Software Licensing
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 Software Licensing as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 2,556
- Pages: 46
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Spring 2008
Software Licensing Anton Malyk, Ajey Shah, Alexander Behm University of California, Irvine Instructor: Prof. David G. Kay
1
ICS269: Computer Computer Law Law IN4MATX269: Spring 2008 2008 Spring
Overview
History of software and licenses Categories of licenses Software Foundations Popular licenses Comparison of licenses Working around licenses History of Unix Case Study: SCO vs. Linux
2
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Spring 2008
History of software •Until early 1970’s Sharing of source code was the accepted norm. There were groups formed for collaboration: •MIT •SHARE – IBM •DECUS – DEC •No concerted effort to keep software free. •Software was developed by the user community.
3
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Spring 2008
History of software (contd.) CHANGING TIMES Beyond 1975
•In the late 1970s and early 1980s, companies began routinely imposing restrictions on programmers through copyright. •Motivated by financial gains by selling rights of use rather than giving the code. •Bill Gates signaled the change of the times in 1976 when he wrote his nowfamous Open Letter to Hobbyists. •Wrote Altair BASIC for MITS. •dismayed at the rampant copyright infringement taking place in the hobbyist community •Signaled that there was little incentive in making software available for free. ”Who can afford to do professional work for nothing? “ 4
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Spring 2008
History of software (contd.) •Richard Stallman from MIT •GNU Project was established in 1983 to write a complete operating system free from constraints on use of its source code. •disagreement between Stallman and Symbolics, Inc. over Stallman's access to changes Symbolics had made to a program he wrote. •Problems with the kernel – GNU HURD. •Successful projects •GNU Debugger •GNU Emacs •GNU Complier Collection
5
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Spring 2008
History of software (contd.) •During the time 1975-1995 Microsoft continued to churn out proprietary software products and increased its revenue. •OS/2 in 1985 •Windows in 1986 •IPO in 1987 •Office in 1989 •Windows 3.0 1990 •Novell accused Microsoft of using inside information about it’s systems to make Office suite better than Word Perfect.
6
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Spring 2008
History of software (contd.) •Linux 1991 •Linus Torvalds in Finland developed Linux •He was not satisfied with Minix •Released freely modifiable source code in 1991 •Relicensed under GNU GPL in 1992 •386BSD 1993 •In California Bill Jolitz @ UC Berkeley
7
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Spring 2008
History of software (contd.) Birth of “OpenSource” - 1998
•“Open source” initiated by Eric Raymond. •Put Stallmans radical ideas into less intimidating form •Emphazise business potential of sharing code •Get different fragmented free software groups together •Netscape •Netscape Communicator released it’s codebase under NPL. •Internet Revolution •Apache HTTP Server •PHP •MySQL •LAMP systems
8
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Spring 2008
Current Trends
•Strike a balance between •commercial interests •IP issues •collaboration in development •reference code •Open standards •Open Social •Open Handset Alliance
•Microsoft opens up with the SharedSource initiative. •Port 25 – open source software lab (interop) •CodePlex – opens source code hosting •Microsoft-PublicLicense(Ms-PL) (OSI Certified & GPL Compatible) •Microsoft-ReciprocalLicense(Ms-RL) (OSI Certified) •Novell-Microsoft Interoperability 9
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Spring 2008
In brief Proprietary
Open
•Pros
•Greater commercial value •Leads to more funds for research •Better support
•Ability to modify code •Ability to re-distribute •No vendor lock •Democracy! •Cheaper?
•Cons
•Vendor Lock In •Anti Trust •Security Issues •Expensive •Restrictive use
•No guarantee of further dev. •IP issues •Support and servicing? •Difficult to monetize
10
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Spring 2008
Categories of software •Free software •anyone to use, copy, and distribute, either verbatim or with modifications, either gratis or for a fee. •Free software is a matter of freedom, not price. •Open source •More or less same as Free software •They may accept some more restrictive licenses •Copy left software •distribution terms ensure that all copies of all versions are free software •Block means of turning future versions proprietary •Generally no modifications can be made to the license
11
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Spring 2008
Categories of licenses(cont.) •Non free software •SemiFree software •permission for individuals to use, copy, distribute, and modify (including distribution of modified versions) for non-profit purposes •Proprietory software •use, redistribution or modification is prohibited, or requires you to ask for permission, or is restricted so much that you effectively can't do it freely •Freeware •commonly used for packages which permit redistribution but not modification (and their source code is not available) •Shareware •software which comes with permission for people to redistribute copies, but says that anyone who continues to use a copy is required to pay a license fee
12
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Spring 2008
Categories of licenses(cont.) •Private software •custom software is software developed for one user (typically an organization or company). •Commercial software •developed by a business which aims to make money from the use of the software •Can be open source software eg some software from RedHat, Novell or IBM •Can be proprietary software e.g Microsoft
13
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Spring 2008
Software Foundations •Free Software Foundation •Led by Richard Stallman •Principle sponsor of GNU project •Goal: to advance software freedom •Sister organizations in Europe, Latin America, India •Open Source Initiative •Interoperability – the grand goal •any license (free, open, or closed) •any implementation •any implementer •Out of scope •does not prescribe how open standards for software should be created, debated, ratified, and maintained except that they not preclude a viable implementation in open source.
14
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Spring 2008
•Licenses Available •GNU GPL •Strong copyleft •GNU LGPL •No copy left on linking libraries •GNU AGPL •Covers scenario of software run over a network
15
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Spring 2008
•GNU GPL compatible open source licenses •Apache License 2.0 •Modified BSD •Free BSD •Microsoft Public License •Open LDAP License v2.7 •License of Ruby •License of Python 2.0.1 and newer
16
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Spring 2008
•Charging Money for Free Software?? •High price hurt “freeness”? •Fees and GNU GPL •Special case restriction
17
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Spring 2008
License CRITERIA 2. Free Redistribution 3. Source Code 4. Derived Works 5. Integrity of The Author's Source Code 6. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups 7. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor 8. Distribution of License 9. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product 10. License Must Not Restrict Other Software 11. License Must Be Technology-Neutral
18
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Spring 2008
•Popular licenses under Open Source Initiative •Apache License, 2.0 •New and Simplified BSD licenses •GNU General Public License (GPL) •GNU Library or "Lesser" General Public License (LGPL) •MIT license Mozilla Public License 1.1 (MPL) •Common Development and Distribution License by Sun Microsystems •Common Public License 1.0 by IBM •Eclipse Public License
19
ICS269: Computer Computer Law Law IN4MATX269: Spring 2008 2008 Spring
Overview
History of software and licenses Categories of licenses Software Foundations Popular licenses Comparison of licenses Working around licenses History of Unix Case Study: SCO vs. Linux
20
ICS269: Computer Computer Law Law IN4MATX269: Spring 2008 2008 Spring
Overview X11/MIT GPL
LGPL
MPL
Apache BSD
Strong Copyleft
Restrictive
Weak Copyleft
Permissive licenses
Permissive 21
ICS269: Computer Computer Law Law IN4MATX269: Spring 2008 2008 Spring
Copyleft
Copyright vs Copyleft Against software hoarding Strong vs Weak Copyleft
22
ICS269: Computer Computer Law Law IN4MATX269: Spring 2008 2008 Spring
GNU GPL (General Public License)
Current versions: GPLv2, GPLv3 Major products licensed under GNU GPL: Linux kernel Almost all GNU projects excluding libraries Java 6, Qt, KDE, MySQL, Inkscape, …
23
ICS269: Computer Computer Law Law IN4MATX269: Spring 2008 2008 Spring
GNU LGPL (Lesser General Public License)
Current versions: LGPLv2, LGPLv3 Major products licensed under GNU LGPL: GNU libraries, such as libgcc, libstdc++, etc OpenOffice, JBoss
24
ICS269: Computer Computer Law Law IN4MATX269: Spring 2008 2008 Spring
MPL (Mozilla Public License)
Current version: 1.1 Major products licensed under MPL: Mozilla Foundation products OpenSolaris, Adobe Flex, Erlang
25
ICS269: Computer Computer Law Law IN4MATX269: Spring 2008 2008 Spring
Apache Software License (ASL)
Current version: 1.1, 2.0 Major products licensed under Apache:
Apache Software Foundation products
Apache HTTP Server Huge collection of tools and libraries
26
ICS269: Computer Computer Law Law IN4MATX269: Spring 2008 2008 Spring
BSD Licenses including MIT/X11
Very short and simple Not a single license, but class of licenses Major products licensed under BSD-like licenses: All flavors of BSD operating systems X Windows System (X11)
27
ICS269: Computer Computer Law Law IN4MATX269: Spring 2008 2008 Spring
BSD 3-clause License
Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice. The name of the may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. 28
ICS269: Computer Computer Law Law IN4MATX269: Spring 2008 2008 Spring
GPL Compatibility
What does it mean? Why is it important?
Sourceforge.net statistics
BSDlike 6% LGPL 9%
FSF’s free software directory
Others 20%
LGPL 7%
GPL 65%
GPL 89%
BSD-like 2% Artistic 1.9%
29
ICS269: Computer Computer Law Law IN4MATX269: Spring 2008 2008 Spring
Other criterias
Proprietary Software linking Redistributing of the code with changes Distribution of “the Work”
30
ICS269: Computer Computer Law Law IN4MATX269: Spring 2008 2008 Spring
Comparison matrix GPL
LGPL
MPL
3-clause Apache BSD, MIT
GPLcompatible
Compatible with GPLv3 only
Proprietary Software linking
Redistributing of the code with changes
Only under GPL
Only under GPL or LPGL
Only under MPL
Distribution of “the Work”
31
ICS269: Computer Computer Law Law IN4MATX269: Spring 2008 2008 Spring
Tricking GPL GPL libjpeg
GPL libjpeg
GPL Static Linking
My software
Commercial license
GPL Static Linking
Thin client
IPC
My software
32
ICS269: Computer Computer Law Law IN4MATX269: Spring 2008 2008 Spring
Overview
History of software and licenses Categories of licenses Software Foundations Popular licenses Comparison of licenses Working around licenses History of Unix Case Study: SCO vs. Linux
33
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Winter 2008
History of UNIX
- Invented UNIX in ~1969 - Licensed UNIX code to various manufacturers - Spawned multitude of commercial UNIX derivatives - UNIX is COMMERCIAL Ken Thompson (seated) Dennis Ritchie (standing) AT&T Bell Labs
34
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Winter 2008
History of UNIX Major movements to build a free source UNIX (1990s)
GNU + Linux Torvalds = GNU/Linux
UC Berkeley
Independently developed clone of UNIX
Heavy modifications to UNIX, cannot really be considered derivative work
GNU = GNU is Not UNIX Linux = Linus + Minux
35
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Winter 2008
History of UNIX Who owns UNIX IP?
Sells To
Sells To
1993
1995 “Sells to” relationship is strongly simplified
36
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Winter 2008
Case: SCO vs. Linux Zeitgeist 2003 You can always sue but can you win? It might be worth the risk… - Upswing in intellectual property litigation - Tech industry had experienced some lucrative settlements - For example Intergraph received $450mio+$150mio from Intel in 2002
37
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Winter 2008
Case: SCO vs. Linux (starts with SCO vs. IBM)
The beginning in March 2003…
- Owns UNIX IP (bought from Novell)
- Has license agreement with AT&T for UNIX
- Sells own Linux distribution
- Contributes a lot to the Linux community
- Most earnings from UNIX products
- Has “derivative” UNIX work, AIX
- Business not going very well - Claims IBM used UNIX IP in their Linux work - Goes after the deep pockets! This presentation is a mix of the happenings in the press and in court 38
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Winter 2008
Case: SCO vs. Linux
May 2003 SCO: where)
Claims Linux kernel contains SCO code (without saying exactly Claims Linux is unauthorized derivative of UNIX Sends angry letters to about 1500 companies Plans on suing SuSe, RedHat and Novell (and others)
39
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Winter 2008
Case: SCO vs. Linux Outline of important events: breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets
May 2003
Buys UNIX license to support anti-Linux campaign? contract: does SCO really own copyright? Revokes IBM’s UNIX license, IBM does not care
June 2003
Fear develops over “what if SCO is right?” FSF points out SCO’s case is flawed due to GPL Lawsuit has no effect on Linux deployments
July 2003
Linus Torvald’s backs up FSF argument
40
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Winter 2008
Case: SCO vs. Linux Outline of important events: SCO offers own Linux license ($799 per desktop)
August 2003
Sues for false advertising, false and deceptive practices Sues for interference with business and patent infringement
Threatens to sue individual Linux users Files counterclaims picking up FSF argument GPL violates US constitution, export laws and copyright laws Threatens to sue special effects companies in Hollywood (?) To US Congress: GPL undermines system of IP Removes claims that GPL violates constitution in court
September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 January 2004 April 2004
41
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Winter 2008
Case: SCO vs. Linux Outline of important events: Announces it will not issue more lawsuits Breach of contract. Novell entitled to 95% of income from UNIX Drops claim of patent infringement (no money to gain)
Wants summary judgment
August 2004 July 2005 October 2005 September 2006
Wants partial summary judgment (have not been paid) Discussion goes back and forth whether SCO owns UNIX copyright SCO has still not brought enough evidence…. Files for bankruptcy
September 2007
Basically the end of the story…. 42
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Winter 2008
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
Beginning of Lawsuit
SCO Stock Price Development From 2003 - 2008 IBM files counterclaims, stating it violated GPL and IBM’s copyright
Stock Price
IBM and Novell want summary judgment
SCO sends out more warning letters
SCO sends 1500 angry letters
Oct-07
Jul-07
Apr-07
Jan-07
Oct-06
Jul-06
Apr-06
Jan-06
Oct-05
Jul-05
Apr-05
Jan-05
Oct-04
Jul-04
Apr-04
Jan-04
Oct-03
Jul-03
Apr-03
What if SCO is right?
Jan-03
Stock Price
Novell enters game, doubting SCO’s ownership of UNIX
Date SCO offers Linux license, claims GPL is invalid
GPL is valid after all
SCO files for bankruptcy
43
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Winter 2008
Case: SCO vs. Linux Summary of arguments in SCO case SCO:
Rest:
- Linux is derivative of UNIX
- UNIX IP does not entirely belong to SCO
- GPL is invalid
- Code was released under GPL
- Linux contains SCO code
- Linux and SCO’s common code come from third source which is in public domain - SCO’s code was stolen from Linux
Basically a battle of money. In the end SCO was not able to scare the world into turning their backs on Linux or buying SCO’s Linux license. SCO ran out of money.
44
ICS269: Computer Computer Law Law IN4MATX269: Spring 2008 2008 Spring
Disclaimer We are not attorneys, and this presentation is based upon our interpretations of the licenses and events, which may be incorrect. This information has been posted for our own use. It in no way constitutes legal advice. You should hire an attorney and read the licenses yourself before making any decisions.
45
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Spring 2008
References •http://www.gnu.org •http://www.opensource.org/ •http://www.fsf.org/ •http://www.wikipedia.org •http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/default.mspx •http://static.userland.com/userLandDiscussArchive/msg019844.html •http://developer.kde.org/documentation/licensing/licenses_summary.html •http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html •http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license •http://www.news.com/2100-1016-991464.html •http://www.albion.com/security/intro-2.html •http://www.linux.org/news/sco/timeline.html •http://www.cyber.com.au/users/conz/linux_vs_sco_matrix.html
46
Software Licensing Anton Malyk, Ajey Shah, Alexander Behm University of California, Irvine Instructor: Prof. David G. Kay
1
ICS269: Computer Computer Law Law IN4MATX269: Spring 2008 2008 Spring
Overview
History of software and licenses Categories of licenses Software Foundations Popular licenses Comparison of licenses Working around licenses History of Unix Case Study: SCO vs. Linux
2
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Spring 2008
History of software •Until early 1970’s Sharing of source code was the accepted norm. There were groups formed for collaboration: •MIT •SHARE – IBM •DECUS – DEC •No concerted effort to keep software free. •Software was developed by the user community.
3
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Spring 2008
History of software (contd.) CHANGING TIMES Beyond 1975
•In the late 1970s and early 1980s, companies began routinely imposing restrictions on programmers through copyright. •Motivated by financial gains by selling rights of use rather than giving the code. •Bill Gates signaled the change of the times in 1976 when he wrote his nowfamous Open Letter to Hobbyists. •Wrote Altair BASIC for MITS. •dismayed at the rampant copyright infringement taking place in the hobbyist community •Signaled that there was little incentive in making software available for free. ”Who can afford to do professional work for nothing? “ 4
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Spring 2008
History of software (contd.) •Richard Stallman from MIT •GNU Project was established in 1983 to write a complete operating system free from constraints on use of its source code. •disagreement between Stallman and Symbolics, Inc. over Stallman's access to changes Symbolics had made to a program he wrote. •Problems with the kernel – GNU HURD. •Successful projects •GNU Debugger •GNU Emacs •GNU Complier Collection
5
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Spring 2008
History of software (contd.) •During the time 1975-1995 Microsoft continued to churn out proprietary software products and increased its revenue. •OS/2 in 1985 •Windows in 1986 •IPO in 1987 •Office in 1989 •Windows 3.0 1990 •Novell accused Microsoft of using inside information about it’s systems to make Office suite better than Word Perfect.
6
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Spring 2008
History of software (contd.) •Linux 1991 •Linus Torvalds in Finland developed Linux •He was not satisfied with Minix •Released freely modifiable source code in 1991 •Relicensed under GNU GPL in 1992 •386BSD 1993 •In California Bill Jolitz @ UC Berkeley
7
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Spring 2008
History of software (contd.) Birth of “OpenSource” - 1998
•“Open source” initiated by Eric Raymond. •Put Stallmans radical ideas into less intimidating form •Emphazise business potential of sharing code •Get different fragmented free software groups together •Netscape •Netscape Communicator released it’s codebase under NPL. •Internet Revolution •Apache HTTP Server •PHP •MySQL •LAMP systems
8
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Spring 2008
Current Trends
•Strike a balance between •commercial interests •IP issues •collaboration in development •reference code •Open standards •Open Social •Open Handset Alliance
•Microsoft opens up with the SharedSource initiative. •Port 25 – open source software lab (interop) •CodePlex – opens source code hosting •Microsoft-PublicLicense(Ms-PL) (OSI Certified & GPL Compatible) •Microsoft-ReciprocalLicense(Ms-RL) (OSI Certified) •Novell-Microsoft Interoperability 9
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Spring 2008
In brief Proprietary
Open
•Pros
•Greater commercial value •Leads to more funds for research •Better support
•Ability to modify code •Ability to re-distribute •No vendor lock •Democracy! •Cheaper?
•Cons
•Vendor Lock In •Anti Trust •Security Issues •Expensive •Restrictive use
•No guarantee of further dev. •IP issues •Support and servicing? •Difficult to monetize
10
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Spring 2008
Categories of software •Free software •anyone to use, copy, and distribute, either verbatim or with modifications, either gratis or for a fee. •Free software is a matter of freedom, not price. •Open source •More or less same as Free software •They may accept some more restrictive licenses •Copy left software •distribution terms ensure that all copies of all versions are free software •Block means of turning future versions proprietary •Generally no modifications can be made to the license
11
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Spring 2008
Categories of licenses(cont.) •Non free software •SemiFree software •permission for individuals to use, copy, distribute, and modify (including distribution of modified versions) for non-profit purposes •Proprietory software •use, redistribution or modification is prohibited, or requires you to ask for permission, or is restricted so much that you effectively can't do it freely •Freeware •commonly used for packages which permit redistribution but not modification (and their source code is not available) •Shareware •software which comes with permission for people to redistribute copies, but says that anyone who continues to use a copy is required to pay a license fee
12
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Spring 2008
Categories of licenses(cont.) •Private software •custom software is software developed for one user (typically an organization or company). •Commercial software •developed by a business which aims to make money from the use of the software •Can be open source software eg some software from RedHat, Novell or IBM •Can be proprietary software e.g Microsoft
13
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Spring 2008
Software Foundations •Free Software Foundation •Led by Richard Stallman •Principle sponsor of GNU project •Goal: to advance software freedom •Sister organizations in Europe, Latin America, India •Open Source Initiative •Interoperability – the grand goal •any license (free, open, or closed) •any implementation •any implementer •Out of scope •does not prescribe how open standards for software should be created, debated, ratified, and maintained except that they not preclude a viable implementation in open source.
14
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Spring 2008
•Licenses Available •GNU GPL •Strong copyleft •GNU LGPL •No copy left on linking libraries •GNU AGPL •Covers scenario of software run over a network
15
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Spring 2008
•GNU GPL compatible open source licenses •Apache License 2.0 •Modified BSD •Free BSD •Microsoft Public License •Open LDAP License v2.7 •License of Ruby •License of Python 2.0.1 and newer
16
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Spring 2008
•Charging Money for Free Software?? •High price hurt “freeness”? •Fees and GNU GPL •Special case restriction
17
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Spring 2008
License CRITERIA 2. Free Redistribution 3. Source Code 4. Derived Works 5. Integrity of The Author's Source Code 6. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups 7. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor 8. Distribution of License 9. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product 10. License Must Not Restrict Other Software 11. License Must Be Technology-Neutral
18
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Spring 2008
•Popular licenses under Open Source Initiative •Apache License, 2.0 •New and Simplified BSD licenses •GNU General Public License (GPL) •GNU Library or "Lesser" General Public License (LGPL) •MIT license Mozilla Public License 1.1 (MPL) •Common Development and Distribution License by Sun Microsystems •Common Public License 1.0 by IBM •Eclipse Public License
19
ICS269: Computer Computer Law Law IN4MATX269: Spring 2008 2008 Spring
Overview
History of software and licenses Categories of licenses Software Foundations Popular licenses Comparison of licenses Working around licenses History of Unix Case Study: SCO vs. Linux
20
ICS269: Computer Computer Law Law IN4MATX269: Spring 2008 2008 Spring
Overview X11/MIT GPL
LGPL
MPL
Apache BSD
Strong Copyleft
Restrictive
Weak Copyleft
Permissive licenses
Permissive 21
ICS269: Computer Computer Law Law IN4MATX269: Spring 2008 2008 Spring
Copyleft
Copyright vs Copyleft Against software hoarding Strong vs Weak Copyleft
22
ICS269: Computer Computer Law Law IN4MATX269: Spring 2008 2008 Spring
GNU GPL (General Public License)
Current versions: GPLv2, GPLv3 Major products licensed under GNU GPL: Linux kernel Almost all GNU projects excluding libraries Java 6, Qt, KDE, MySQL, Inkscape, …
23
ICS269: Computer Computer Law Law IN4MATX269: Spring 2008 2008 Spring
GNU LGPL (Lesser General Public License)
Current versions: LGPLv2, LGPLv3 Major products licensed under GNU LGPL: GNU libraries, such as libgcc, libstdc++, etc OpenOffice, JBoss
24
ICS269: Computer Computer Law Law IN4MATX269: Spring 2008 2008 Spring
MPL (Mozilla Public License)
Current version: 1.1 Major products licensed under MPL: Mozilla Foundation products OpenSolaris, Adobe Flex, Erlang
25
ICS269: Computer Computer Law Law IN4MATX269: Spring 2008 2008 Spring
Apache Software License (ASL)
Current version: 1.1, 2.0 Major products licensed under Apache:
Apache Software Foundation products
Apache HTTP Server Huge collection of tools and libraries
26
ICS269: Computer Computer Law Law IN4MATX269: Spring 2008 2008 Spring
BSD Licenses including MIT/X11
Very short and simple Not a single license, but class of licenses Major products licensed under BSD-like licenses: All flavors of BSD operating systems X Windows System (X11)
27
ICS269: Computer Computer Law Law IN4MATX269: Spring 2008 2008 Spring
BSD 3-clause License
Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice. The name of the
ICS269: Computer Computer Law Law IN4MATX269: Spring 2008 2008 Spring
GPL Compatibility
What does it mean? Why is it important?
Sourceforge.net statistics
BSDlike 6% LGPL 9%
FSF’s free software directory
Others 20%
LGPL 7%
GPL 65%
GPL 89%
BSD-like 2% Artistic 1.9%
29
ICS269: Computer Computer Law Law IN4MATX269: Spring 2008 2008 Spring
Other criterias
Proprietary Software linking Redistributing of the code with changes Distribution of “the Work”
30
ICS269: Computer Computer Law Law IN4MATX269: Spring 2008 2008 Spring
Comparison matrix GPL
LGPL
MPL
3-clause Apache BSD, MIT
GPLcompatible
Compatible with GPLv3 only
Proprietary Software linking
Redistributing of the code with changes
Only under GPL
Only under GPL or LPGL
Only under MPL
Distribution of “the Work”
31
ICS269: Computer Computer Law Law IN4MATX269: Spring 2008 2008 Spring
Tricking GPL GPL libjpeg
GPL libjpeg
GPL Static Linking
My software
Commercial license
GPL Static Linking
Thin client
IPC
My software
32
ICS269: Computer Computer Law Law IN4MATX269: Spring 2008 2008 Spring
Overview
History of software and licenses Categories of licenses Software Foundations Popular licenses Comparison of licenses Working around licenses History of Unix Case Study: SCO vs. Linux
33
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Winter 2008
History of UNIX
- Invented UNIX in ~1969 - Licensed UNIX code to various manufacturers - Spawned multitude of commercial UNIX derivatives - UNIX is COMMERCIAL Ken Thompson (seated) Dennis Ritchie (standing) AT&T Bell Labs
34
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Winter 2008
History of UNIX Major movements to build a free source UNIX (1990s)
GNU + Linux Torvalds = GNU/Linux
UC Berkeley
Independently developed clone of UNIX
Heavy modifications to UNIX, cannot really be considered derivative work
GNU = GNU is Not UNIX Linux = Linus + Minux
35
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Winter 2008
History of UNIX Who owns UNIX IP?
Sells To
Sells To
1993
1995 “Sells to” relationship is strongly simplified
36
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Winter 2008
Case: SCO vs. Linux Zeitgeist 2003 You can always sue but can you win? It might be worth the risk… - Upswing in intellectual property litigation - Tech industry had experienced some lucrative settlements - For example Intergraph received $450mio+$150mio from Intel in 2002
37
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Winter 2008
Case: SCO vs. Linux (starts with SCO vs. IBM)
The beginning in March 2003…
- Owns UNIX IP (bought from Novell)
- Has license agreement with AT&T for UNIX
- Sells own Linux distribution
- Contributes a lot to the Linux community
- Most earnings from UNIX products
- Has “derivative” UNIX work, AIX
- Business not going very well - Claims IBM used UNIX IP in their Linux work - Goes after the deep pockets! This presentation is a mix of the happenings in the press and in court 38
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Winter 2008
Case: SCO vs. Linux
May 2003 SCO: where)
Claims Linux kernel contains SCO code (without saying exactly Claims Linux is unauthorized derivative of UNIX Sends angry letters to about 1500 companies Plans on suing SuSe, RedHat and Novell (and others)
39
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Winter 2008
Case: SCO vs. Linux Outline of important events: breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets
May 2003
Buys UNIX license to support anti-Linux campaign? contract: does SCO really own copyright? Revokes IBM’s UNIX license, IBM does not care
June 2003
Fear develops over “what if SCO is right?” FSF points out SCO’s case is flawed due to GPL Lawsuit has no effect on Linux deployments
July 2003
Linus Torvald’s backs up FSF argument
40
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Winter 2008
Case: SCO vs. Linux Outline of important events: SCO offers own Linux license ($799 per desktop)
August 2003
Sues for false advertising, false and deceptive practices Sues for interference with business and patent infringement
Threatens to sue individual Linux users Files counterclaims picking up FSF argument GPL violates US constitution, export laws and copyright laws Threatens to sue special effects companies in Hollywood (?) To US Congress: GPL undermines system of IP Removes claims that GPL violates constitution in court
September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 January 2004 April 2004
41
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Winter 2008
Case: SCO vs. Linux Outline of important events: Announces it will not issue more lawsuits Breach of contract. Novell entitled to 95% of income from UNIX Drops claim of patent infringement (no money to gain)
Wants summary judgment
August 2004 July 2005 October 2005 September 2006
Wants partial summary judgment (have not been paid) Discussion goes back and forth whether SCO owns UNIX copyright SCO has still not brought enough evidence…. Files for bankruptcy
September 2007
Basically the end of the story…. 42
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Winter 2008
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
Beginning of Lawsuit
SCO Stock Price Development From 2003 - 2008 IBM files counterclaims, stating it violated GPL and IBM’s copyright
Stock Price
IBM and Novell want summary judgment
SCO sends out more warning letters
SCO sends 1500 angry letters
Oct-07
Jul-07
Apr-07
Jan-07
Oct-06
Jul-06
Apr-06
Jan-06
Oct-05
Jul-05
Apr-05
Jan-05
Oct-04
Jul-04
Apr-04
Jan-04
Oct-03
Jul-03
Apr-03
What if SCO is right?
Jan-03
Stock Price
Novell enters game, doubting SCO’s ownership of UNIX
Date SCO offers Linux license, claims GPL is invalid
GPL is valid after all
SCO files for bankruptcy
43
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Winter 2008
Case: SCO vs. Linux Summary of arguments in SCO case SCO:
Rest:
- Linux is derivative of UNIX
- UNIX IP does not entirely belong to SCO
- GPL is invalid
- Code was released under GPL
- Linux contains SCO code
- Linux and SCO’s common code come from third source which is in public domain - SCO’s code was stolen from Linux
Basically a battle of money. In the end SCO was not able to scare the world into turning their backs on Linux or buying SCO’s Linux license. SCO ran out of money.
44
ICS269: Computer Computer Law Law IN4MATX269: Spring 2008 2008 Spring
Disclaimer We are not attorneys, and this presentation is based upon our interpretations of the licenses and events, which may be incorrect. This information has been posted for our own use. It in no way constitutes legal advice. You should hire an attorney and read the licenses yourself before making any decisions.
45
IN4MATX269: Computer Law Spring 2008
References •http://www.gnu.org •http://www.opensource.org/ •http://www.fsf.org/ •http://www.wikipedia.org •http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/default.mspx •http://static.userland.com/userLandDiscussArchive/msg019844.html •http://developer.kde.org/documentation/licensing/licenses_summary.html •http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html •http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license •http://www.news.com/2100-1016-991464.html •http://www.albion.com/security/intro-2.html •http://www.linux.org/news/sco/timeline.html •http://www.cyber.com.au/users/conz/linux_vs_sco_matrix.html
46
Related Documents
Software Licensing
May 2020 7
Vembu Storegrid - Online Backup Software - Licensing
April 2020 0
Licensing Basics
April 2020 2
Licensing Essentials & Basics
November 2019 10
Compulsory Licensing In Indonesia
June 2020 3
Beyond Licensing And Incubators
April 2020 19More Documents from "The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation"