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 Jaeger / Metzger 5. Auflage 2020 ISBN 978-3-406-73497-7 C.H.BECK schnell und portofrei erhältlich bei beck-shop.de Die Online-Fachbuchhandlung beck-shop.de steht für Kompetenz aus Tradition. Sie gründetauf über 250 Jahre juristische Fachbuch-Erfahrung durch die Verlage C.H.BECK und Franz Vahlen. beck-shop.de hält Fachinformationen in allen gängigen Medienformaten bereit: über 12 Millionen Bücher, eBooks, Loseblattwerke, Zeitschriften, DVDs, Online- Datenbanken und Seminare. Besonders geschätzt wird beck-shop.de für sein umfassendes Spezialsortiment imBereich Recht, Steuern und Wirtschaft mit rund 700.000 lieferbaren Fachbuchtiteln. Druckerei C. H . Beck Jaeger/M., Open Source Software, 5.A. Medien mit Zukunft ..................................... Erstversand, 26.12.2019 Stichwortverzeichnis 377 Erstversand Stichwortverzeichnis Stichwortverzeichnis (Die Zahlen beziehen sich auf die jeweiligen Randnummern.) Ablaufenlassen der Software 40 siehe – Gewährleistungsausschluss bei „Em- auch Programm bedded-Systemen“ 351 Abmahnung 216, 379 – Gewährleistungsausschluss im Ver- Abrechnungssoftware für Zahnärzte- hältnis Distributor – Endkunde Entscheidung 432 338 ff. ABS-Bremssystem 361 – Gewährleistungsausschluss im Ver- Abtretung der Urheberbefugnisse 204, hältnis Softwarehersteller – Besteller 207 347 Abwendungsbefugnis – Gewährleistungsausschluss, Rechts- – gegen Beseitigungs- und Vernich- folgen des unwirksamen 296 f. tungsanspruch 214 – Gewährleistungsausschluss und inter- Additional Permissions 80 nationales Recht 453 Adobe Illustrator 407 – Gewährleistungsausschluss, Zulässig- Advertising-Klausel 126 keit nach UCC 460 Affero General Public License 85 – Gewährleistungsausschluss siehe auch AFPA/Edu4-Entscheidung 463 Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen, AGB siehe Allgemeine Geschäftsbedin- Haftungsausschluss gungen – Haftungsausschluss 45, 299 f., 318, Aktivlegitimation siehe Urheberrecht 325 f., 348, 453 Aladdin Free Public License 149 – Haftungsausschluss im Verhältnis Algorithmus 364, 367 Softwarehersteller – Besteller 348 Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen – Haftungsausschluss und internationa- (AGB) 246, 252 ff. siehe auch Inter- les Recht 453 nationales Privatrecht; Vertrag – Haftungsausschluss und Produkthaf- – Anwendbarkeit 246 tungsgesetz 318 – Auslegung der Klauseln 256 – Haftungsausschluss und Regeln des – Copyleft-Klausel, Inhaltskontrolle Schenkungsrechts 300 258 ff. – Internationales Privatrecht 449 ff. – Einbeziehung 253 ff. – Kenntnis 246, 254 f., 295, 320 – englische Lizenztexte, wirksame Ein- – Klauseln zu neuen Lizenzversionen beziehung 253 263 f. – geltungserhaltende Reduktion, Verbot – Klauselverbote 294, 299, 339, 347 320, 339 – kundenfeindlichste Auslegung 256 – Gewährleistung, abweichende von – kundenfreundliche Auslegung 256 Ziffer 11 und 12 GPL 48 – Lizenz als AGB 246 – Gewährleistung, Anwendung von – Möglichkeit der Kenntnisnahme 254 Schenkungsrecht 291, 296 f., 319 – Reduktion, geltungserhaltende 296, – Gewährleistung, gesetzliche 275, 320, 339 293 ff., 319 – salvatorische Klausel 295 – Gewährleistung, strengere bei inter- – Schutzhüllenvertrag 339 nationaler Lizenz 83 – Shrink-wrap-license 339 – Gewährleistungsausschluss 40, 253, – Sprache 254 f., 450, 462, 469 f. 258, 293 ff., 317, 320, 334, 338 ff., – Standardsoftware als Lieferung neu 347, 351 hergestellter Sachen 294 Druckerei C. H . Beck Jaeger/M., Open Source Software, 5.A. Medien mit Zukunft ..................................... Erstversand, 26.12.2019 378 Stichwortverzeichnis – Transparenzgebot 256 f., 262 ARPANET 14 f. Verstoß 262, 294 ff., 320, 334, 339, Artifex License 147 347, 351 Artistic-Lizenzen 136 ff. Vertragsschluss siehe Vertrag – Artistic License 137 ff. Vorformuliertheit 53, 246, 347 – Artistic License 2.0 142 zumutbare Kenntnis von der Lizenzver- – Clarified Artistic License 141 einbarung 254, 338 – Veränderung des Gesamtpakets 140 Amazon 365 – Verbreitung veränderter Versionen Änderungsvermerk 50 siehe auch Ver- 139 merke – Vermerke 139 Anerkennung ausländischer Entschei- – Vertrieb als larger work 138 dungen 442 ASP-Loophole 193 f. angemessene Vergütung, Anspruch AT&T 14 183 ff. siehe Vergütung Auftrag 26, 206 – Bestseller-Paragraph 184, 186 Auftragswerk 206 – Linux-Klausel 183, 185 Auktionsverfahren/HITACHI-Entschei- Annahmeerklärung siehe Vertrag dung 365 Ansprüche, bei Lizenzverletzung Ausland siehe Internationales Privat- 212 ff. recht Apache 17, 128 ff., 207, 398 Auslandsbezug 231 – Untersagung der Namensbenutzung Auslegung 53 siehe Allgemeine Ge- bei veränderten Versionen 130 f. schäftsbedingungen Apache Software License 128 ff. Autoritätsmissbrauch siehe Wettbe- – Kompatibilität mit der GPL 132 werbsrecht – Version 1.0 130 – Version 1.1 131 Backdoors 436 – Version 2.0 132 Basar-Methode 16 f., 200 ff., 342 Apache Software Foundation 207, 268, Bearbeitung 5, 30 f., 39, 50, 158, 203, 457 227 f., 250, 384, 387, 462, 472 – Corporate Contributor License – Abgrenzung zur Zusammenstellung Agreement 207 von Programmen 54 ff. – Individual Contributor License – Freigabe als unzulässige Rücklizenzie- Agreement 207, 268 rung 420 ff. Apple Public Source License (APSL) – Freigabe von Bearbeitungen 53 ff., 143, 231 105 f., 126, 213, 390 Application Service Providing (ASP) 37, – Freigabe von Bearbeitungen nach 77, 188 Rechtsverletzung 213, 290 – Affero General Public License 85 – Verbreitung von Bearbeitungen 53, – unter GPL 37, 77 390 – Haftung und Gewährleistung 355 – Verbreitung von Bearbeitungen durch Approved Use 390 Behörden siehe Verbreitung Arbeitgeber, Verwendung von Open Bedingung 2, 286, 372 f. Source Software und Zustimmung – aufschiebende, bei Rechteeinräumung des Arbeitnehmers 186 f. 209, 211 f. Arbeitnehmerlohn als Lizenzgebühr Behörde siehe Wettbewerbsrecht 205 Behördeninterner Gebrauch siehe Ver- Arbeitnehmerüberlassung 172 breitung Arbeits- und Dienstverhältnisse 204 ff. Bell Laboratories 14 siehe Urheberrecht Benutzung siehe Software Arglist 293, 296, 334, 347 Bereicherung 220, 282, 288 Druckerei C. H . Beck Jaeger/M., Open Source Software, 5.A. Medien mit Zukunft ..................................... Erstversand, 26.12.2019 Stichwortverzeichnis 379 Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) CIRCA, Groupwarelösung 474 siehe BSD, Software, Unix Clarified Artistic License 136, 141 BerliOS 17 Cloud-Dienste 355 Beschaffenheit, übliche siehe Software, – IaaS 174 Mangel – PaaS 174 Beschränkungen, inhaltliche der Rech- – Private Cloud 174 teeinräumung 210 f. – siehe auch Software-as-a-Service Beschränkungen, Verbot der zusätzli- Code Civil 463 chen 48 Common Public License 86 Beseitigungsanspruch siehe Verletzung Compiler 15, 67 f. Besichtigungsanspruch 221 – complete corresponding source code Bestimmungsgemäße Benutzung 161 42 BGB-Gesellschaft 265 f. – GCC-Compiler 16 Bibliotheken 64 ff., 108 – siehe auch GNU C Compiler – dynamisches Verlinken 66 Compliance 27 – gemeinsame Verbreitung 65 Computerrichtlinie der Europäischen – GNU C-Library 108 Gemeinschaft 162 – kombinierte 64 Computer Software Rental Amend- – Qt-Toolkit 143 ments Act of 1990 8 – „shared library“ 64, 116 Consulting 23 – statisches Verlinken 64, 66, 116 Contributor 88 ff., 105, 181, 444 – unter der GPL-2.0 64 ff. Contributor Agreement 207115, 145 ff, – unter der LGPL 108 ff. 212, 356 – Veränderung 110, 111 f. Contributor License Agreement, Apa- Binärcode 15, 91 ff. siehe auch Software che 128 Bison 68 „COPYING“-Datei 41 Blackduck 28, Copyleft 5, 6, 11, 26, 30 ff., 52 ff., 85 ff. Browser 4, 9 – AGB-Recht 262 – Firefox 17, 97, 381 – Anspruch auf Quellcode 61 – Internet Explorer 9, 98 – beschränktes 5, 85 ff. – Netscape 17, 98 – Copyleft-Effekt 31, 85, 93, 207 ff, Browser-Krieg 9 210, 260, 474 Brüsseler EWG-Übereinkommen siehe – Definition 5 EuGVÜ – Durchsetzung bei patentgeschützter BSD siehe Unix Software 383 ff. BSD-artige Lizenzen 6, 98, 146 – file based 106 – und Dual Licensing 146 – Lizenzen 31 ff. BSD Copyright-Lizenz 124 ff. – Pflichten 30, 52 ff. Bug 296, 314 – Schadensersatzanspruch 217 Bugfixes 237, 296 – strenges 5, 31 ff. Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und – und Apple Public Source License Technologie (BMWi) 19, 367 143 Bundespatentgericht 369 – und BSD-artige Lizenzen 123 ff. Bündeltheorie 444 – und Dual Licensing 145 ff. Bundling 13 – und Erschöpfungsgrundsatz 179 ff. Busybox v. Westinghouse-Entscheidung – und Inhaltskontrolle 339 ff. 460 – und Kartellrecht 420 ff. – und „Linux-Klausel“ 176 CD-ROM 42, 313 ff, 337 – und Markenrechte 398 ff. CeCILL 31, 472 – und Mozilla-artige Lizenzen 143 Druckerei C. H . Beck Jaeger/M., Open Source Software, 5.A. Medien mit Zukunft ..................................... Erstversand, 26.12.2019 380 Stichwortverzeichnis – und OpenRTLinux Patent License Direktlizenzierung 247, 250 390 ff. Disclaimer 45, 66 siehe Haftungsaus- – und Patentrecht 80, 367, 383 ff. schluss – und Softwaretools 67 Distribution 19, 35 f., 47 siehe Ver- – und Urheberpersönlichkeitsrecht breitung, Urheberrecht 177 f. – Preis, Lizenzgebührenverbot 47 – und Urheberrechtsreform 183 ff. – und GPL 3 78 – und Urheberrechtstheorie 175 ff. – und Markenrechte 404 ff. – und Wettbewerbsrecht 422 ff. – und Recht der öffentlichen Zu- Copyright 8, 15, 36, 53, 445 siehe auch gänglichmachung 35 BSD Copyright, Urheberrecht – und Urheberrecht 243 – Vermerk 44, 51 – und Vermietrecht 36 Copyright-Assignment 207 siehe auch – und Vertragsverhältnisse 337 ff. Joint Copyright Assignment – Verbot unter GPL-3.0 mit DRM- Core Team 270 Systemen 77 Corel 4 Distributor 21, 47, 100, 183 Corporate Contributor License Agree- – und Absicherung gegen Patentstrei- ment
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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 ........
    [Show full text]
  • Free and Open Source Software: “Commons” Or Clubs
    To be published in the book “Conference for the 30th Anniversary of the CRID” (Collection du CRIDS) Free and Open Source Software Licensing: A reference for the reconstruction of “virtual commons”?1 Philippe LAURENT Senior Researcher at the CRIDS (University of Namur - Belgium) Lawyer at the Brussels Bar (Marx, Van Ranst, Vermeersch & Partners) The impact of the Free, Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) movement has been compared to a revolution in the computing world2. Beyond the philosophical and the sociological aspects of the movement, its most outstanding achievement is probably its penetration in the ICT market3. FLOSS has indeed reached a high level of economical maturity. It is not “just” an alternative movement any more, nor is it a simple option that companies of the field can choose to take or simply ignore. It is a reality that everyone has to acknowledge, understand and deal with, no matter which commercial strategy or business model is implemented. FLOSS is based upon an outstanding permissive licensing system coupled with an unrestricted access to the source code, which enables the licensee to modify and re-distribute the software at will. In such context, intellectual property is used in a versatile way, not to monopolize technology and reap royalties, but to foster creation on an open and collaborative basis. This very particular use of initially “privative” rights firstly amazed… then became source of inspiration. Indeed, scientists, academics and other thinkers noticed that the free and open source system actually worked quite well and gave birth to collaborative and innovative, but also commercially viable ecosystems.
    [Show full text]
  • Elements of Free and Open Source Licenses: Features That Define Strategy
    Elements Of Free And Open Source Licenses: Features That Define Strategy CAN: Use/reproduce: Ability to use, copy / reproduce the work freely in unlimited quantities Distribute: Ability to distribute the work to third parties freely, in unlimited quantities Modify/merge: Ability to modify / combine the work with others and create derivatives Sublicense: Ability to license the work, including possible modifications (without changing the license if it is copyleft or share alike) Commercial use: Ability to make use of the work for commercial purpose or to license it for a fee Use patents: Rights to practice patent claims of the software owner and of the contributors to the code, in so far these rights are necessary to make full use of the software Place warranty: Ability to place additional warranty, services or rights on the software licensed (without holding the software owner and other contributors liable for it) MUST: Incl. Copyright: Describes whether the original copyright and attribution marks must be retained Royalty free: In case a fee (i.e. contribution, lump sum) is requested from recipients, it cannot be royalties (depending on the use) State changes: Source code modifications (author, why, beginning, end) must be documented Disclose source: The source code must be publicly available Copyleft/Share alike: In case of (re-) distribution of the work or its derivatives, the same license must be used/granted: no re-licensing. Lesser copyleft: While the work itself is copyleft, derivatives produced by the normal use of the work are not and could be covered by any other license SaaS/network: Distribution includes providing access to the work (to its functionalities) through a network, online, from the cloud, as a service Include license: Include the full text of the license in the modified software.
    [Show full text]
  • Emergent Computing Joint ERCIM Actions: ‘Beyond the Horizon’ Anticipating Future and Emerging Information Society Technologies
    European Research Consortium for Informatics and Mathematics Number 64, January 2006 www.ercim.org Special: Emergent Computing Joint ERCIM Actions: ‘Beyond the Horizon’ Anticipating Future and Emerging Information Society Technologies European Scene: Routes to Open Access Publishing CONTENTS JOINT ERCIM ACTIONS THE EUROPEAN SCENE 4 Fourth ERCIM Soft Computing Workshop The Routes to Open Access by Petr Hajek, Institute of Computer Science, Academy of 16 Open Access: An Introduction Sciences / CRCIM, Czech Republic by Keith G Jeffery, Director IT, CCLRC and ERCIM president 4 Cor Baayen Award 2006 18 Publish or Perish — Self-Archive to Flourish: The Green Route to Open Access 5 Second ERCIM Workshop ‘Rapid Integration of Software by Stevan Harnad, University of Southampton, UK Engineering Techniques’ by Nicolas Guelfi, University of Luxembourg 19 The Golden Route to Open Access by Jan Velterop 5 Grid@Asia: European-Asian Cooperation Director of Open Access, Springer in Grid Research and Technology by Bruno Le Dantec , ERCIM Office 20 ERCIM Statement on Open Access 6 GFMICS 2005 — 10th International Workshop on Formal 21 Managing Licenses in an Open Access Community Methods for Industrial Critical Systems by Renato Iannella National ICT Australia by Mieke Massink and Tiziana Margaria 22 W3C at the Forefront of Open Access Beyond-The-Horizon Project by Rigo Wenning, W3C 7 Bits, Atoms and Genes Beyond the Horizon 23 Cream of Science by Dimitris Plexousakis, ICS-FORTH, Greece by Wouter Mettrop, CWI, The Netherlands 8 Thematic Group 1: Pervasive Computing and Communications SPECIAL THEME: by Alois Ferscha, University of Linz, Austria EMERGENT COMPUTING 24 Introduction to the Special Theme 9 Thematic Group 2: by Heather J.
    [Show full text]
  • The Community Data License Agreement (”CDLA”) an Introduction and Overview
    The Community Data License Agreement (”CDLA”) An Introduction and Overview Christopher W. O’Neill Associate General Counsel Intellectual Property Law IBM Corporation [email protected] As systems require data to learn and evolve, no one organization can build, maintain and source all data required. 2 The CDLA license agreements enable sharing data openly, embodying best practices learned over decades sharing source code. 3 New advancements are driving interest in “open data” • Interest in sharing data has grown significantly due to machine learning, AI, blockchain and expansion of open geolocation solutions • Governments, companies and organizations are interested in sharing data “just like we share source code” • They’re looking to open source principles for how they may be applied to data problems • Open source development is viewed as an ideal model for collaborating on datasets • Connected civil infrastructure and private systems are starting to intersect (e.g. infrastructure-to-vehicle systems) with data created and shared 4 CDLA Summary • The Community Data License Agreement (“CDLA”) family is a set of two model agreements, introduced and sponsored by the Linux Foundation • Announced on October 23, 2017 • Modeled on the structure of leading open source agreements • Designed for use by independent data communities looking for “open” licenses that reflect the nuances of data licensing (as opposed to software or copyright licensing) • CDLA promotes free exchange of data • Permits data to be freely used, modified, and republished • Authorship
    [Show full text]
  • Open Source Semiconductor Core Licensing
    Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Volume 25, Number 1 Fall 2011 OPEN SOURCE SEMICONDUCTOR CORE LICENSING Eli Greenbaum* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 131 II. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND ........................................................... 134 III. THE GPL AND LGPL ................................................................... 139 IV. DISTRIBUTION ............................................................................. 141 V. LINKING ........................................................................................ 144 A. Hard Cores ............................................................................... 145 B. Soft Cores ................................................................................. 147 C. Libraries ................................................................................... 149 VI. DISTRIBUTION OF PHYSICAL DEVICES ........................................ 151 VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................. 156 I. INTRODUCTION Semiconductor cores are not software in the conventional sense of that term. Even so, perhaps for lack of a readily available and more tailored framework, the tools used to license software have increas- ingly been applied to these works. This Article reviews the technology and structure of the semiconductor core industry and analyzes the ap- plication of open source license principles to semiconductor cores. Specifically, this Article
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    Table of Contents Preface xiii Foreword xv Chapter 1 Introduction 1 Chapter 2 Genesis of the Institution 9 2.1. Introduction 9 2.2. Open Source Software: Early Developments and Evolution 10 2.2.1. Property Domains 10 2.2.2. ‘Opening’ of Software ‘Freedom’ 17 2.2.3. Defining Open Source Software 22 2.3. Conclusion 26 Chapter 3 The Legal Governance Structure 29 3.1. Introduction 29 3.2. Legal Governance Structure of Open Source Software 30 3.2.1. Existing Intellectual Property Protection and Open Source Software 31 3.2.1.1. Trade Secret Protection 32 3.2.1.2. Copyright Protection 33 3.2.1.3. Moral Rights 37 3.2.1.4. Patent Protection 39 3.2.1.5. Trademarks 43 3.2.2. Existing Contractual-License Protection and Open Source Software 44 3.3. Conclusion 46 Table of Contents Chapter 4 The Licensing Regime 47 4.1. Introduction 47 4.2. A Taxonomy of Licenses 48 4.2.1. GNU General Public License (GPL) and Other Related Licenses 51 4.2.2. The Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) and Other Related Licenses 54 4.2.3. The Mozilla Public License and Related Commercial Licenses 56 4.2.4. Other Open Source Software Licenses 59 4.3. Conclusion 60 Chapter 5 Licensing and Rights Management 61 5.1. Introduction 61 5.2. Groundwork Definitions 62 5.3. The Granting Clause 64 5.3.1. Intellectual Property Grant 65 5.3.1.1. Copyright Grant 65 5.3.1.2. Patent Grant 70 5.3.1.3.
    [Show full text]
  • Gpl) Had Been Patented?
    CLAIMING COPYLEFT IN OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE: WHAT IF THE FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION’S GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE (GPL) HAD BEEN PATENTED? Greg R. Vetter† 2008 MICH. ST. L. REV. 279 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................280 I. BUSINESS METHOD PATENTS AT THE INTERSECTION OF SOFTWARE AND LICENSING............................................................................................286 II. CLAIMING COPYLEFT: FOSS LICENSING UNDER GPLV2 AS A PATENT PROTECTED ACTIVITY .........................................................................288 A. A Hypothetical Claim for the GPLv2 Patent...............................289 B. Utility...........................................................................................291 C. Objective Disclosure...................................................................292 D. Novelty and Statutory Bars..........................................................293 E. Non-Obviousness ........................................................................294 1. Differences Compared to the Prior Art of Software Licensing...............................................................................295 2. Secondary Considerations: Particularly “Unexpected Results”.................................................................................296 III. CLAIMED COPYLEFT: ENFORCEMENT MOMENTS IN THE FOSS MOVEMENT..........................................................................................298 A. The FSF and Copyright
    [Show full text]
  • The Need for Open Source Software in Machine Learning
    Journal of Machine Learning Research 8 (2007) 2443-2466 Submitted 7/07; Published 10/07 The Need for Open Source Software in Machine Learning Sor¨ en Sonnenburg∗ [email protected] Fraunhofer Institute FIRST Kekulestr. 7 12489 Berlin, Germany Mikio L. Braun∗ [email protected] Technical University Berlin Franklinstr. 28/29 10587 Berlin, Germany Cheng Soon Ong∗ [email protected] Friedrich Miescher Laboratory Max Planck Society Spemannstr. 39 72076 Tubing¨ en, Germany Samy Bengio [email protected] Google 1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy, Building 47-171D Mountain View, CA 94043, USA Leon Bottou [email protected] NEC Laboratories America, Inc. 4 Independence Way Suite 200 Princeton NJ 08540 , USA Geoffrey Holmes [email protected] Department of Computer Science University of Waikato Hamilton, New Zealand Yann LeCun [email protected] New York University 715 Broadway New York, NY 10003, USA Klaus-Robert Muller¨ [email protected] Technical University Berlin Franklinstr. 28/29 10587 Berlin, Germany Fernando Pereira [email protected] University of Pennsylvania 3330 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA Carl Edward Rasmussen [email protected] Department of Engineering Trumpington Street Cambridge, CB2 1PZ, United Kingdom ∗. The first three authors contributed equally. c 2007 Soren¨ Sonnenburg, Mikio L. Braun, Cheng Soon Ong, Samy Bengio, Leon Bottou, Geoffrey Holmes, Yann LeCun, Klaus- Robert Muller¨ , Fernando Pereira, Carl Edward Rasmussen, Gunnar Ratsch,¨ Bernhard Scholk¨ opf, Alexander Smola, Pascal Vincent, Jason Weston and Robert Williamson. SONNENBURG, BRAUN, ONG, ET AL. Gunnar Ratsch¨ [email protected] Friedrich Miescher Laboratory Max Planck Society Spemannstr.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of License Selection on Open Source Software Quality Benjamin J
    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.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Public License 1 Common Public License
    Common Public License 1 Common Public License Common Public License Author IBM Version 1.0 Publisher IBM Published May 2001 [1] DFSG compatible Yes Free software Yes OSI approved Yes GPL compatible No Copyleft Yes Linking from code with a different license Yes In computing, the CPL (Common Public License) is a free software / open-source software license published by IBM. The Free Software Foundation and Open Source Initiative have approved the license terms of the CPL. The CPL has the stated aims of supporting and encouraging collaborative open-source development while still retaining the ability to use the CPL'd content with software licensed under other licenses, including many proprietary licenses. The Eclipse Public License (EPL) consists of a slightly modified version of the CPL. The CPL has some terms that resemble those of the GNU General Public License (GPL), but some key differences exist. A similarity relates to distribution of a modified computer program: under either license (CPL or GPL), one must make the source code of a modified program available to others. CPL, like the GNU Lesser General Public License, allows non-CPL-licensed software to link to a library under CPL without requiring the linked source code to be made available to the licensee. CPL lacks compatibility with both versions of the GPL because it has a "choice of law" section in section 7, which restricts legal disputes to a certain court. Another source of incompatibility is the different copyleft requirements.[2] Microsoft has released its Windows Installer XML (WiX) developer tool, Windows Template Library (WTL) and the FlexWiki engine under the CPL as Sourceforge projects.
    [Show full text]