2.4 Understanding Open Source Software and Licensing When we talk about buying software there are three distinct components: Ownership Who owns the intellectual property behind the software! Money transfer "ow does money change hands# if at all! Licensing What do you get! What can you do with the software! $an you use it on only one computer? $an you gi%e it to someone else! &n most cases# the ownership of the software remains with the person or company that created it. Users are only being granted a license to use the software. 'his is a matter of copyright law. 'he money transfer depends on the business model of the creator. &t(s the licensing that really di)erentiates open source software fromclosed source software. 'wo contrasting e*amples will get things started. With +icrosoft Windows# the +icrosoft $orporation owns the intellectual property. 'he license itself# the End User License Agreement (EULA)# is a custom legal document that you must click through# indicating your acceptance# in order to install the software. +icrosoft keeps the source code and distributes only binary copies through authori,ed channels. -or most consumer products you are allowed to install the software on one computer and are not allowed to make copies of the disk other than for a backup. .ou are not allowed to re%erse engineer the software. .ou pay for one copy of the software# which gets you minor updates but not ma/or upgrades. Linu* is owned by Linus 'or%alds. "e has placed the code under a license calledGNU Pub ic License !ersion " (GPL!"). 'his license# among other things# says that the source code must be made a%ailable to anyone who asks and that you are allowed to make any changes you want. One ca%eat to this is that if you make changes and distribute them# you must put your changes under the same license so that others can bene0t. 1PL%2 also says that you are not allowed to charge for distributing the source code other than your actual costs of doing so 3such as copying it to remo%able media). &n general# when you create something# you also get the right to decide how it is used and distributed. #ree and Open Source Software (#OSS) refers to software where this right has been gi%en up and you are allowed to %iew the source code and redistribute it. Linus 'or%alds has done that with Linu* e%en though he created Linu* he can(t tell you that you can(t use it on your computer because he has gi%en up that right through the 1PL%2 license. Software licensing is a political issue and it should come as no surprise that there are many di)erent opinions. Organi,ations ha%e come up with their own license that embodies their particular %iews so it is easier to choose an e*isting license than come up with your own. -or e*ample# uni%ersities like the +assachusetts &nstitute of 'echnology 3+&') and Uni%ersity of $alifornia ha%e come up with licenses# as ha%e pro/ects like the Apache -oundation. &n addition groups like the -ree Software -oundation ha%e created their own licenses to further their agenda. 2.4.1 'he -ree Software -oundation and the Open Source & 'wo groups can be considered the most in7uential forces in the world of open source: 'he #ree Software #oundation (F$#) and the Open Source %nitiati!e (O$%). 'he -ree Software -oundation was founded in 689: by &ichard Sta man (RMS). 'he goal of the -SF is to promote #ree Software. -ree Software does not refer to the price# but to the freedom to share# study# and modify the underlying source code. &t is the %iew of the -SF that proprietary software 3software distributed under a closed source license) is bad. -SF also ad%ocates that software licenses should enforce the openness of modi0cations. &t is their %iew that if you modify -ree Software that you should be re;uired to share your changes. 'his speci0c philosophy is called copyleft. 'he -SF also ad%ocates against software patents and acts as a watchdog for standards organi,ations# speaking out when a proposed standard might %iolate the -ree Software principles by including items like 'igita &ights Management (D&M) that could restrict what you could do with the ser%ice. 'he -SF ha%e de%eloped their own set of licenses# such as the 1PL%2 and 1PL%<# and the Lesser 1PL licenses %ersions 2 and < 3L1PL%2 & L1PL%<4. 'he lesser licenses are much like the regular licenses e*cept they ha%e pro%isions forlinking against non>-ree Software. -or e*ample# under 1PL%2 you can(t redistribute software that uses a closed source library (such as a hardware dri%er) but the lesser %ariant allows this. 'he changes between %ersion 2 and < are largely focused on using -ree Software on a closed hardware de%ice which has been coined (i!oi)ation. 'i?o is a company that builds a tele%ision digital %ideo recorder on their own hardware and used Linu* as the base for their software. While 'i?o released the source code to their %ersion of Linu* as re;uired under 1PL%2# the hardware would not run any modi0ed binaries. &n the eyes of the -SF this went against the spirit of the 1PL%2 so they added a speci0c clause to %ersion < of the license. Linus 'or%alds agrees with 'i?o on this matter and has chosen to stay with 1PL%2. 'he Open Source &nitiati%e was founded in 6889 by *ruce Perens and Eric &aymond (ESR). 'hey belie%e that -ree Software was too politically charged and that less e*treme licenses were necessary# particularly around the copyleft aspects of -SF licenses. OSI belie%es that not only should the source be freely a%ailable# but also that no restrictions should be placed on the use of the software no matter what the intended use. Unlike the -SF# the OSI does not ha%e its own set of licenses. &nstead# the OSI has a set of principles and adds other licenses to that list if they meet those principles# called Open Source licenses. Software that conforms to an Open Source license is therefore Open Source Software. Some of the Open Source licenses are the BSD family of licenses# which are much simpler than 1PL. 'hey merely state that you may redistribute the source and binaries as long as you maintain copyright notices and don(t imply that the original creator endorses your %ersion. &n other words “do what you want with this software# /ust don(t say you wrote it.” 'he +&' license has much the same spirit# /ust with di)erent wording. -SF licenses# such as 1PL%2# are also Open Source licenses. "owe%er# many Open Source licenses such as BSD and +&' do not contain the copyleft pro%isions and are thus not acceptable to the -SF. 'hese licenses are called permissive free software licenses because they are permissi%e in how you can redistribute the software. .ou can take BSD licensed software and include it in a closed software product as long as you gi%e proper attribution. 2.4.2 More Terms for the Same Thing Dather than dwell o%er the 0ner points of Open Source %s. -ree Software# the community has started referring to it all as -ree and Open Source software 3-OSS). 'he English word “freeC can mean “free as in lunch” (as in no cost4 or “free as in speech” (as in no restrictions). 'his ambiguity has lead to the inclusion of the word ibre to refer to the latter de0nition. 'hus# we end up with #ree+Libre+Open Source Software 3-LOSS). While these terms are con%enient# they hide the di)erences between the two schools of thought. 5t the %ery least# when you(re using -OSS software# you know you don(t ha%e to pay for it and you can redistribute it as you wish. 2.4.3 Other Licensing Schemes -OSS licenses are mostly related to software. 2eople ha%e placed works such as drawings and plans under -OSS licenses but this was not the intent. When software has been placed in the Pub ic domain# the author has relin;uished all rights# including the copyright on the work. &n some countries# this is the default when the work is done by a go%ernment agency. &n some countries# copyrighted work becomes public domain after the author has died and a lengthy waiting period has elapsed. 'he ,reati!e ,ommons (C,) organi,ation has created the ,reati!e ,ommons Licenses which try to address the intentions behind -OSS licenses for non software entities. $$ licenses can also be used to restrict commercial use if that is the desire of the copyright holder. 'he $$ licenses are: Attribution (C, *Y) much like the BSA license# you can use $$ @Y content for any use but must credit the copyright holder Attribution ShareA i.e (C, *-/$A) a copyleft %ersion of the 5ttribution license. Aeri%ed works must be shared under the same license# much like in the -ree Software ideals Attribution No/'eri!s (C, *--N') you may redistribute the content under the same conditions as $$>@Y but may not change it Attribution-Non,ommercia (C, *-/N,) /ust like $$ @.# but you may not use it for commercial purposes Attribution-Non,ommercia /ShareA i.e (C,/*--N,/$A) Builds on the $$ @.>F$ license but re;uires that your changes be shared under the same license.