sign in sign up
<<
Home , 386BSD, Free software

Free , Licenses, and Patents: A Short Overview

Manuel Carro [email protected] Technical University of Madrid (Spain)

Some material taken and adapted from: J. G. Barahona URJC M. Hermenegildo UPM J. Seoane UPM Internet documents (pointers at the end)

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.1/42

• • Licensing • Patents

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.2/42

What is Free Software? • “Free” refers to liberty, not price – it is freedom: to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software — . Stallman • More precise: the freedom 1. to run the program, for any purpose 2. to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs 3. to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor 4. to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public • Access to is needed for points 2 and 4 • Binary executables also included • Also termed libre software in some places • Freedom rights must be kept as long as you do nothing wrong

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.3/42 What is Not Free Software • / • No → no (transitive) freedom guaranteed • Often no source code available • Semi-free • Free for non-profit users (e.g., PGP) • Proprietary • Most things prohibited, or very restricted • Freeware • Redistribution, but no modification • Source code not available • Normally no technical support or new versions • • Try before buying; source code not available

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.4/42

Why Free Software Is Good

• You can copy it and adapt if for your purposes (copying 6= stealing: the original remains, unlike physical objects) • You (and your government) can scrutinize it to make sure, e.g., your e-mails do not go through some undesired server • Same when it comes to correcting bugs • Improvements revert in people

• A note: Software often used instead of Free Software • However, not equivalent: OSS more relaxed in what is admitted under their umbrella

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.5/42

First Developments

• Idea not really new: philosophy already in Libro del Buen Amor, by the Arcipreste de Hita • Scientific software • Shared, scrutinized, used & reused • Not formally free, but treated as such • 70s and early 80s: , GNU, FSF • Philosophical and legal bases • Basic infrastructure for an alternative -like O.S.: editors (), (gcc), debuggers (gdb), etc. • Berkeley CSRG (BSD Unix): • Importance of software (original Unix culture) • Used by many : SunOS, ... • Drawback: AT&T license (will talk later about licenses)

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.6/42 First Developments (Cont.)

• First Internet: • Reference implementations • Net as tool for cooperation • community gives the best support, both for newcomers and for the experienced • Complete Unix environments (SunOS, Solaris,...) • Many applications were the best in their field (e.g., compilers) • Specially interesting: X Window • Free Kernel still lacking • 386BSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD • Bill Jolitz completes missing kernel parts • Quickly: complete systems, functionality similar to SunOS • BSD license (can be used to distribute as proprietary software)

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.7/42

Development and Distribution Models

• Often decentralized (but not necessarily) • Sometimes termed anarchic • Cathedral model: changes and releases very scarce • Usual proprietary model • Also GNU, NetBSD (improved by third-party collaboration) • Bazaar model: lot of external input, frequent releases • Personal interest of developer • Reuse, improve, adapt, even rewrite other programs • Have users, treat them as co-developers: • Discuss with them • May bring in good ideas, lead to redesign • FSF requirements hinder this model (state license for every chunk of code of 20 lines or more)

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.8/42

Business Models Free software does not mean you cannot sell!

• Distribution (nice packages, manuals) + installation & troubleshooting support • Caldera, RedHat, Cygnus (before being bought) • Maintenance, customization • Only thing: if redistributed, changes go with it • Redistribution not mandatory • Consulting • Decide which software pieces fit someone’s needs • Certify interoperability hardware/software • Preinstalled hardware: VA Research, Yellow Dog • Accessories: books, hardware

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.9/42 User Model • Pretty much the usual: you can buy applications • But you can also download or copy them • You can change them (if you know how to) and (if you wish) the updated versions • In fact: corrected versions of applications often available in a very short amount of time

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.10/42

Myths

• No support! • Not really: some companies do have support contracts • In fact, developers quite responsive • Do traditional SW companies really give support? • Network/group computing? • Network computing/file sharing already in ***x since long ago • And, e.g., Microsoft discontinued their own proposals • No cost, no good! • Evidently false

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.11/42

How Does Free Software Breathe? • Linux: plenty of distributions, lots of applications • Apache: leader in WWW servers • GNOME & KDE: good, high quality desktop software • MySQL: chosen by the NASA as database software • Aladdin: versions of , printer drivers • Ada Core Technologies: the best in its niche, basic support for several big companies • RedHat: pretty much in everything related to GNU/Linux • XFree: X Window support for several architectures and O.S. • egcs: is among the best tool-chains (targeting more architectures than any other) • Repositories: such as www..net, www.freshmeat.net host thousands of projects

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.12/42 How Does Free Software Breathe (Cont.)?

• IBM: heavy support for Linux • AOL-Time Warner: support for • Intel: backed up Linux port for Intel 64 • Apple: release of QuickTime Stream Server, Mac OS X kernel (Darwin) basically a BSD kernel • : released StarOffice as OpenOffice • Alcôve, ID_PRO, LinuxCare, Conecta: consulting • Digital Creations and Ars Digita: software to create web sites • Institutional and government interest: • France: defense of use of FS in administration • Brazil: use of FS in administration and state-owned companies • German government supports development of GnuPGP • Spain: LinEx distribution, LambdaUX

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.13/42

Impact of FS: The Case of Internet

• Internet is (already has!) changed economy and society • Commerce, economy, personal relationships, center more and more around Internet • Millions of users, hundreds of thousands of companies • Current technology heavily based in free software developments • TCP/IP stack: the BSD implementation is used in many O.S. • News: CNews, INews, and similar, used practically in all News servers • DNS: the heart of Internet, dominated by the program BIND • : the reference implementation for MTAs • WWW: 50% (1999 figure) of internet sites are served by Apache

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.14/42

• Free Software • Licensing • Patents

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.15/42 But Where does It Say. . . ? . . . whether I can/cannot redistribute • This should be either in the program manual or in the electronic documentation which comes with the program • What you can, cannot, must, must not do is stated in a license • Many types of licenses, not all of them easy to understand • www..org discusses around 80 different licenses • Licensing is a complex issue • Licensing makes the distinction between free and non-free software • Licensing also very related to copyright and patent issues • Lots of legalese, need to think and reconsider a lot

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.16/42

Basics on Licensing

• A license states your rights on the matter • Unneeded if no copyright • What is not stated cannot be taken for granted (usual law principle — CWA does not hold here!) • What to look for / state in a license? • What it states now • What it states for the future • How well it gets along with other licenses • What does it cover: source code, documentation, binaries, data which passes through the program, processes (after linking), modifications, ... • Pretty much, you have to look for everything

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.17/42

Free Software Licenses & “”

• A license corresponds to free software if it gives modification freedom and redistribution freedom • This, alone, does not guarantee irrevocable rights: • I take a FS program, make a much better version of it, change the license so as to forbid redistribution, eventually it dominates the market, original developers get nothing • GNU trick: copyleft 1. Stateitis copyrighted 2. Give everyone rights to redistribute, etc. only if license terms remain unchanged and applicable to the changes • Copyleft ensures that basic rights cannot be removed (modifications still free) • Public domain cannot guarantee this! • Copyright used to ensure freedom, instead of taking it away

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.18/42 Case Study: GPL

• GNU Public License: quite restrictive, according to some • Almost all GNU products (and others) have it • Source code redistribution enforced in case of binary redistribution, may charge a fee • Giving a pointer to the source code suffices, but developer must be prepared to mail source code • Unrestricted modifications under the same license • License terms apply to anything you develop with GPL code: 2-b You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. (only when modified parts bundled with original program) • License: 2 ; FAQ: 20 pages (interesting to read)

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.19/42

Case Study: LGPL

• Initially designed to handle the case or libraries (Library GNU Public License): • When statically or dynamically linked, library is part of running process, which can be, e.g., unexec’ed and redistributed • Therefore, no program statically linked with GNU libc could be redistributed • And other programs (depending on license) shall not be run in a GNU environment • LGPL: relaxed restrictions — complicated situations made explicit • However, current trend is to use LGPL as few as possible • Also, name change: Lesser GPL

(there is also a Free Documentation License)

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.20/42

Case Study: The Netscape License

• Not all users are equal: • can use Netscape code in certain ways • Netscape can use contributed code in any way they want (including proprietary software) • Not real copyleft: • Copyleft apply only to modifications of code, not to new routines • Does not make software non-free, but confuses people (looks like a copyleft) • Not compatible with GPL • You cannot combine NL-covered and GPL-covered code in a single program • Changes to circumvent these problems have been suggested

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.21/42 Case Study: the Original BSD License

• Non-copyleft license with paragraph: 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgment: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors. • No problem: advertising is easy (just a line in an ad!) • Contributors started to change University of California, Berkeley by University of X in their files • NetBSD: 75 different sentences • You cannot put them all in an advertisement! • Therefore the can just not be advertised! • UCB removed the clause in 1999 • However, every developer must agree on removing it from his/her file for products made before that date

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.22/42

Case Study: X Window

• Non-copyleft license • X Consortium: success = popularity • Willing to give in in exchange for companies using X Window • License change (to non-free) planned several times • Danger of non-free version becoming dominant; in fact, • Non-free version of X Window existed for A/UX • XFree86 follows similar non-copyleft license • I believe there are proprietary XServers as only alternative for some graphic cards

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.23/42

Case Study: The X Window License

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, provided that the above copyright notice(s) and this permission notice appear in all copies of the Software and that both the above copyright notice(s) and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation.

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.24/42 Case Study: the Original Apple License

• No privacy: • Modified versions cannot be used privately without publishing changes • Centralized control: • Releases and uses other and R&D must be notified to Apple • Revocation at any time: • License revoked and prohibition to use all or parts of the software if someone makes patent infringement accusation • Besides: • Not true copyleft (allows linking with proprietary files) • Unfair: rights given by Apple different from what Apple has • Incompatible with GPL • Good as an “Open Source” one: “let users find and correct the bugs for you”

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.25/42

Categories of Software

Free Software

Public domain Proprietary

XFree86 Style

Closed Copylefted

GPL'ed Shareware

Open Source

Free Download

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.26/42

Reactions from SW Companies

• At first, no attention was payed (“just an academic thing”) • When impact in industry: some supported them (e.g., IBM, Sun, Apple,...) • Other companies tried to fight it: • Fear, Uknown, Doubt: instead of market your product, point out faults or problems of others • Highlight company failures, especially with the DotComs and some FS companies breaking down • Dissolve the borders with seemingly FS practices and licenses (e.g., the Sun Community Source License) • Foster usage of FS without mentioning the basis of the development • Exercise exploitation rights by means of patents • All in all, current landscape flourishing

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.27/42 • Free Software • Licensing • Patents

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.28/42

Patents? You Said Patents? Yes: ...exercise exploitation rights by means of patents... [slide 16] ...licensing also very related to copyright and patent issues... [slide 25] ...license revoked and prohibition to use all or parts of the software if someone makes patent infringement accusation ... [slide 27]

• Patents can have a negative impact on FS, due to its development and distribution model • But even more: certain kinds of patents may have an evil effect on the whole of the society

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.29/42

Basic Reasons for Patenting

• Patents acknowledge authorship of some invention • Regulate right to exploit it (by paying the patent holder) • Advantages: • Protection of investment research and development, thereby fostering innovation • Often industry R & D is costly; investment has to be amortized by selling competitive product • Knowledge spreading (patent is public — however, making free use of it is not allowed) • Disadvantages: • Foster creation of monopolies • Difficult for patent office to decide when something is innovative, useful, or simply not harmful (lots of horror histories)

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.30/42 Scope of Patents

• Intellectual work (such as mathematics) always excluded • Big investment unneeded (often, not useful) • Needed for improvement of the rest of the sciences • Patenting would impede the development of other branches of the knowledge • Knowledge spreading integral part of the academic work • Other disciplines (, literature) treated similarly: • Intellectual property (vague term), copyright, already used • Concepts and their combination rather than basic elements (e.g., musical notes, words) • Algorithms, programs also excluded until recently • Basic science for all the rest, no production cost • But change in U.S.A. 15 years ago, starting to be applied now

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.31/42

Software is Special

• Patents not appropriate for “untouchable” matter (no cost) • Intellectual property (“copyright”): plagiarism banned, combining basic elements allowed • Software construction is about combining elements! • However, patents would not apply to “programs”, but to programming techniques, algorithms, and conceptual patterns • Patents would protect, e.g., the concept of “text processor” • Copyright, however, protects one text processing program • But: no difference between algorithms and mathematics • Patenting conceptual components of a program (e.g., an algorithm) is equivalent to patenting mathematical operations • Could you patent a sorting algorithm? The property of being sorted? Would you have to pay to place book volumes in shelves?

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.32/42

Software Is Special

• Any program uses a number of potentially patentable pieces • In SW: design, but no “fabrication” costs • Research costs small (compared to, e.g., physics) • Distribution costs small, similar to artistic work (music, books) • Protecting the reproduction investment is not needed. • Innovation and changes inherent to software • Only way to advance, patent support very likely unnecessary • Software production: incremental, distributed industry, reuses previous results • Not against patents in general, but against the case of software

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.33/42 Risks • Innovation is hindered • Software companies usually start small • A key for speed of innovation • Costs of initial patents, licensing, etc. can stop startup • This is unlike big industries: patents needed to secure investment • Internet would surely not have flourished had SW patents been in effect • Clear risk of (even) more monopolies: • The problem of patenting formats/interfaces: monopolies even easier to establish • “Known” interface, but impossible to talk to due to cost of just of doing so (e.g., MP3, GIF)

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.34/42

Risks • U.S.A. and E.P.O.: many trivial patents granted • Even if patent void: a trial needed, which small companies do not have funds for — or stamina • Law interpretation turns difficult, insecure • Increment difference with U.S.A. and with Third World countries • Almost everything in process of patent is discovered and applied in academia and research: • Problem of budget • Hinders development • Not what, e.g., universities should be doing! • Big corporations benefited: buy small enterprises which painstakingly work out a patent of their own • Clear influence of pressure groups

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.35/42

Histories: GIF • Compressed, lossless , good for low-color graphics • Uses well-known LZW compression algorithm internally • However, algorithm patented by UNISYS (but history not crystal clear, though — maybe expired in Dec. 20, 2002) • At some point, royalty-free patent granted to FS developers • Decompressing still allowed (good for browsers!) • That is why reads .Z, but it does not create them • For WWW developers: either buy a commercial, licensed compressing tool, or store uncompressed pseudo-GIFs • FS (especially GNU) reaction: • Do not put GIFs anywhere • Develop better (best compression) scheme (PNG), use it massively

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.36/42 Histories: JPEG • Compressed format with information loss, good for pictures with lots of colors and details • Lossy compression devised to please human perception • Two different compression methods in the standard: 1. A patent-protected one (Arithmetic coding), always superior 2. Afreeone(Huffman coding), faster, less compression (advantages not very big, but they exist) • Arithmetic encoding not implemented in the most used free JPEG library by the IJG (Independent JPEG Group) • And no alternative so far • As a result: less experience with arithmetic encoding, which could have lead to fast implementations

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.37/42

Histories: MP3 • Initial development in a EU-funded project (EUREKA EU-147) by Fraunhoffer IIS-A • Standard published in 1995, after several years of work • Thomson Consumer Electronics holds patent of MP3 in countries which acknowledge software patents • Fraunhoffer Gesellschaft owns many patents on basic codecs • Did not decide to cash in from, e.g., Internet presence, but: • Microsoft developed their own (proprietary) media formats • Some GNU/Linux distributions do not ship with MP3 support (but downloads available — under your responsibility) • AAC natural follower of MP3; however, patent issues make / to be seen as the successor • In fact, Ogg/Vorbis apparently superior to MP3

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.38/42

European Horror Hall

Selected from the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure:

Transforming file names: Converting Windows95 filenames to Windows NT filenames Electronic shopping cart: Collect buyable items in a list and buy all of them at the end Transmitting compression requests: An application specifies a compression scheme for data communication, which is then used by an independent communication server Generating buying incentives from cooking recipes: Calculate lists of things to buy based on user-specified cooking recipes. “Technical contribution”: a printer and a monitor are used Testing learned material in schools: Use a computer for testing students

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.39/42 Conclusions • Free software an increasing force • Many applications, libraries, systems software • Original idea and permissions foster development • Some traditional SW companies embracing it • Licensing an issue • Can hinder development • Can take rights away from developers • A number of alternatives • Patents • Related to licensing, intended to protect investment • But misuse can be harmful • Summarizing: many alternatives — time for thinking and acting!

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.40/42

Pointers: Free Software • Groups on Free Software at the URJC: http://gsyc.escet.urjc.es/sobre/ • Why Open Source Software / Free Software (OSS/FS) Matters? Look at the Numbers!: http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html • : http://www.fsf.org • Open Source information: http://www.opensource.org • Open Resources: http://www.openresources.com • EuroLinux (European Association of Linux Users): http://www.eurolinux.org/ • HispaLinux (Spanish Association of Linux Users): http://www.hispalinux.es/

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.41/42

Pointers: Patents • Innovation and its impact on programming: http://proinnova.hispalinux.es/ • Group on innovation and patents at URJC: http://proinnova.hispalinux.es/ • Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure: http://swpat.ffii.org/ • Patents in the European Union (including horror gallery): http://swpat.ffii.org/patents/ • Spanish patent office: http://www.oepm.es/ • Forum against software patents in Europe: http://petition.eurolinux.org/

UPM, Madrid, 2003 – p.42/42