Malyk Shah Behm Open Source Licences

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
Law
Spring 2008
Spring 2008
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
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
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 now-
famous 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
Spring 2008
•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
Spring 2008

•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
Spring 2008

•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
Spring 2008

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
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
Spring 2008
In brief
Proprietary Open
•Pros •Greater commercial value •Ability to modify code
•Leads to more funds for research •Ability to re-distribute
•Better support •No vendor lock
•Democracy!
•Cheaper?
•Cons •Vendor Lock In •No guarantee of

•Anti Trust further dev.
•Security Issues •IP issues
•Expensive •Support and
•Restrictive use servicing?
•Difficult to monetize
10
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
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
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
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
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
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
Spring 2008
•Charging Money for Free Software??
•High price hurt “freeness”?
•Fees and GNU GPL

•Special case restriction
17
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
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
Law
Spring 2008
Spring 2008
Overview
 History of Unix
20
ICS269: Computer
Law
Spring 2008
Spring 2008
Overview
X11/MIT
GPL LGPL MPL Apache
BSD
Strong Weak Copyleft Permissive licenses

Copyleft
Restrictive Permissive
21
ICS269: Computer
Law
Spring 2008
Spring 2008
Copyleft
 Copyright vs Copyleft
 Against software hoarding
 Strong vs Weak Copyleft
22
ICS269: Computer
Law
Spring 2008
Spring 2008
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
Law
Spring 2008
Spring 2008
GNU LGPL
(Lesser General Public License)
 Current versions: LGPLv2,
LGPLv3
under GNU LGPL:
 GNU libraries, such as
libgcc, libstdc++, etc
 OpenOffice, JBoss
24
ICS269: Computer
Law
Spring 2008
Spring 2008
MPL
(Mozilla Public License)
 Current version: 1.1
under MPL:
 Mozilla Foundation products
 OpenSolaris, Adobe Flex,
Erlang
25
ICS269: Computer
Law
Spring 2008
Spring 2008
Apache Software License

(ASL)
 Current version: 1.1, 2.0
under Apache:
 Apache Software
Foundation products
 Apache HTTP Server
 Huge collection of tools and
libraries
26
ICS269: Computer
Law
Spring 2008
Spring 2008
BSD Licenses
including MIT/X11
 Very short and simple
 Not a single license, but
class of licenses
under BSD-like licenses:
 All flavors of BSD operating
systems
 X Windows System (X11)
27
ICS269: Computer
Law
Spring 2008
Spring 2008
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 <organization>
may not be used to endorse or
promote products derived from this
software without specific prior
written permission.
28
ICS269: Computer
Law
Spring 2008
Spring 2008
GPL Compatibility
 What does it mean?
 Why is it important?
Sourceforge.net statistics FSF’s free software directory
BSD- Others BSD-like

2%
like 20% LGPL
7%
Artistic
6% GPL GPL 1.9%
65% 89%
LGPL
9%
29
ICS269: Computer
Law
Spring 2008
Spring 2008
Other criterias
 Proprietary Software linking

 Redistributing of the code with changes
 Distribution of “the Work”
30
ICS269: Computer
Law
Spring 2008
Spring 2008
Comparison matrix
3-clause
GPL LGPL MPL Apache
BSD, MIT
GPL- Compatible
compatible     with GPLv3
only
Proprietary
Software
linking
    
Redistributing Only Only under Only
of the code
with changes
under
GPL
GPL or
LPGL
under
MPL
 
Distribution
of “the Work”     
31
ICS269: Computer
Law
Spring 2008
Spring 2008
Tricking GPL
GPL GPL
Static Linking
libjpeg My software
GPL GPL Commercial

license
Static IPC
libjpeg Thin client My software
Linking
32
ICS269: Computer
Law
Spring 2008
Spring 2008
Overview
 History of Unix
33
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
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 Heavy modifications to
UNIX UNIX, cannot really be
considered derivative
GNU = GNU is Not UNIX
work
Linux = Linus + Minux
35
Winter 2008
History of UNIX
Who owns UNIX IP?
Sells To Sells To
1993 1995
“Sells to” relationship is strongly simplified
36
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
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
Winter 2008
Case: SCO vs. Linux
May 2003
SCO: Claims Linux kernel contains SCO code (without saying exactly
where)
Claims Linux is unauthorized derivative of UNIX
Sends angry letters to about 1500 companies
Plans on suing SuSe, RedHat and Novell (and others)
39
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
Winter 2008
Case: SCO vs. Linux

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

September 2003
GPL violates US constitution, export laws and copyright laws
October 2003
Threatens to sue special effects companies in Hollywood (?)
November 2003
To US Congress: GPL undermines system of IP

January 2004
Removes claims that GPL violates constitution in court

April 2004
41
Winter 2008
Case: SCO vs. Linux

Announces it will not issue more lawsuits
August 2004
Breach of contract. Novell entitled to 95% of income from UNIX
July 2005
Drops claim of patent infringement (no money to gain)
October 2005
Wants summary judgment
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
Winter 2008
Novell enters
game, doubting SCO Stock Price Development From 2003 - 2008
SCO’s ownership
of UNIX IBM files
20 counterclaims,
Stock Price stating it violated
18 GPL and IBM’s
copyright
16
14
Stock Price
IBM and Novell

SCO sends out more
12 warning letters
want summary
judgment
10
8 What if
6 SCO is
right?
4
2
0
Jan-03
Apr-03
Jul-03
Oct-03
Jan-04
Apr-04
Jul-04
Oct-04
Jan-05
Apr-05
Jul-05
Oct-05
Jan-06
Apr-06
Jul-06
Oct-06
Jan-07
Apr-07
Jul-07
Oct-07
Date
Beginning of SCO sends
SCO offers Linux GPL is SCO files for
Lawsuit 1500 angry
license, claims valid after bankruptcy
letters
GPL is invalid all
43
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
Law
Spring 2008
Spring 2008
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
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

Malyk Shah Behm Open Source Licences

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Malyk Shah Behm Open Source Licences

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

IN4MATX269: Computer Law

Anton Malyk, Ajey Shah, Alexander Behm

University of California, Irvine

Sharing of source code was the accepted norm.

There were groups formed for collaboration:

•No concerted effort to keep software free.

•Software was developed by the user community.

History of software (contd.)

History of software (contd.)

•Richard Stallman from MIT

•Problems with the kernel – GNU HURD.

History of software (contd.)

•Windows 3.0 1990

History of software (contd.)

History of software (contd.)

•“Open source” initiated by Eric Raymond.

•Microsoft opens up with the SharedSource initiative.

•Cons •Vendor Lock In •No guarantee of

•Copy left software

•Open Source Initiative

•GNU GPL compatible open source licenses

•Charging Money for Free Software??

•High price hurt “freeness”?

•Fees and GNU GPL

•Popular licenses under Open Source Initiative

GPL LGPL MPL Apache

Strong Weak Copyleft Permissive licenses

Apache Software License

BSD 3-clause License

Sourceforge.net statistics FSF’s free software directory

BSD- Others BSD-like

 Proprietary Software linking

GPL GPL Commercial

- Invented UNIX in ~1969

GNU + Linux Torvalds = GNU/Linux UC Berkeley

“Sells to” relationship is strongly simplified

Case: SCO vs. Linux

- Upswing in intellectual property litigation

Case: SCO vs. Linux

The beginning in March 2003…

- Sells own Linux distribution - Contributes a lot to the Linux community

- Business not going very well

This presentation is a mix of the happenings in the press and in court

Case: SCO vs. Linux

Case: SCO vs. Linux

Buys UNIX license to support anti-Linux campaign?

Revokes IBM’s UNIX license, IBM does not care

FSF points out SCO’s case is flawed due to GPL

Lawsuit has no effect on Linux deployments

Linus Torvald’s backs up FSF argument

Case: SCO vs. Linux

Sues for false advertising, false and deceptive practices

Threatens to sue individual Linux users

Files counterclaims picking up FSF argument

To US Congress: GPL undermines system of IP

Removes claims that GPL violates constitution in court

Case: SCO vs. Linux

Files for bankruptcy

Basically the end of the story….

IBM and Novell

Case: SCO vs. Linux

We are not attorneys, and this

S-ar putea să vă placă și