Introductory Lecture & FLOSS Lecture 1 TU Wien, 193.067 Free and Open Technologies (WS 2019/2020) Christoph Derndorfer and Lukas F. Lang This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Introduction Organization ● Lectures: ○ Weekly lecture to cover course materials (until Christmas) ○ Lectures take place on Tuesdays, 17:00–19:00, Argentinierstraße 8, Seminarraum/Bibliothek 194-05 ○ Attendance is mandatory ● Group project: ○ In groups of 4 students ○ 3 meetings with lecturers during the semester (week 44/2019, week 48/2019, week 2/2020) ○ Final presentations at the end of January (week 4/2020) ● Final paper: ○ In groups of 2 students ○ Final presentations at the end of January (week 5/2020) ○ Deadline: Sunday, February 9, 2020, 23:59 CET (no exceptions!) Organization ● Grading: ○ 50% group project ○ 35% seminar paper ○ 15% participation during lectures ○ All course components need to be passed in order to pass the overall course! ● Course materials: ○ Will be provided at https://free-and-open-technologies.github.io ● For further questions: ○ Email [email protected] and [email protected] Lecture outline 1. FLOSS (Free/Libre and Open Source Software) 2. Open Hardware 3. Open Data 4. Open Content/Open Educational Resources 5. Open Science/Research 6. Open Access 7. Open Spaces/Open Practices: Metalab Vienna 8. Guest Lecture: Stefanie Wuschitz (Mz* Baltazar’s Lab) Group project ● Goal: ○ Extend, contribute to, or create a new open project within scope of lecture topics ● Choose topic from a list (see course website) or (even better) suggest your own: ○ Groups of 4 students ○ Send a 1-page proposal until Friday, October 25, via email to both lecturers ■ Define the idea, goal, (potential) impact, requirements, and estimated effort ■ State deliverables (should be broken down into three milestones to discuss in meetings) ● Requirements: ○ Open and accessible (Git repository, openly licensed) → others can access/use/study/extend ○ Use time sheet to track and compare estimated vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Free As in Freedom (2.0): Richard Stallman and the Free Software Revolution
    Free as in Freedom (2.0): Richard Stallman and the Free Software Revolution Sam Williams Second edition revisions by Richard M. Stallman i This is Free as in Freedom 2.0: Richard Stallman and the Free Soft- ware Revolution, a revision of Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software. Copyright c 2002, 2010 Sam Williams Copyright c 2010 Richard M. Stallman Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled \GNU Free Documentation License." Published by the Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St., Fifth Floor Boston, MA 02110-1335 USA ISBN: 9780983159216 The cover photograph of Richard Stallman is by Peter Hinely. The PDP-10 photograph in Chapter 7 is by Rodney Brooks. The photo- graph of St. IGNUcius in Chapter 8 is by Stian Eikeland. Contents Foreword by Richard M. Stallmanv Preface by Sam Williams vii 1 For Want of a Printer1 2 2001: A Hacker's Odyssey 13 3 A Portrait of the Hacker as a Young Man 25 4 Impeach God 37 5 Puddle of Freedom 59 6 The Emacs Commune 77 7 A Stark Moral Choice 89 8 St. Ignucius 109 9 The GNU General Public License 123 10 GNU/Linux 145 iii iv CONTENTS 11 Open Source 159 12 A Brief Journey through Hacker Hell 175 13 Continuing the Fight 181 Epilogue from Sam Williams: Crushing Loneliness 193 Appendix A { Hack, Hackers, and Hacking 209 Appendix B { GNU Free Documentation License 217 Foreword by Richard M.
    [Show full text]
  • BCIS 1305 Business Computer Applications
    BCIS 1305 Business Computer Applications BCIS 1305 Business Computer Applications San Jacinto College This course was developed from generally available open educational resources (OER) in use at multiple institutions, drawing mostly from a primary work curated by the Extended Learning Institute (ELI) at Northern Virginia Community College (NOVA), but also including additional open works from various sources as noted in attributions on each page of materials. Cover Image: “Keyboard” by John Ward from https://flic.kr/p/tFuRZ licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License. BCIS 1305 Business Computer Applications by Extended Learning Institute (ELI) at NOVA is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted. CONTENTS Module 1: Introduction to Computers ..........................................................................................1 • Reading: File systems ....................................................................................................................................... 1 • Reading: Basic Computer Skills ........................................................................................................................ 1 • Reading: Computer Concepts ........................................................................................................................... 1 • Tutorials: Computer Basics................................................................................................................................ 1 Module 2: Computer
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright Protection for Computer Programs in Read Only Memory Chips Peter D
    Hofstra Law Review Volume 11 | Issue 1 Article 8 1982 Copyright Protection for Computer Programs in Read Only Memory Chips Peter D. Aufrichtig Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Aufrichtig, Peter D. (1982) "Copyright Protection for Computer Programs in Read Only Memory Chips," Hofstra Law Review: Vol. 11: Iss. 1, Article 8. Available at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol11/iss1/8 This document is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Aufrichtig: Copyright Protection for Computer Programs in Read Only Memory Ch COPYRIGHT PROTECTION FOR COMPUTER PROGRAMS IN READ ONLY MEMORY CHIPS INTRODUCTION You walk into a store looking for a computer chess game and see two apparently identical models. One, however, is considerably cheaper than the other." You inquire as to the difference and are told that there is none, but for the price. The reason for this price differential is the lack of copyright protection' for a computer pro- gram implanted in a Read Only Memory (ROM) chip.' As the computer has developed, the programs which make the computer useful have also changed. To bring the computer out of the temperature and humidity controlled rooms, and into the consumer's palm, various advances have been required. First, the computer itself became smaller, faster, and more affordable than was imaginable twenty-five years ago.4 Second, the memory spaces for the computers have developed to the stage where they can hold billions of bytes5 of information in chiclet-sized packages." Third, the programs which run the hardware7 can be stored so that they are nonvolatile,8 and * This note has been submitted in a slightly different form to the Nathan Burkan Memorial Copyright Competition.
    [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]