DOCSLIB.ORG

The Relationship Between Open Source So Ware and Standard Setting

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Relationship Between Open Source So Ware and Standard Setting JRC SC IENCE FOR POLIC Y REP ORT The Relationship Between Open Source So ware and Standard Setting Authors: Knut Blind Mirko Böhm Editor: Nikolaus Thumm 2019 Joint EUR 29867 EN Research Centre This publication is a Science for Policy report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of this publication. Contact information European Commission, Joint Research Centre Address: Edificio Expo. c/Inca Garcilaso 3, 41092 Seville (Spain) Email: [email protected] EU Science Hub https://ec.europa.eu/jrc JRC117836 EUR 29867 EN PDF ISBN 978-92-76-11593-9 ISSN 1831-9424 doi:10.2760/163594 Print ISBN 978-92-76-11592-2 ISSN 1018-5593 doi:10.2760/937637 Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2019 © European Union, 2019 The reuse policy of the European Commission is implemented by Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Reuse is authorised, provided the source of the document is acknowledged and its original meaning or message is not distorted. The European Commission shall not be liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse. For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not owned by the EU, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders. All content © European Union, 2019 How to cite this report: Blind, K., Böhm, M., The Relationship Between Open Source So tware and Standard Setting, Thumm, N. (Ed.), EUR 29867 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2019, ISBN 978-92-76-11593-9, doi:10.2760/163594, JRC117836. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE AND STANDARD SETTING TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents Abstract Foreword Acknowledgements Executive summary 1 Introduction 2 Literature Review 3 Case studies 4 Stakeholder survey 5 Analysis 6 Policy recommendations Glossary Acronyms References Annexes Annex 1. Literature Review Annex 2. Case studies on the interaction of OSS and FRAND licensing in standardisation Annex 3. Stakeholder Survey Contents Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Abstract ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Foreword................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Policy context .............................................................................................................................................................................. 12 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................................ 12 Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................................................. 13 1. Governance ........................................................................................................................................................................ 13 2. Stakeholders ..................................................................................................................................................................... 13 3. Areas and scale of collaboration ............................................................................................................................ 14 4. The evolving role of standards ................................................................................................................................ 15 5. IPR regimes in OSS and SDOs .................................................................................................................................. 16 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Recommendations addressing SDOs .......................................................................................................................... 17 Recommendations addressing OSS communities ................................................................................................ 18 Recommendations addressing policy makers ........................................................................................................ 19 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................ 21 2. Literature Review .................................................................................................................................................................. 29 2.1. Methodology of the literature review ............................................................................................................. 29 2.2. Results of the literature review .......................................................................................................................... 29 2.2.1. Scenario 1: Standards implemented as OSS (“standard first”) ................................................ 29 2.2.2. Scenario 2 OSS code as input into a standard (“software implementation first”) ........ 30 2.2.3. Scenario 3: OSS and standardisation in parallel (“standard and implementation of standard in parallel”) ................................................................................................................................ 31 2.3. Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................. 32 3. Case studies ............................................................................................................................................................................... 35 3.1. Concept and methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 35 3.2. Results .................................................................................................................................................................................. 35 3.2.1. Motivators and barriers to collaboration ............................................................................................. 35 3.2.2. Business and collaboration models ........................................................................................................ 36 3.2.3. Collaboration models ..................................................................................................................................... 36 3.2.4. Creating a level playing field ...................................................................................................................... 36 3.2.5. Suitable IPR regimes ....................................................................................................................................... 37 3.3. Assessment of the interaction ............................................................................................................................. 37 4. Stakeholder survey .............................................................................................................................................................. 41 4.1. Methodology ..................................................................................................................................................................... 41 4.2. Results .................................................................................................................................................................................. 41 4.2.1. Respondents ........................................................................................................................................................ 41 4.2.2. Use of Intellectual Property Rights ......................................................................................................... 42 The Relationship Between Open Source Software and Standard Setting 5 4.2.3. Involvement in standardisation and open source software ...................................................... 43 4.2.4. Interaction between OSS and standardisation................................................................................. 44 4.2.5. IPR Regimes in Standardisation and OSS ........................................................................................... 47 4.3. Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ROADS and BRIDGES: the UNSEEN LABOR BEHIND OUR DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE Preface
    Roads and Bridges:The Unseen Labor Behind Our Digital Infrastructure WRITTEN BY Nadia Eghbal 2 Open up your phone. Your social media, your news, your medical records, your bank: they are all using free and public code. Contents 3 Table of Contents 4 Preface 58 Challenges Facing Digital Infrastructure 5 Foreword 59 Open source’s complicated relationship with money 8 Executive Summary 66 Why digital infrastructure support 11 Introduction problems are accelerating 77 The hidden costs of ignoring infrastructure 18 History and Background of Digital Infrastructure 89 Sustaining Digital Infrastructure 19 How software gets built 90 Business models for digital infrastructure 23 How not charging for software transformed society 97 Finding a sponsor or donor for an infrastructure project 29 A brief history of free and public software and the people who made it 106 Why is it so hard to fund these projects? 109 Institutional efforts to support digital infrastructure 37 How The Current System Works 38 What is digital infrastructure, and how 124 Opportunities Ahead does it get built? 125 Developing effective support strategies 46 How are digital infrastructure projects managed and supported? 127 Priming the landscape 136 The crossroads we face 53 Why do people keep contributing to these projects, when they’re not getting paid for it? 139 Appendix 140 Glossary 142 Acknowledgements ROADS AND BRIDGES: THE UNSEEN LABOR BEHIND OUR DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE Preface Our modern society—everything from hospitals to stock markets to newspapers to social media—runs on software. But take a closer look, and you’ll find that the tools we use to build software are buckling under demand.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • The Next Big OS War Is in Your Dashboard
    12/4/12 The Next Big OS War Is in Your Dashboard | Autopia | Wired.com Autopia Planes, Trains, Automobiles and the Future of Transportation Infotainment LTikwe ee1t54 297 25 Sharre 39 The Next Big OS War Is in Your Dashboard By Doug Newcomb 12.03.12 6:30 AM Follow @dougnew comb Photo: Jim Merithew/Wired Competition in automotive technology has long been about who’s got the most horsepower, the best towing capacity or the fastest acceleration. These days, though, it’s all about having the slickest infotainment systems and most-connected cars. The shift in focus from what’s under the hood to what’s behind the dashboard has brought a largely covert war to the auto industry over the operating systems that will control these gadgets. As in the smartphone biz, the battle line is between proprietary and open source software. The outcome will determine what these systems look like, how they work and how distinctive they are as automakers embrace walled gardens or open ecosystems. It would be difficult to overstate the importance of getting this right. The amount of software in the average vehicle has grown exponentially — a typical new car has about 100 million lines of code — with the advent of sophisticated, cloud-connected infotainment systems. Software has become a competitive advantage as vital to General Motors or Toyota as it is to Apple or Google. The trouble is, automotive development cycles are measured in years, while the consumer www.wired.com/autopia/2012/12/automotiv e-os-war/all/ 1/11 The Next Big OS War Is in Your Dashboard | Autopia | Wired.com electronics industry works in months.
    [Show full text]
  • Pirating in Lacuna
    Beijing Law Review, 2019, 10, 829-838 http://www.scirp.org/journal/blr ISSN Online: 2159-4635 ISSN Print: 2159-4627 Pirating in Lacuna D. S. Madhumitha B.com LLB (Hons), Tamil Nadu National Law University, Tiruchirapalli., India How to cite this paper: Madhumitha, D. S. Abstract (2019). Pirating in Lacuna. Beijing Law Review, 10, 829-838. With development of industries and a welcome to the era of globalization https://doi.org/10.4236/blr.2019.104045 along with information technology, many software companies came into be- ing. Tech and tech experts made it easier to pirate the software of the pro- Received: May 31, 2019 Accepted: August 17, 2019 ducers. Problems to the customer as well as to the content owner are present. Published: August 20, 2019 One of major lacunas is the Judiciary being indecisive with the adamant growth of digital world as to the punishment and the reduction of crime, no Copyright © 2019 by author(s) and separate laws by the legislators to protect the software piracy as a distinct Scientific Research Publishing Inc. This work is licensed under the Creative crime. Lack of enforcement mechanism by the executive and administrative Commons Attribution International bodies leads to the increase of piracy in software. License (CC BY 4.0). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Keywords Open Access Software, Law, Piracy, Judiciary, Punishment 1. Introduction Software piracy is a theft by both direct and indirect means such as use of soft- ware, copying or distribution of software by illegal means. It is such profitable business that causes heavy losses for the publishers of the software, the result is the inflation in price for the consumer.
    [Show full text]
  • Linux Automotive Security “Safer and More Secure”
    Linux Automotive Security “Safer and more secure” Authors Fulup Ar Foll [email protected] José Bollo [email protected] Abstract Cars are expensive pieces of equipment, yet they represent a huge mass market. Adding Internet connectivity to previous elements generates perfect conditions for the growth of a viable business model on attacking “Connected Cars”. It is already well understood that cars will be connected and connected cars will be attacked. While it's still too early to predict with certainty how “Connected Cars” will be impacted by security flaws, making the assumption that a car should be at least as secure as a TV, a set-top-box or a smart phone should make sense to everyone. This white paper focuses on how Linux best practices security mechanisms that could be used today and within the next couple of years to make connected cars safer and more secure. Version 1.0 January 2016 Linux Automotive Security Table of contents 1.Introduction...................................................................................................3 2.Make Sure You Run the Right Code...................................................................4 2.1.Before Booting............................................................................................4 2.2.When Booting.............................................................................................5 2.3.After Booting...............................................................................................5 3.Keeping Secrets Secret...................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Contents Work
    It worked, and it continues to Contents work. Last year, member dues ac- Fifteen years of FSF associate counted for over half of our total members...................1 revenue, and nearly ten times as Finding a free software silver lining much as we received from corpora- tions. But membership from the to the Facebook Cambridge start has been much more than a Analytica scandal ............3 way to donate. Members form a Tech updates, episode 2018: proud community united around A GNUHope................4 the idea that people, in order to be The threat of government-run Digital free, must be in control of the soft- ware they rely on to live their lives. Restrictions Management . 6 Today, we have members in Uber takes software users for a ride over eighty countries. I feel very ..........................8 close to this community—especially On the road with RMS.........9 to the 136 members who have been GNU needs you: How to contribute with us all fifteen years. I've gotten to a GNU project............10 to know their names through stuff- ing thousands of envelopes, ex- Fifteen years of FSF changing many emails, and shaking associate members hands—first at the annual member meetings we held, at the Libre- ast fall marked fifteen years of Lthe FSF's associate membership program. Shortly after, I celebrated my own fifteenth anniversary with the FSF. I've never known an FSF without associate members. The membership program was launched in late 2002 to stabilize the FSF fin- ancially, as some previous sources of support—like sales of software and In March, the FSF celebrated our tenth manuals on physical media—were annual LibrePlanet conference, with over falling out of fashion.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    1 Vol. 32, No. 3 April 2019 Table of Contents AGL Will Be Overtaken by Android Automotive 2 SmartDrive Has Massive Data Trove for AV Developers 6 The Company Profile: NVIDIA 8 Ludwigsburg Automotive Electronics Conference: 16 June 25-26, 2019 Momentum Is Building for a Self-Driving Safety Standard 17 Roland Berger Examines the New Mobility World 18 Roundup: 2018 Financial Results for Hyundai Mobis, 19 Lear, ZF The© Hansen2019 Paul Report Hansen onAssociates, Automotive 150 Pinehurst Electronics, Road, July/August Portsmouth, NH 2016 03801 USA www.hansenreport.comTelephone: 603-431-5859; email: [email protected] All rights reserved. Materials may not be reproduced in any form without written permission. ISSN 1046-1105 2 AGL Will Be Overtaken by Android Automotive The Linux Foundation just picked up another new member to work on its Automotive Grade Linux project, the collaborative open source effort to develop a common platform that can serve as a de facto standard for infotainment, telematics and instrument cluster applications. Volkswagen joined earlier this month. Thus far 130 members have signed onto the project; 30 members signed up in 2018. There is much to recommend AGL. The AGL Unified Code Base platform provides 70% of the starting point for a production project, including operating system, middleware and application framework. “If AGL can establish itself as a true automotive platform, suppliers will have a common set of interfaces their suppliers can write to,” said Tim VanGoethem, vice president of Advanced Mobility Solutions at Harman X, the company’s innovation taskforce. “Instead of paying people to write software on your behalf, you can take advantage of what has been done already and just license it to use in your final product.” Toyota and the Linux Foundation launched AGL in 2012 and thus far only Toyota has gone on record to say that it is committed to the platform.
    [Show full text]
  • Software Defined Vertical Industries: Transformation Through Open Source
    Software-defined vertical industries: transformation through open source How open collaboration enables user-centered innovation, achieving faster development cycles, time to market, and increased interoperability and cost savings. A Publication of The Linux Foundation | September 2020 www.linuxfoundation.org “When I say that innovation is being democratized, I mean that users of products and services-both firms and individual consumers are increasingly able to innovate for themselves. User-centered innovation processes offer great advantages over the manufacturer-centric innovation development systems that have been the mainstay of commerce for hundreds of years. Users that innovate can develop exactly what they want, rather than relying on manufacturers to act as their (often very imperfect) agents.” — Eric von Hippel, Democratizing Innovation The Linux Foundation 2 Overview What do some of the world’s largest, most regulated, Over the last 20 years, the Linux Foundation has expanded complex, centuries-old industries such as banKing, from a single project, the Linux kernel, to hundreds of telecommunications, and energy have in common with distinct project communities. The “foundation-as-a- rapid development, bleeding-edge innovative, creative service” model developed by Linux Foundation supports industries such as the motion pictures industry? communities collaborating on open source across key horizontal technology domains, such as cloud, security, They’re all dependent on open source software. blocKchain, and the web. That would be both a great answer and correct, but it However, many of these project communities align across doesn’t tell the whole story. A complete answer is these vertical industry groupings, such as automotive, motion industries not only depend on open source, but they’re pictures, finance, telecommunications, energy, and public building open source into the fabric of their R&D and health initiatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report
    [Credits] Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution license (CC BY 4.0). All text by John Hsieh and Georgia Young, except the Letter from the Executive Director, which is by John Sullivan. Images (name, license, and page location): Wouter Velhelst: cover image; Kori Feener, CC BY-SA 4.0: inside front cover, 2-4, 8, 14-15, 20-21, 23-25, 27-29, 32-33, 36, 40-41; Michele Kowal: 5; Anonymous, CC BY 3.0: 7, 16, 17; Ruben Rodriguez, CC BY-SA 4.0: 10, 13, 34-35; Anonymous, All rights reserved: 16 (top left); Pablo Marinero & Cecilia e. Camero, CC BY 3.0: 17; Free This report highlights activities Software Foundation, CC BY-SA 4.0: 18-19; Tracey Hughes, CC BY-SA 4.0: 30; Jose Cleto Hernandez Munoz, CC BY-SA 3.0: 31, Pixabay/stevepb, CC0: 37. and detailed financials for Fiscal Year 2016 Fonts: Letter Gothic by Roger Roberson; Orator by John Scheppler; Oswald by (October 1, 2015 - September 30, 2016) Vernon Adams, under the OFL; Seravek by Eric Olson; Jura by Daniel Johnson. Created using Inkscape, GIMP, and PDFsam. Designer: Tammy from Creative Joe. 1] LETTER FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 2] OUR MISSION 3] TECH 4] CAMPAIGNS 5] LIBREPLANET 2016 6] LICENSING & COMPLIANCE 7] CONFERENCES & EVENTS 7 8] LEADERSHIP & STAFF [CONTENTS] 9] FINANCIALS 9 10] OUR DONORS CONTENTS our most important [1] measure of success is support for the ideals of LETTER FROM free software... THE EXECUTIVE we have momentum DIRECTOR on our side. LETTER FROM THE 2016 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DEAR SUPPORTERS For almost 32 years, the FSF has inspired people around the Charity Navigator gave the FSF its highest rating — four stars — world to be passionate about computer user freedom as an ethical with an overall score of 99.57/100 and a perfect 100 in the issue, and provided vital tools to make the world a better place.
    [Show full text]
  • Fifty Years of Open Source Movement: an Analysis Through the Prism of Copyright Law
    FIFTY YEARS OF OPEN SOURCE MOVEMENT: AN ANALYSIS THROUGH THE PRISM OF COPYRIGHT LAW V.K. Unni* I. INTRODUCTION The evolution of the software industry is a case study in itself. This evolution has multiple phases and one such important phase, termed open source, deals with the manner in which software technology is held, developed, and distributed.1 Over the years, open source software has played a leading role in promoting the Internet infrastructure and thus programs utilizing open source software, such as Linux, Apache, and BIND, are very often used as tools to run various Internet and business applications.2 The origins of open source software can be traced back to 1964–65 when Bell Labs joined hands with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and General Electric (GE) to work on the development of MULTICS for creating a dynamic, modular computer system capable of supporting hundreds of users.3 During the early stages of development, open source software had a very slow beginning primarily because of some preconceived notions surrounding it. Firstly, open source software was perceived as a product of academics and hobbyist programmers.4 Secondly, it was thought to be technically inferior to proprietary software.5 However, with the passage of time, the technical issues got relegated to the backside and issues pertaining to copyright, licensing, warranty, etc., began to be debated across the globe.6 * Professor—Public Policy and Management, Indian Institute of Management Calcutta; Thomas Edison Innovation Fellow (2016–17), Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, George Mason University School of Law. 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Copyright Law Exploring the Changing Interface Between
    Digital Copyright Law Exploring the Changing Interface Between Copyright and Regulation in the Digital Environment Nicholas Friedrich Scharf PhD University of East Anglia UEA Law School July 2013 Word count: 98,020 This copy of the thesis has been supplied on condition that anyone who consults it is understood to recognise that its copyright rests with the author and that use of any information derived there-from must be in accordance with current UK Copyright Law. In addition, any quotation or extract must include full attribution. Abstract This thesis seeks to address and clarify the changing interface between copyright law and other forms of regulation in the digital environment, in the context of recorded music. This is in order to explain the problems that rightsholders have had in tackling the issue of unauthorised copyright infringement facilitated by digital technologies. Copyright law is inextricably bound-up with technological developments, but the ‘convergence’ of content into a single digital form was perceived as problematic by rightsholders and was deemed to warrant increased regulation through law. However, the problem is that the reliance on copyright law in the digital environment ignores the other regulatory influences in operation. The use of copyright law in a ‘preventative’ sense also ignores the fact that other regulatory factors may positively encourage users to behave, and consume in ways that may not be directly governed by copyright. The issues digital technologies have posed for rightsholders in the music industry are not addressed, or even potentially addressable directly through law, because the regulatory picture is complex. The work of Lawrence Lessig, in relation to his regulatory ‘modalities’ can be applied in this context in order to identify and understand the other forms of regulation that exist in the digital environment, and which govern user behaviour and consumption.
    [Show full text]