The Rules of Open Source and Collaboration: Copyright and Public License

■
Richard Lin林旅強 (legist 強 )
■
richard@gitcafe.com
■
http://about.me/richard.lin
■
http://fb.me/legist
These slides are licensed under creative commons - attribution - share alike 3.0 unported.
Hong Kong Open Source Conference 2014
香港開源年會 2014/3/29 Sat.
The Rules of Open Source and Collaboration:
Copyright and Public License

The Rules of Open Source and Collaboration:
Copyright and Public License
■
The Default Rule of Copyright and the
goal of Free/ Open Source Software
■
The Legal Framework to Protect Open
Source and Collaboration:
Public License and Copyleft
■
Conclusion

About MeAbout Me
■
Name / Nickname
■
Richard Lin 林旅強 / Legist Qiang ( 強哥 )
■
Position
■
GitCafe, D.G.Z Information Technology Ltd. (2014- )
■
Legal Specialty / Campus & Community Promoter
in OSSF, CITI, Academia Sinica (2009-2014)
■
Publish (in Chinese)
■
Legal Issues On OSS commercial application
– 開放源碼軟體商業應用之法律爭議及其可能之解決途徑
■
Empowering Citizens with Data: An Open Government Data
Handbook
– 藏智於民：開放政府資料的原則與現況 (slideshare)

Project HostingProject Hosting
■ Create project on GitCafe, upload the source code
managed by Git.
■ Within 5 minutes, you will have a powerful platform
to show your project to the world.

Join CommunityJoin Community
■ GitCafe is more than project hosting.
■ It's a great community made up of hackers and
makers who want to make cool stuffs together.

Collaborative Team WorkCollaborative Team Work
■ Need people to collaborate to your project? That's
what GitCafe about!
■ You can get involved in others' projects or vice
versa just with few clicks.

GitCafeGitCafe
■ GitCafe
■ Project Hosting
– Git
■ Join Community
■ Team Work
■ Open Source Activities in Campus and Community
■ Lecture/ Speech
■ Workshop
■ Hackathon

DisclaimerDisclaimer
■
These slides are published by and refects the
personal views of Richard Lin, in his individual
capacity.
■
It does not represent the views of any
communities, organizations, companies, or entities.

Intellectual Property: CocaColaIntellectual Property: CocaCola
本圖之取用特別聲明在自由軟體推廣演講中主張「合理使用」，讀者請勿更行移置他用。
http://www.colorcn.com.cn/UpLoadFiles/pic/2007-7/2007072614015243711.jpg

Copyright: Protect Expression, not ideaCopyright: Protect Expression, not idea
本圖之取用特別聲明在非商業性、學術推廣演講中主張「合理使用」，讀者請勿更行移置他用。
http://byfiles.storage.live.com/y1p_GGIwBtrLLjVacYuiWIPhc8OVJta1Hw4r5Rr84yef7u3FggNVSHQbdlMmG4LulDuz7NKFe4g28k

Patent: Whole new technologyPatent: Whole new technology
Jo and Paul (CC) by-nc-sa 2.0 ；取用來源為 :
http://www.fickr.com/photos/24637969@N00/2730911205/lightbox/#/photos/24637969@N00/2730911205/

Trade Mark: BrandingTrade Mark: Branding
本圖內含可口可樂公司之註冊商標，特別聲明在非商業性、學術推廣演講中主張「合理使用」，讀者請勿將該商標更行移置他用。
本圖片拍攝者（著作權人）為林旅強，採用創用 CC 「姓名標示 - 非商業性」 3.0 台灣條款授權。
『 Coca-Cola 』
『 Coke 』
『可口可樂』
『曲線瓶』
『弧形飄帶』

Trade Mark: BrandingTrade Mark: Branding
本圖取自網路，特別聲明在非商業性、學術推廣演講中主張「合理使用」，讀者請勿將該圖片更行移置他用。
『 Coca-Cola 』
『 Coke 』
『可口可樂』
『曲線瓶』的形狀
『弧形飄帶』圖案

Trade Secret: RecipeTrade Secret: Recipe
Just keep the secret
No registration
What's the secret in an
open source project?
本圖之取用特別聲明在創用 CC 推廣演講中主張「合理使用」，讀者請勿更行移置他用；取用來源為 :
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_BlU5V5BaMjY/SkOUBHQH84I/AAAAAAAAE_Q/5Vv3qP7ZYao/s1600/CokeSecretIngredient.JPG ( 右 )
http://www.digitaldeliftp.com/Images/pings/secret_formula_230x150.png ( 左 )

CopyrightCopyright
■ Copyrighted Work
■ Public Domain
■ Free
Proprietary
Software
Public
Domain

CopyrightCopyright
■ Public Domain
■ Free
All Rights Reserved
©
Proprietary
Software
Public
Domain

CopyrightCopyright
■ Public Domain
■ Free
Proprietary
Software
Public
Domain
No Rights Reserved
©

CopyrightCopyright
■ Public Domain
■ Free
Proprietary
Software
Public
Domain
No Rights Reserved
©
You can do
anything you want
theoretically

CopyrightCopyright
■ Public Domain
■ Free
Proprietary
Software
Public
Domain
No Rights Reserved
©
You can do
anything you want
theoretically
?

CopyrightCopyright
■ Public Domain
■ Free
Proprietary
Software
Public
Domain
The work is over the
copyright protection
period or the copyright
holder says: I don't hold
my copyright anymore.

CopyrightCopyright
■ Public Domain
■ Free
Proprietary
Software
Public
Domain
Free picture?
Free font?
Free music?
Welcom to use
my work?

CopyrightCopyright
©Gisle Hannemyr, CC by-sa 3.0 unported,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rms_ifi_large.jpg
■
The world without software copyright
■
Richard M. Stallman and Xerox
合理使用 ©http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/physical-object/xerox/X750-86.lg.jpg

CopyrightCopyright
■
■
Richard M. Stallman and Xerox Printer
■
After we have software copyright
■
1980s
■
Business model

呵呵(Fake Dialogue)
( 設計對白 )

What the F...
●
●
●
●
1980s
●
Business model
(Fake dialogue)
( 設計對白 )

CopyrightCopyright
■
■
■
■
1980s
■
Business model
■
Richard M. Stallman: Free Software!

Free SoftwareFree Software
■ Free Software
■ Free Software Foundation (FSF) 1985-
■ Fundamentalism

■ Free Software
■ Free Software Foundation (FSF) 1985-
■ Fundamentalism
■ GNU Project
GNU's Not Unix

■ Free Software
■ Free Software Foundation (FSF) 1985
■ Fundamentalism
■ GNU Project
■ GNU General Public License

Free Software DefinitionFree Software Definition
■ The freedom to run the program, for any purpose
(freedom 0).
■ The freedom to study how the program works, and
change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1).
■ The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your
neighbor (freedom 2).
■ The freedom to distribute copies of your modified
versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you
can give the whole community a chance to benefit from
your changes.
Run the Program

(freedom 0).
your changes.
Study & Change

(freedom 0).
your changes.
Redistribute

(freedom 0).
your changes.
Distribute copies
of modified version

The Free Software DefinitionThe Free Software Definition
(freedom 0).
your changes.
散佈 Distribute
修改 Modify
研究 Study
使用 Run

(freedom 0).
your changes.
散佈 Distribute
修改 Modify
研究 Study
使用 Run
How about
Public Domain?

How to protect the freedom?How to protect the freedom?
■ Public Domain allows people to
share the program and their
improvements, if they are so
minded. But it also allows
uncooperative people to convert
the program into proprietary
software.
■ People who receive the program
in that modified form do not have
the freedom that the original
author gave them; the middleman
has stripped it away.

software.
Public Domain
can be transferred
to Proprietary
easily.
Public Domain
can not make sure
the four freedoms
keep going.

software.
Public Domain
can be transferred
to Proprietary
easily.
Public Domain
can not make sure
the four freedoms
keep going.
Public Domain
is an option for
copyright holder to
decide how his/her
work can be used
by other people.

(freedom 0).
your changes.

(freedom 0).
your changes.
Free = 不要錢 !?
Free = You don't
have to pay for it !?

(freedom 0).
your changes.
Free = 不要錢 !?
Free = You don't
have to pay for it !?
免費女神 !?
Statue of Gratis!?

(freedom 0).
your changes.
Free = 不要錢 !?
當然不是 !
Defnitely NOT!

(freedom 0).
your changes.
To understand the concept,
you should think of “free”
as in “free speech,”
not as in “free beer.”

(freedom 0).
your changes.
But people used to
misunderstand the
meaning of “Free”

(freedom 0).
your changes.
So the other name
of free software
appears...

(freedom 0).
your changes.
Open Source

Open Source SoftwareOpen Source Software
■ Open Source Software 開放源碼軟體

■ Open Source Software
■ Bruce Perens & Eric Steven Raymond
開放源碼軟體
©Doc Searls CC by-sa 2.0 unported,
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eric_S_Raymond.jpg
This picture is downloaded here:
http://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/open-source/bruce.jpg
Just for fair use in this slide and not granted any license to any other use.

■ Open Source Initiative (OSI) 1998-
開放源碼促進會

■ Eclecticism: commercial thinking

■ Eclecticism: commercial thinking
■ The Cathedral and the Bazaar

LicenseLicense
■ License
– 許可證
– 授權（授權條款）
■ The rule is from property law
■ You can use my property, only if...
– The conditions are met.
■ FOSS License
■ Prerequisites: the licensor has the right
(copyright) to license.

Public LicensePublic License
■ Advantage:
■ You can just use open source code without
gaining permission as long as all the conditions
of the license are met.
– The problem of “Nail House ( 釘子戶 )” of a
collaborative work by many contributors
– Use = Agree the Terms
– Free to join, Free to fork.

Public LicensePublic License
■ Legal cost:
■ If you don't comply the license, it happens two
legal cost:
– Not only breach of the contract ( 違約 ),
– But also infringement ( 侵權 ).
■ If someone violates the license, the licensor can
use the weapon offered by copyright law:
– Demages 損害賠償
– Injunction 假處分 / 禁制令（商品下架）
– Criminal liability 刑事責任

The mechanism of open source: CopyleftThe mechanism of open source: Copyleft
■ Copyleft 著佐權
■ Characteristic:
■ To ensure the four freedoms
■ Based on copyright law
■ Pre-license to the public
■ One who makes
modifications must license
the derivative work with
the same license.
授權拘束性
License Inheritance

GPL
Proprietary Software
License
LGPL
AGPL
EPL/CPL
MIT/BSD
Apache2.0
MPL/CDDL
Spectrum of Freedom & RestrictionSpectrum of Freedom & Restriction
Public
Domain

GPL
License
LGPL
AGPL
EPL/CPL
MIT/BSD
Apache2.0
MPL/CDDL
Public
Domain
Copyleft Non-Copyleft

GPL
License
LGPL
AGPL
EPL/CPL
MIT/BSD
Apache2.0
MPL/CDDL
Public
Domain
Non-CopyleftStrong Copyleft Weak Copyleft

GPL
License
AGPL
Public
Domain
Strong Copyleft

GPL
License
AGPL
Public
Domain
Strong Copyleft
General
Public
License
Derivative
Work
must license
under GPL
Link
Modify
Merge

GPL
License
AGPL
Public
Domain
Strong Copyleft
General
Public
License
Derivative
Work
must license
under GPL
Link
Modify
Merge
Exp.
Seperate &
Independent

GPL
License
AGPL
Public
Domain
Strong Copyleft
General
Public
License
Derivative
Work
must license
under GPL
Link
Modify
Merge
Exp.
Seperate &
Independent
I open to you,
you also have
to open to others
我佛心對你
你也要佛心對人

GPL
License
AGPL
Public
Domain
Strong Copyleft
General
Public
License
Derivative
Work
must license
under GPL
Link
Modify
Merge
Exp.
Seperate &
Independent
I open to you,
you also have
to open to others
我佛心對你
你也要佛心對人
Take it or
leave it.
不爽不要用

How to trigger the obligation of Copyleft?How to trigger the obligation of Copyleft?
Alice
binary &
source code
GPLed
Program A
Derivative
Program B
Bob

Alice
binary &
source code
GPLed
Program A
Derivative
Program B
Bob
B can be closed.
Even if you know that
B exists, you don't
have any right to ask B
to open source.

Alice
binary &
source code
GPLed
Program A
Derivative
Program B
Bob
distribute
binary
code
Charlie

Alice
binary &
source code
GPLed
Program A
Derivative
Program B
Bob
distribute
binary
code
Charlie
I want to
modify it.
Give me
the source
code

Alice
binary &
source code
GPLed
Program A
Derivative
Program B
Bob
distribute
binary
code
Charlie
I want to
modify it.
Give me
the source
code
Bob
must
open
source

Alice
binary &
source code
GPLed
Program A
Derivative
Program B
Bob
distribute
binary
code
Charlie
I want to
modify it.
Give me
the source
code
Bob
must
open
source
The act triggers
the obligation of
Copyleft

GPL
License
AGPL
The ASP loophole in GPLThe ASP loophole in GPL
Public
Domain
Strong Copyleft
Software
as a
Service
Application
Service
Provider
Cloud
Computing

GPL
License
AGPL
The ASP loophole in GPLThe ASP loophole in GPL
Public
Domain
Strong Copyleft
Software
as a
Service
Application
Service
Provider
Cloud
Computing
㗅！
拿不到 code 呀
( 設計對白 )

GPL
License
AGPL
Public
Domain
Strong Copyleft
Affero
GPL
(AGPL)
Net-based
Copyleft
Use
Modify

GPL
License
AGPL
Public
Domain
Strong Copyleft
Affero
GPL
(AGPL)
Net-based
Copyleft
Use
If you just use
AGPL program,
you don't have
to release under
AGPL

GPL
License
AGPL
Public
Domain
Strong Copyleft
Affero
GPL
(AGPL)
Net-based
Copyleft
Modify
If you modify
the project or
mergethe code to
your own project,
you have to
release your
project under
AGPL.

■ The obligation to open source:
■ The derivative work will keep the same license and
conditions, so the freedom wouldn't be taken.
■ The derivative of derivative works...
The open source code will be more and more.
■ The copyright holder will have stronger bargaining
power to “uncooperative people” and has
standing to ask them to open source.

■ The obligation to open source:
■ Companies may not like it because
– Their copyright will be forced to open
– They see the code as their trade secret and
commercial advantage
■ But they'll be sue if not comply with the rule.
■ Another problem is license compatibility.
■ Many copyleft licenses are not
compatible with each other.
– Ex: GPL-2.0 / GPL-3.0

License
LGPL
EPL/CPL
MPL/CDDL
Public
Domain
Weak Copyleft

License
LGPL
EPL/CPL
MPL/CDDL
Public
Domain
Weak Copyleft
Library
Lesser
Copyleft
is lesser

License
LGPL
EPL/CPL
MPL/CDDL
Public
Domain
Weak Copyleft
Library
Lesser
Copyleft
is lesser
Use
Modify

License
LGPL
EPL/CPL
MPL/CDDL
Public
Domain
Weak Copyleft
Library
Lesser
Copyleft
is lesser
Use
Dynamic link:
You don't have to
release your
program under
LGPL.

License
LGPL
EPL/CPL
MPL/CDDL
Public
Domain
Weak Copyleft
Library
Lesser
Copyleft
is lesser
Modify
If you modify
the lib or
merge the lib to
your own project
with statics link,
you have to
release your
project under
LGPL.

Weak CopyleftWeak Copyleft
■ File based copyleft
■ MPL: Mozilla Public License
■ CDDL: Common Development and Distribution
License
■ Module based copyleft
■ EPL: Eclipse Public License
■ CPL: Common Public License

MPLMPL
MPL X
Y YY
X
X
Y
X
Y
MPL
MPL
X License
Y License
Compatible with each other.
MPL Program

License
MIT/BSD
Apache2.0
Public
Domain
Non-Copyleft

License
MIT/BSD
Apache2.0
Public
Domain
Non-CopyleftMIT
BSD
Apache
Copyright
notice
Disclaimer

Example of BSD licenseExample of BSD license

Copyright Notice

License Content

Disclaimer

免責聲明
Disclaimer

著作權聲明
Copyright
Notice
免責聲明
Disclaimer
授權範圍

How to choose license?How to choose license?
■ To the original copyright holder
■ Choose any license you want
– Strong/ weak/ non copyleft
– Compatibility with relative open source project
– Business model, ex: dual-license

How to choose license?How to choose license?
■ To derivative software holder
■ You take the code from copyleft project
– GPL
●
all your code in the same project
– LGPL
●
It depends on whether you use dynamic link or statics link to the library,
or directly develop your lib base on the LGPL lib.
– MPL/ EPL
●
If you use the files/ modules from MPL/ EPL project to create new files/
modules, then you should open them; if you don't use any code from the
original files/ modules, then you have the whole copyright of your patch.
■ You take the code from non-copyleft project
– You just need to meet the only two conditions (copyright notice
and disclaimer), you can do any thing you want, including using
any other open source licenses or even commercial license to
release your code (or not release).

Cases of GPL violationCases of GPL violation
■
To open or not to open, that is NOT a question...
■
Until the companies lose the cases...
Harald Welte v. D-link
BusyBox v. 14 companies
2006
2009

2006
2009

Welte v. D-Link (2006)Welte v. D-Link (2006)
German Branch
msdosfs, initrd, mtd
1. A part of Linux kernel
2. Copyright holders:
Werner Almesberger (Austria)
David Woodhouse (UK)
Harald Welte (Germany)
Use source code

Harald Welte
Ask
German Branch
Representative
Authorization
Use source code

Harald Welte
Ask
German Branch
???I don't know what
you're saying...
Representative
Authorization
Use source code

Harald Welte
Representative
Authorization
German Branch
Frankfurt
District
Court
Sue
Infringement
Use source code

Harald Welte
Representative
Authorization
German Branch
Frankfurt
District
Court
Sue
Infringement
All
customers
Use source code
1. open source codes
2. GPL notifcation
damages

Busybox v. 14 companies (2009)Busybox v. 14 companies (2009)
Defenders are 14
companies
Busybox combines tiny versions
of many common UNIX utilities
into a single small executable.
Licensed under GPL-2.0.
Copyright holder:
●
Erik Anderson (US)
●
Other developers
Use source code
Best Buy, Samsung,
Westinghouse,
JVC, WD, Robert Bosch,
Phoebe Mircro, Humanx,
Comtrend ( 康全科技 ) ,
Dobbs-Standford, Versa,
Zyxel ( 合勤科技 ) ,
Astak, GCI

Defenders are 14
companies
Copyright holder:
●
Erik Anderson (US)
●
Other developers
Use source code

Defenders are 14
companies
Copyright holder:
●
Erik Anderson (US)
●
Other developers
Use source code
United States
District of
New York
Sue
Erik Anderson
Free Software Conservancy

Defenders are 14
companies
Copyright holder:
●
Erik Anderson (US)
●
Other developers
Use source code
Erik Anderson
Free Software Conservancy
United States
District of
New York
Sue
1. Many upstream OEMs/ODMs
Manufacturers are Taiwan Companies.
2. 13 companies settled out of court
or are working with FSC.
3. The court is ordering Westinghouse to
pay $90,000 in damages and to give the
HDTVs that include the BusyBox code to
the Conservancy.

Industry AdoptionIndustry Adoption
■
To open or not to open, that is NOT a question...
■
Until the companies lose the cases...
2006
2009

Free Material besides codeFree Material besides code
■ Creative Commons
■ 創用 CC

Creative CommonsCreative Commons
■ 4 elements, 6 choices
■ Attribution (BY)
■ Non-Commercial (NC)
■ Non-Derivative (ND)
■ Share Alike (SA)
Not
Free
Not
Free
copy
left
Free

■ 4 elements, 6 choices
■ Attribution (BY)
■ Non-Commercial (NC)
■ Non-Derivative (ND)
■ Share Alike (SA)
Not
Free
Not
Free
copy
left
Free
Not
Free
Not
Free
Not
Free
Not
Free
copy
left
Free

Proprietary Public
Domain
BY
BY-NC
BY-SA
BY-NC-SA
BY-ND
BY-NC-ND

Proprietary Public
Domain
BY
BY-NC
BY-SA
BY-NC-SA
BY-ND
BY-NC-ND
BY
Attribution

Proprietary Public
Domain
BY
BY-NC
BY-SA
BY-NC-SA
BY-ND
BY-NC-ND
NC
more
restriction

Proprietary Public
Domain
BY
BY-NC
BY-SA
BY-NC-SA
BY-ND
BY-NC-ND
Share Alike
Copyleft

Proprietary Public
Domain
BY
BY-NC
BY-SA
BY-NC-SA
BY-ND
BY-NC-ND
ND
can't be
modified

Proprietary Public
Domain
BY
BY-NC
BY-SA
BY-NC-SA
BY-ND
BY-NC-ND
Free
Not
Free
Not
Free
Not
Free
Not
Free
copy
left
copy
left

Proprietary Public
Domain
BY
BY-NC
BY-SA
BY-NC-SA
BY-ND
BY-NC-ND
Free
Not
Free
Not
Free
Not
Free
Not
Free
copy
left
copy
left
Compatible
with
open source &
free software
definition

ConclusionConclusion
■
Open Source benefts everything.
■
Lack of
■
Compliance with Intellectual Property
■
Culture of contribution
■
Hacker ethics
■
Community is a long-term support of F/OSS.

License
■
This slides are licensed under creative commons -
attribution - share alike 3.0 unported.
■
Richard Lin (Legist Qiang) 2014, The Rules of
Open Source and Collaboration: Copyright and
Public License

The Rules of Open Source and Collaboration: Copyright and Public License

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

En vedette

En vedette (19)

Similaire à The Rules of Open Source and Collaboration: Copyright and Public License

Similaire à The Rules of Open Source and Collaboration: Copyright and Public License (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

The Rules of Open Source and Collaboration: Copyright and Public License