Practicing Safe Software
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Practicing Safe Software as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 2,392
- Pages: 29
Practicing Safe Software Software Record Keeping And Intellectual Property Tracking
Carleton University Technology Innovation Management (TIM) Lecture Series
June, 2008
Problem Illustrated Commercial
Open Firm’s Own Source Code base
DO WE KNOW WHAT IS IN OUR SOFTWARE?!
Organization
Load Build
Due Diligence
End Product
(Manual or Automated Scanning)
Animated- view in Presentation mode
Outsource Company 18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
2
Software Content Records
Nobody knows what’s in the software
Good software development practices have evolved – Code management systems – Bug tracking systems – But there are no • • • •
“Bill Of Materials” Approved Vendors Approved Components Approved Licences
Manual Record Keeping is impractical
Software content management requires – Content records – Content policies – Content records showing policies are complied with
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
3
Market Environment 1.
Open Source usage is growing 1. "At least 80 percent of all commercial software products will include elements of open-source code by 2012” according to Gartner
2.
Outsourcing is common
3.
Designers carry code from company to company
4.
Access to code is easy
Contamination in software projects is prevalent – Mostly unintentional
5.
Software Intellectual Property (IP) is important – Governance Requirements (e.g. Sarbanes-Oxley)
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
4
Open Source Software Is Maturing Gartner Hype Cycle for Open-Source Software, 2005
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
5
Open Source Software – The Good
Thousands of modules and millions of lines code available – Example: Open source VoIP projects • Asterix, SipX, OpenPBX, SIPxchange, OpenSIPStack, reSIProcate, Open Source SIP, Twinkle, OpenZoep, FreeSWITCH, YATE, RTPlib, plus at least 70 more
Enables fast development, short introduction intervals
Lowers product development costs
Increases code re-use
Good quality and security – Very large ecosystem – Access to source code – Peer reviews
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
6
Open Source Software – The Bad
It is not free – Almost all OSS is subject to license – License terms vary – License terms are not always compatible • Can not always mix two types of code
– License terms are difficult to interpret • Not a task for developers or development managers
It is not tracked – Easy to bring in OSS – No record keeping • Who owns Intellectual Property (IP) over what areas? • Possibly of compromising ALL intellectual property, – eg GPL (General Public License) rules
• Who brought in what
No pedigree information – How was it evolved, and from what
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
7
Interpreting Open Source Licenses
Needs Expert Interpretation and fit with business
Example: Sun Binary Code Distribution License Agreement – 7 page document – Sun grants you a … license …[to] distribute the Software, provided that … and (vi) you agree to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from and against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by any third party that arises or results from the use or distribution of any and all Programs and/or Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc. Binary Code License Agreement for the JAVA SE DEVELOPMENT KIT (JDK), VERSION 6 http://java.sun.com/javase/6/jdk-6u6-license.txt Taken from “Clarifying the IP Trail” by Janet Campbell, Legal Counsel and Manager of Intellectual Property, Eclipse Foundation Inc.
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
8
Other Contamination Possibilities
Outsourcing Software Development – Contractors – Offshore and onshore – E-bidding (eg Elance.com) • • • •
No content records Cross project code contamination Developer previous-life contamination Little control over delivered Software IP purity
3rd Party Commercial software – License terms vary • For development only • Limited volume only • Specific target markets
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
9
External Code Can Easily Creep In
Code Search engines are common – – – –
Google Code Search Krugle Freshmeat Coders
– Great educational value – Significant IP contamination hazard
Developer previous-life contamination – 70% of developers bring code from previous company http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39156544,00.htm
Growing up with the culture of plagiarism – “rip, mix, burn”, “cut & paste” – Instant information access, blurring what’s yours & what’s not …
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
10
Why is Software IP important?
Intellectual Property Management impacts enterprise value – Software is significant source of effort and investment • Exposure to third party rights • Protecting own rights
Impact on commercial transactions – Representations and warranties, IP indemnity clauses – Real or perceived IP risks lower M&A value
A company’s existence could depend on it – Litigations, Law suits, penalties, out of court settlements • • • • • • • •
18 June 08
Microsoft vs Alcatel-Lucent (mp3), Welte vs Dlink, vs Fortinet Cisco-Linksys, Cisco vs GPL in iPhone, FSF (Free Software Foundation) vs Open-TV SCO-IBM (proprietary software found in open source) SFLC vs Monsoon Multimedia (Busybox product) vs Verison vs Xtrasys Veritas vs Microsoft © Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
11
Veritas vs Microsoft In Veritas Operating Corporation v. Microsoft Corporation, the Court was asked to consider a motion by Microsoft for a dismissal of claims brought by Veritas alleging, among other things, that Microsoft had misappropriated certain trade secrets of Veritas and infringed Veritas’ copyright when it developed and incorporated Logical Volume Manager
Court observed that only 54 lines of code, or 0.03% of a code base of almost 160,000 lines, had been identified by Veritas as having been infringed. In addition, with the exception of two lines, the section of code in question was not copied verbatim. Instead, Microsoft changed the code by upgrading the programming language from C to C++.
(LVM) into its operating system products. In considering the motion, the
In denying one of Microsoft’s arguments for dismissal of the copyright infringement claim, that the amount of code
the Court noted that even where a relatively small quantity of code is copied, a finding of substantial similarity can still be made if the copied code is sufficiently important to the operation of the new program or gives the new program distinctive features or makes it more desirable. copied was de minimis,
Veritas versus Microsoft, United States district court Western district of Washington at Seattle Case NO. C06-0703-JCC
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
12
Record Keeping and Standards
International standards are fast becoming a staple of records management programs and practices
Why is it important1 – “… good records management practice is essential to create, capture and use information essential for the organization to fulfill its obligations and meet the expectations of its stakeholders...“ – “… enables organizations to develop policies, strategies and programmes which will ensure that information assets have the essential characteristics of accuracy, integrity and reliability,"
How important is it? – we have a standard on record keeping ISO 15489 ! 1 - Robert McLean, member of ISO technical committee ISO/TC 46, Information and documentation, Subcommittee 11, Archives/records management
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
13
Record Management
People do business based on a certain mandate (policy)
People create and manage records that document businessimpacting events and can provide evidence of them.
Records management is integrated in doing business and as a business in itself “Developments in ISO standards for recordkeeping” byHans Hofman, Nationaal Archief Netherlands
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
14
Record Management & Quality Programs
ISO 9000 (circa 1999) – 4.5 and 4.16 documentation, data and record keeping – Used in all Quality Assurance programs • • • • • • • • • • • •
18 June 08
Quality Leadership Program Quality Design Program Quality Purchasing Program Quality Contracts Program Quality Production Program Quality Inventory Program Quality Inspections Program Quality Nonconformance Program Quality Measurement Program Quality Service Program Quality Audit Program Quality Training Program
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
15
Software Component Records
Intellectual Property (IP) Management is impossible without records
Good record keeping is a must for – – – – –
Change Management Fault management Risk management Supplier management … for all ISO purposes
Manual record keeping is – Always painful – Mostly impractical
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
16
Example: Manual Record Keeping
http://www.qnx.com/legal/licensing/dev_license/eula/License.Guide.1_05d.updated.Apr13-07.pdf
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
17
Managing Open Source Software
Need clear policies in line with organizational goals – What type of licenses are acceptable – What to do in case of ambiguity
Need accurate records – Keep track of all components in a project • Open Source • Commercial • Outsourced code
– Who brought in, what and when, in case of questions – Keep track of Intellectual Property (IP) attributes of content • Licensing requirements • Copyright ownership
Need automated record keeping and Software IP management tools – Leave developers to focus on code development
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
18
Current Solutions for making sure content is tracked and IP is safe
Manual
Preventive
Education, Ethics Use only known code
Corrective
Commercial Due Diligence Service Companies
18 June 08
Automated
Commercial
Academic Commercial
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
19
Manual Due Diligence
Typically one or more software experts, plus an IP lawyer
Requires – Preparing – Due diligence • • • • •
Document review Management conference Designer conference Analysis Report
Can be outsourced – Commercial Software Analysis groups
18 June 08
Expensive, Time Consuming, Inaccurate, Insufficient Records
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
20
Automated Corrective Solutions
Academic or Commercial
Example of Academic Initiatives – MOSS (Measure Of Software Similarity) • • • •
Stanford University In operation since 1994 Commercial version by Similix Good paper on finger-printing on http://theory.stanford.edu/~aiken/publications/papers/sigmod03.pdf
– JPLAG • University of Karlsruhe, Germany • In operation since 1996 • https://www.ipd.uni-karlsruhe.de/jplag/
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
21
Attributes of Automated Corrective Solutions
Reduced analysis time
Large databases of open source or academic code
Automatically lists identifiable external content
Correction of IP violations takes time & effort
Detection depends on identification – Accurate content detection requires very large, up-to-date, databases
18 June 08
Can be fooled by automated code generators
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
22
Manual Preventive Solutions
Rely on establishing IP firewall (does not address record keeping)
Organizational policies, rules – Prohibit, or limit, use of open-source – Rely on education • Do not use off-the-shelf code • Firewall projects
Use only pedigreed Open Source Software – Commercial firms offering clean code • Filter OSS for pedigree determination and certification
Attribute: limited effectiveness
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
23
Automated Preventive Solutions
Integrated into the development process, – installed at developer workstation and “build” machine
Detect and log content as it enters the project – What, when, where, who
Identify content against a database of known code (eg open source)
Identified content can be checked against a set of policies
Automatically create a software bill-of-materials
Attributes: – Automated content record generation – Makes detection independent of identification – Can automatically resolve nested IP
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
24
Protecode Preventive Solution Final S/W Load
start
Software Development process Edit Source File(s)
…
…
Load Build
Test
end outputs
Pedigree Record
Tracker
Report Generator
GIPS
IP Reports
Tracker: Slim client resides at workstation, logging external content pedigree records as the content is introduced GIPS: Protecode’s Global Intellectual Property Server, repository for IP attributes pre-populated with Open Source Software data Reporter: creates various reports from pedigree records and database Administrator: define policies and behavior
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
25
Automated Record Keeping Benefits - 1
To Software Companies – Automatically generate and maintain records of software components and their authorship, ownership and IP attributes – Define IP policies and manage violations – Free developers from nuances of licensing – Reduce Costs • IP due diligence costs • Increase Open Source usage
– Leverage managed adoption of open source and other third party content • Accelerate product development and reduce introduction intervals • Reduce development effort
To Outsourcing Companies – Improve business competitiveness – Eliminate cross-project IP contamination – Leverage managed adoption of open source and other third party content • Ensure adherence to client’s IP policies
– Resolve IP uncertainty issues
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
26
Automated Record Keeping Benefits - 2
To OSS Creator – Enhanced Reputation & Value Æ by establishing pedigreed, quality reputation – Publish project bill-of-materials – Remove uncertainties from adopters of OS project
To OSS Repository – Increases Value Æ by credibility of pedigreed software
Open Source Consumers – Adopt OS projects that have pedigree information published – Consult repositories or forges that have pedigreed software – Adopt OS with full knowledge of the content
Intellectual Property Legal Community – Clear definition of policies – Avoid manual IP record generation – Simplify tracking and problem resolution by having accurate records of “what, where, who and when” associated with external content
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
27
Protecode Corporate Summary
Overview –
Product –
Software Vendors Enterprises that develop software for their products and services Open Source Communities, Governments
Product Status – – –
18 June 08
Enhances Corporate Value Æ full software IP Governance Increases Revenues Æ shorter time-to-market, pedigreed products, less onerous sales Reduces Costs Æ Products, Development, Legal, Hiring Automates software Bill-Of-Materials generation
Market – – –
Automated Preventive Solutions for Software Governance & Intellectual Property Management
Value – – – –
Established January 07
Lead trials started January 2008 Publicly released as Beta in May 08 Commercially released in June 08 (www.protecode.com)
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
28
Thank You
Mahshad Koohgoli, CEO Protecode Inc Phone: +1 613 729 5936 x 222 [email protected]
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
29
Carleton University Technology Innovation Management (TIM) Lecture Series
June, 2008
Problem Illustrated Commercial
Open Firm’s Own Source Code base
DO WE KNOW WHAT IS IN OUR SOFTWARE?!
Organization
Load Build
Due Diligence
End Product
(Manual or Automated Scanning)
Animated- view in Presentation mode
Outsource Company 18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
2
Software Content Records
Nobody knows what’s in the software
Good software development practices have evolved – Code management systems – Bug tracking systems – But there are no • • • •
“Bill Of Materials” Approved Vendors Approved Components Approved Licences
Manual Record Keeping is impractical
Software content management requires – Content records – Content policies – Content records showing policies are complied with
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
3
Market Environment 1.
Open Source usage is growing 1. "At least 80 percent of all commercial software products will include elements of open-source code by 2012” according to Gartner
2.
Outsourcing is common
3.
Designers carry code from company to company
4.
Access to code is easy
Contamination in software projects is prevalent – Mostly unintentional
5.
Software Intellectual Property (IP) is important – Governance Requirements (e.g. Sarbanes-Oxley)
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
4
Open Source Software Is Maturing Gartner Hype Cycle for Open-Source Software, 2005
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
5
Open Source Software – The Good
Thousands of modules and millions of lines code available – Example: Open source VoIP projects • Asterix, SipX, OpenPBX, SIPxchange, OpenSIPStack, reSIProcate, Open Source SIP, Twinkle, OpenZoep, FreeSWITCH, YATE, RTPlib, plus at least 70 more
Enables fast development, short introduction intervals
Lowers product development costs
Increases code re-use
Good quality and security – Very large ecosystem – Access to source code – Peer reviews
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
6
Open Source Software – The Bad
It is not free – Almost all OSS is subject to license – License terms vary – License terms are not always compatible • Can not always mix two types of code
– License terms are difficult to interpret • Not a task for developers or development managers
It is not tracked – Easy to bring in OSS – No record keeping • Who owns Intellectual Property (IP) over what areas? • Possibly of compromising ALL intellectual property, – eg GPL (General Public License) rules
• Who brought in what
No pedigree information – How was it evolved, and from what
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
7
Interpreting Open Source Licenses
Needs Expert Interpretation and fit with business
Example: Sun Binary Code Distribution License Agreement – 7 page document – Sun grants you a … license …[to] distribute the Software, provided that … and (vi) you agree to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from and against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by any third party that arises or results from the use or distribution of any and all Programs and/or Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc. Binary Code License Agreement for the JAVA SE DEVELOPMENT KIT (JDK), VERSION 6 http://java.sun.com/javase/6/jdk-6u6-license.txt Taken from “Clarifying the IP Trail” by Janet Campbell, Legal Counsel and Manager of Intellectual Property, Eclipse Foundation Inc.
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
8
Other Contamination Possibilities
Outsourcing Software Development – Contractors – Offshore and onshore – E-bidding (eg Elance.com) • • • •
No content records Cross project code contamination Developer previous-life contamination Little control over delivered Software IP purity
3rd Party Commercial software – License terms vary • For development only • Limited volume only • Specific target markets
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
9
External Code Can Easily Creep In
Code Search engines are common – – – –
Google Code Search Krugle Freshmeat Coders
– Great educational value – Significant IP contamination hazard
Developer previous-life contamination – 70% of developers bring code from previous company http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39156544,00.htm
Growing up with the culture of plagiarism – “rip, mix, burn”, “cut & paste” – Instant information access, blurring what’s yours & what’s not …
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
10
Why is Software IP important?
Intellectual Property Management impacts enterprise value – Software is significant source of effort and investment • Exposure to third party rights • Protecting own rights
Impact on commercial transactions – Representations and warranties, IP indemnity clauses – Real or perceived IP risks lower M&A value
A company’s existence could depend on it – Litigations, Law suits, penalties, out of court settlements • • • • • • • •
18 June 08
Microsoft vs Alcatel-Lucent (mp3), Welte vs Dlink, vs Fortinet Cisco-Linksys, Cisco vs GPL in iPhone, FSF (Free Software Foundation) vs Open-TV SCO-IBM (proprietary software found in open source) SFLC vs Monsoon Multimedia (Busybox product) vs Verison vs Xtrasys Veritas vs Microsoft © Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
11
Veritas vs Microsoft In Veritas Operating Corporation v. Microsoft Corporation, the Court was asked to consider a motion by Microsoft for a dismissal of claims brought by Veritas alleging, among other things, that Microsoft had misappropriated certain trade secrets of Veritas and infringed Veritas’ copyright when it developed and incorporated Logical Volume Manager
Court observed that only 54 lines of code, or 0.03% of a code base of almost 160,000 lines, had been identified by Veritas as having been infringed. In addition, with the exception of two lines, the section of code in question was not copied verbatim. Instead, Microsoft changed the code by upgrading the programming language from C to C++.
(LVM) into its operating system products. In considering the motion, the
In denying one of Microsoft’s arguments for dismissal of the copyright infringement claim, that the amount of code
the Court noted that even where a relatively small quantity of code is copied, a finding of substantial similarity can still be made if the copied code is sufficiently important to the operation of the new program or gives the new program distinctive features or makes it more desirable. copied was de minimis,
Veritas versus Microsoft, United States district court Western district of Washington at Seattle Case NO. C06-0703-JCC
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
12
Record Keeping and Standards
International standards are fast becoming a staple of records management programs and practices
Why is it important1 – “… good records management practice is essential to create, capture and use information essential for the organization to fulfill its obligations and meet the expectations of its stakeholders...“ – “… enables organizations to develop policies, strategies and programmes which will ensure that information assets have the essential characteristics of accuracy, integrity and reliability,"
How important is it? – we have a standard on record keeping ISO 15489 ! 1 - Robert McLean, member of ISO technical committee ISO/TC 46, Information and documentation, Subcommittee 11, Archives/records management
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
13
Record Management
People do business based on a certain mandate (policy)
People create and manage records that document businessimpacting events and can provide evidence of them.
Records management is integrated in doing business and as a business in itself “Developments in ISO standards for recordkeeping” byHans Hofman, Nationaal Archief Netherlands
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
14
Record Management & Quality Programs
ISO 9000 (circa 1999) – 4.5 and 4.16 documentation, data and record keeping – Used in all Quality Assurance programs • • • • • • • • • • • •
18 June 08
Quality Leadership Program Quality Design Program Quality Purchasing Program Quality Contracts Program Quality Production Program Quality Inventory Program Quality Inspections Program Quality Nonconformance Program Quality Measurement Program Quality Service Program Quality Audit Program Quality Training Program
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
15
Software Component Records
Intellectual Property (IP) Management is impossible without records
Good record keeping is a must for – – – – –
Change Management Fault management Risk management Supplier management … for all ISO purposes
Manual record keeping is – Always painful – Mostly impractical
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
16
Example: Manual Record Keeping
http://www.qnx.com/legal/licensing/dev_license/eula/License.Guide.1_05d.updated.Apr13-07.pdf
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
17
Managing Open Source Software
Need clear policies in line with organizational goals – What type of licenses are acceptable – What to do in case of ambiguity
Need accurate records – Keep track of all components in a project • Open Source • Commercial • Outsourced code
– Who brought in, what and when, in case of questions – Keep track of Intellectual Property (IP) attributes of content • Licensing requirements • Copyright ownership
Need automated record keeping and Software IP management tools – Leave developers to focus on code development
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
18
Current Solutions for making sure content is tracked and IP is safe
Manual
Preventive
Education, Ethics Use only known code
Corrective
Commercial Due Diligence Service Companies
18 June 08
Automated
Commercial
Academic Commercial
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
19
Manual Due Diligence
Typically one or more software experts, plus an IP lawyer
Requires – Preparing – Due diligence • • • • •
Document review Management conference Designer conference Analysis Report
Can be outsourced – Commercial Software Analysis groups
18 June 08
Expensive, Time Consuming, Inaccurate, Insufficient Records
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
20
Automated Corrective Solutions
Academic or Commercial
Example of Academic Initiatives – MOSS (Measure Of Software Similarity) • • • •
Stanford University In operation since 1994 Commercial version by Similix Good paper on finger-printing on http://theory.stanford.edu/~aiken/publications/papers/sigmod03.pdf
– JPLAG • University of Karlsruhe, Germany • In operation since 1996 • https://www.ipd.uni-karlsruhe.de/jplag/
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
21
Attributes of Automated Corrective Solutions
Reduced analysis time
Large databases of open source or academic code
Automatically lists identifiable external content
Correction of IP violations takes time & effort
Detection depends on identification – Accurate content detection requires very large, up-to-date, databases
18 June 08
Can be fooled by automated code generators
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
22
Manual Preventive Solutions
Rely on establishing IP firewall (does not address record keeping)
Organizational policies, rules – Prohibit, or limit, use of open-source – Rely on education • Do not use off-the-shelf code • Firewall projects
Use only pedigreed Open Source Software – Commercial firms offering clean code • Filter OSS for pedigree determination and certification
Attribute: limited effectiveness
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
23
Automated Preventive Solutions
Integrated into the development process, – installed at developer workstation and “build” machine
Detect and log content as it enters the project – What, when, where, who
Identify content against a database of known code (eg open source)
Identified content can be checked against a set of policies
Automatically create a software bill-of-materials
Attributes: – Automated content record generation – Makes detection independent of identification – Can automatically resolve nested IP
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
24
Protecode Preventive Solution Final S/W Load
start
Software Development process Edit Source File(s)
…
…
Load Build
Test
end outputs
Pedigree Record
Tracker
Report Generator
GIPS
IP Reports
Tracker: Slim client resides at workstation, logging external content pedigree records as the content is introduced GIPS: Protecode’s Global Intellectual Property Server, repository for IP attributes pre-populated with Open Source Software data Reporter: creates various reports from pedigree records and database Administrator: define policies and behavior
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
25
Automated Record Keeping Benefits - 1
To Software Companies – Automatically generate and maintain records of software components and their authorship, ownership and IP attributes – Define IP policies and manage violations – Free developers from nuances of licensing – Reduce Costs • IP due diligence costs • Increase Open Source usage
– Leverage managed adoption of open source and other third party content • Accelerate product development and reduce introduction intervals • Reduce development effort
To Outsourcing Companies – Improve business competitiveness – Eliminate cross-project IP contamination – Leverage managed adoption of open source and other third party content • Ensure adherence to client’s IP policies
– Resolve IP uncertainty issues
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
26
Automated Record Keeping Benefits - 2
To OSS Creator – Enhanced Reputation & Value Æ by establishing pedigreed, quality reputation – Publish project bill-of-materials – Remove uncertainties from adopters of OS project
To OSS Repository – Increases Value Æ by credibility of pedigreed software
Open Source Consumers – Adopt OS projects that have pedigree information published – Consult repositories or forges that have pedigreed software – Adopt OS with full knowledge of the content
Intellectual Property Legal Community – Clear definition of policies – Avoid manual IP record generation – Simplify tracking and problem resolution by having accurate records of “what, where, who and when” associated with external content
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
27
Protecode Corporate Summary
Overview –
Product –
Software Vendors Enterprises that develop software for their products and services Open Source Communities, Governments
Product Status – – –
18 June 08
Enhances Corporate Value Æ full software IP Governance Increases Revenues Æ shorter time-to-market, pedigreed products, less onerous sales Reduces Costs Æ Products, Development, Legal, Hiring Automates software Bill-Of-Materials generation
Market – – –
Automated Preventive Solutions for Software Governance & Intellectual Property Management
Value – – – –
Established January 07
Lead trials started January 2008 Publicly released as Beta in May 08 Commercially released in June 08 (www.protecode.com)
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
28
Thank You
Mahshad Koohgoli, CEO Protecode Inc Phone: +1 613 729 5936 x 222 [email protected]
18 June 08
© Copyright 2008 Protecode Inc. Proprietary
29
Related Documents
Practicing Safe Software
June 2020 9
Practicing Nv
November 2019 52
Project Schedule Practicing
October 2019 25
Practicing Passive Voice
May 2020 2
Safe Mode
June 2020 13
Aqua Safe
May 2020 23More Documents from ""
Wikis And Plagiarism, Case
June 2020 10
Olympus Ndt Ultrasonic (ut) Catalog
June 2020 10
