International free and open source software law review, Volume 02, Issue 02, December 2010 | Perpustakaan Universitas Bhayangakara Jakarta Raya
Advanced SearchInternational free and open source software law review, Volume 02, Issue 02, December 2010
Informasi Detil
| Volume |
Vol. 02, Issue 02, December 2010
|
|---|---|
| Penerbit | : s.l.., 2010 |
| ISSN |
977-187769200-1
|
| Subyek |
Artikel Jurnal
| Judul | Abstract | Halaman |
|---|---|---|
| Licence profile: Apache license, version 2.0 | The Apache License, Version 2.0 is a widely used permissive open source software license which builds on the terms of other permissive open source licenses to produce a license with similar principles to those of licenses like the BSD License and MIT License, but with expanded terms. This article is short overview of the license. | 107-113 |
| A tale of two tragedies – a plea for open standards | The IT sector is characterized by two market failures, the tragedy of the commons and the tragedy of the anti-commons, both of which must be resolved if IT innovation is to flourish and lock-in avoided. This involves a careful balancing of IPR protection and standard- setting, while avoiding hold-up and preserving opportunities for the significant innovation provided by the open source movement. The Author examines the shortcomings of the present system from a European Law perspective and expresses a plea for Open Standards in the interest of innovation and technological progress. As IT progresses, more and more products are compound items, incorporating technology co-owned by many different patent holders, co-manufactured by different producers, and interoperating with other complex products. A hold-up by a non-practicing entity or a rival using a single patent on a single component can kill an entire product. This article explores the criteria for open standards, and explains why royalty-free licensing of interoperability standards is appropriate in the software area (since RF standards can be implemented in both open source and proprietary software, thus allowing both models to compete on quality and functionality), while FRAND licensing is necessary for telecommunications. The notion of FRAND terms is further explored from a legal and economic perspective, explaining ways to determine fair pricing, and the need to ensure non- discriminatory terms in order to preserve competition in products implementing the standard. The article concludes with some comments on an interesting report by RAND Europe on Trends in Connectivity Technologies and their Socio-Economic Impacts – Policy Options for the Ubiquitous Internet Society. | 115-137 |
| Project Harmony: Inbound transfer of rights in FOSS Projects | Software engineers participating in open source software projects are frequently asked to sign Copyright Contribution Agreements (CCAs) with respect to the contributions they make to those projects. As lawyers we are happy to read and understand copyright agreements and licences. As lawyers few of us can code. Software engineers (at least in Canonical) seem to understand more law than might be expected, but their expertise is software, not law. The proliferation of forms and wording in the CCAs, mean that they are routinely asked to sign up to a diverse selection of CCAs differing meanings and intentions. Valuable coding time is wasted as they wade through legal wording. This is not only an issue both from a productivity and efficiency perspective, but is also problematic in ensuring that developers understand what rights they grant in their work..Project Harmony came into being in the Summer of 2010. Its birth followed a long incubation and much discussion within Canonical and with parties such as SFLC and lawyers specialising in FOSS. It is intended in the first instance to tackle CCA Proliferation. | 139-150 |
| Software Patents and Open Source Models in Europe: Does the FOSS community need to worry about current attitudes at the EPO? | The growing popularity of free and open source software (hereinafter FOSS) and the equally significant growth in the number of software patents give rise to the question of whether both models can live in peace, side by side, or does the latter pose a threat to the former. The focal point of this paper is the scope of patent protection to software products in EPC countries, particularly in the light of the FOSS development environment. Software patents are of great interest to the FOSS community. Modern computer programs are complex. They are developed incrementally where each software generation builds upon the previous one. Avoiding an inefficient re-invention of the wheel, programmers are typically combining thousands of different programs and algorithms in an innovative manner in order to produce the requisite final product. Here is where software patents become relevant. If a large number of those fundamental building blocks are unusable due to patent protection, a type of a tragedy of the anticommons emerges. Hence, developers that may reasonably rely on FOSS licenses to incorporate the licensed software into their programs may later on realize that their actions amount to patent infringement. Obviously, this might have a chilling effect on the development and adoption of FOSS products. | 151-164 |
| Software Interactions and the GPL | This article presents the current results of the work carried out within a working group of the European Legal Network of lawyers, facilitated by the Free Software Foundation Europe, whose aim is to provide some general guidance to lawyers and developers working with free software to understand the technical and (potentially) legal effects of the interaction or interoperation of two programs in the context of GPLv2 licensing. | 165-180 |
| Affirmative action in procurement for open standards and FLOSS | The Dutch action plan Netherlands Open in Connection intends to give a direction for public sector buyers to adopt a positive policy and strategy towards open standards and Free and open source software. This policy seems to indicate a preferred position on open source products, however it actually gives no guarantee that providers of free and open source software will get the opportunity to make an offer. First there should be a so called level playing field for the suppliers. In an empirical study carried out between January and June 2010 the following question is answered: does European procurement law give a fair chance to vendors of FLOSS software? This study shows that despite of the desired affirmative action for open source products, in almost half (47.5%) of the tenders there is still a preference for closed source vendors or products. This preference inevitably results in not giving vendors of FLOSS software a fair chance to win the bid. | 181-190 |
| Software Package Data Exchange (SPDX™) Specification | The goal of the Software Package Data Exchange (SPDX™) specification is to enable companies and organizations to share license and component information (metadata) for a software package and related content with the aim of facilitating license and other policy compliance. The specification is being developed through collaboration between technical, business and legal professionals from a range of organizations to create a standard that addresses the needs of various participants in the software supply chain. | 191-196 |
| Never a better time for open source | Matt Asay, senior vice president fo business development at Strobe, takes stock of developments in the legal environment surrounding open source which have taken place in 2010. | 197-200 |