Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Programming IT Technology

SFLC's Legal Guide On Free Software 59

Posted by kdawson from the law-for-the-rest-of-us dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Last week the Software Freedom Law Center published A Legal Issues Primer for Open Source and Free Software Projects. The primer, written for developers, has sections on copyrights, trademarks, patents, and organizational structure. Linux-Watch has reviewed the guide, saying 'I think any open-source developer or open-source group administrator must read this paper.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SFLC's Legal Guide On Free Software More

SFLC's Legal Guide On Free Software

Comments Filter:

  • I don't know... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nhaines ( 622289 ) <nhaines&ubuntu,com> on Tuesday February 19, 2008 @09:17PM (#22483614) Homepage
    Surely the more information is available and easily-accessible (from an introduction point of view) the better, right?

    I'm happy to see more resources aimed at educating developers. Particularly new ones.

  • The Primer is nice and all... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NotQuiteReal ( 608241 ) on Tuesday February 19, 2008 @09:24PM (#22483672) Journal
    ...and IANAL

    But, legally speaking, you should read the license you pick. Don't just assume any summary is correct. I am not saying this summary is not accurate, I am just reminding you that you actually need to read what you "sign".

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cp.tar ( 871488 )

      ... and if there are points you do not understand, ask away.

      How often people fail to follow these simple steps...

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by palegray.net ( 1195047 )

      But, legally speaking, you should read the license you pick.
      Funny thing about that; I've long been in the habit of reading things before I agree to them, or before distributing someone's code. That said, it's kinda surprising how many GPL violations [gpl-violations.org] keep popping up.
    • I mostly agree with parent in that you still need to understand what you read. If you have a company or lots of money riding on it, then get independent legal advice. An overview of various licenses to describe the options/variants is quite handy.

      What I object to is the "you should ..." bits which indicate that the authors are suggesting courses of action. I'd rather just have the lawyers unwind the legalese and make it human readable and let me make the decisions as to what I should and should not do. Thi

      • Re:I don't like the "you should..." bits (Score:5, Informative)

        by RobBebop ( 947356 ) on Tuesday February 19, 2008 @11:24PM (#22484402) Homepage Journal

        What I object to is the "you should ..." bits which indicate that the authors are suggesting courses of action. I'd rather just have the lawyers unwind the legalese and make it human readable and let me make the decisions as to what I should and should not do. This makes it feel like the authors have an agenda that they are pushing.

        The authors do have an agenda, which is to promote freedom. The authors are also lawyers and the reason they are saying "you should" read it is because it does unwind the legalese jargon in the F/OSS licenses and explains why you would want to use such a license.

        As far as framing it differently... the Software Freedom Law Center [wikipedia.org] team includes a number of prominent individuals who have made strong arguments for Free Software in the past. Included in the board of directors is Lawrence Lessig and Eben Moglen. Maybe you've heard of them, maybe you haven't... but tens of thousands of people are knowledgeable about some of the work of these two men. Maybe you'd trust the word of one commenter that these are two noble, respectable men and my assurances that any concise documentation that they would publish is worth checking out.

        And I guess you have a right to be skeptical because there are tons of "articles" on /. that are just links to technorati or arstechnica or cnet... but this isn't one of them. This is one with authors who more interested in Free Software for Freedom's sake then the sake of steering traffic to their site to get ad revenue. Ya dig?

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by einhverfr ( 238914 )
          One thing I would say for the SFLC is that they clearly have areas where there is a great diversity of opinion (this is good and bad).

          For example, I have had the opportuntity to pose the following question:

          If I copy a BSD-licensed file into a GPL v3 project, Does the GPL v3 require that this particular BSD-license allow the file to have its license changed to the GPL in the mere course of copying the file?

          Eben Moglen says yes, and thinks the BSD-license only requires that the file was once licensed under th

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Chandon Seldon ( 43083 )

        The purpose of this document is not as a simple summary of some licenses, it's explicitly *advice* from a *team of lawyers* on the legal aspects of running a free software project. If you aren't running a free software project or don't want advice from the SFLC, then this document is not for you.

    • Re:The Primer is nice and all... (Score:5, Informative)

      by RobBebop ( 947356 ) on Tuesday February 19, 2008 @10:53PM (#22484224) Homepage Journal

      The authors [wikipedia.org] of this primer [wikipedia.org] are lawyers. Sure, they have biased ties [wikipedia.org] to the FSF, but there isn't a group of men on the planet better qualified to put together a concise explanation of the values, virtues, and gotchas of working with free and open source software.

      • I dunno. I think it is more accurate to say that some have biased ties to the FSF. I have found many (though certainly not all) of the SFLC to be a lot more level-headed in this regard.

        I haven't had a chance to discuss real contentious issues with Mr Kuhn, but we have talked about some other issues and he seems reasonable. Of course he seems like someone who is more of a community activist and as far as I can tell not a lawyer, and I am sure I disagree with him on things like whether the AGPL is Free en
      • Not to be a troll, but "Karen" hardly sounds like a man's name...

    • Furthermore (Score:4, Insightful)

      by einhverfr ( 238914 ) <chris DOT travers AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday February 20, 2008 @12:05AM (#22484592) Homepage Journal
      Some licenses (particularly long ones like the GPL v3) may need to be read many times, argued with many lawyers, etc. before one can even hope to have even a partial understanding of it....

      IANALE

  • What's in a name (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The Software Freedom Law Center, eh?

    Personally, I wouldn't trust an organization whose four-word name is composed entirely of nouns.

  • The content looks OK, but whatever app they used to convert from TeX to HTML not only produces ugly code that gives Frontpage a run for it's money, it also didn't close the <address> tag near the top, making the entire document right justified and italic.

    Horribly broken HTML in a bunch of respects. Stick with the PDF version.

    • I think I'd rather read the right justified, fubar version than a PDF if it's all the same to you. I'm firmly convinced the idea for the PDF document format came from someone who took a look at how fast html rendered coming over a 14.4kbps modem and thought, "This is way too fast, what can I do to slow it down and make it more cumbersome?"

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by SSpade ( 549608 )

        The PDF is 326,093 bytes. The HTML is 184,296 bytes, and pulls in an additional 74,847 bytes in associated files, leading to a total download of 259,143 bytes. So, you're saving about 20% by going for the malformed, painful to read version. Time to read first page is probably comparable, if you're using a browser with adequate PDF support (which if your browser dates from the same era as your 14.4k modem, it probably doesn't).

        Of course, with the HTML you also have the option of throwing away all the forma

  • Exactly what I was expecting (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Secret Rabbit ( 914973 ) on Tuesday February 19, 2008 @10:14PM (#22484002) Journal
    I was expecting to read a biased view toward the GPL, etc. Went straight to the BSD(-style) section and it's exactly what I found. Not about what the BSD(-style) licenses do/do not permit, but a commentary about what features of the GPL aren't in the BSD and how that's "good" "according to some people."

    Gotta say that I've read a lot about licenses, etc and have yet to see one that isn't biased in one direction or another. And this is certainly no exception. I'd just love to see a commentary that keeps people's fucking politics out of it.

    • Not sure it's the politics (Score:5, Insightful)

      by l2718 ( 514756 ) on Tuesday February 19, 2008 @10:28PM (#22484070)

      In this case, the politics are the indirect reason. I think the writers (which were all part of the "FSF" cadre) are simply more knowledgeable about the GPL-style licensing than about BSD-style licensing. They have considerable experience and expertise drafting and enforcing the GPL and LGPL, but they have not been, for example, part of the AT&T-Berkeley BSD litigation. The discussion of copyright enforcement would have been more interesting if it included examples of successful enforcement of both the types of licenses.

      The discussion of "copyright assignment" falls under the same heading: that's what the FSF does, and they are telling us what they learned about this kind of setup. Better they share their knowledge than leaving others to rediscover it.

      I think the best way to view this document is as follows: "we are laywers, who have been helping FOSS projects. Here are some lessons we learned, in non-technical language. Read this before talking to your lawyer and you'll get more mileage out of him/her".

    • Re:Exactly what I was expecting (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Cannelbrae ( 157237 ) on Tuesday February 19, 2008 @10:38PM (#22484132)
      Can you expand on the pieces you view as biased? Most of it looks rather straight forward. They explained that bsd style licenses grants a freedom, explained why this freedom can be beneficial, and explained what you lost by (downstream openness) by selecting the license.

      That seems like a pretty simple and blunt explaination. Each license has pros and cons depending on need.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by g1zmo ( 315166 )
        The clearly biased part was where they mentioned things he doesn't agree with.

    • Re:Exactly what I was expecting (Score:4, Insightful)

      by LingNoi ( 1066278 ) on Tuesday February 19, 2008 @11:19PM (#22484364)
      Just because they're not evangelising the BSD license doesn't make them bias. They just spent time describing how the GPL works first so of course they're just going to expend on that and just show how GPL and BSD are practically the same apart from the following differences.
    • Holy shit dude. I read the section on the BSD and it's about as fucking neutral as it gets, reading like a Wikipedia entry. It's along the lines of BSD = virtually public domain, so anyone can use the code and you have virtually no control over how it's used; if you want to prevent use in closed software, use another license. You remind me of someone on a message board who always complains about licenses, constantly seeing politics where there are none, but never seeing that he brings the politics and drama

  • My review of the document (Score:3, Interesting)

    by einhverfr ( 238914 ) <chris DOT travers AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday February 20, 2008 @12:42AM (#22484738) Homepage Journal
    IANAL, so a lot of this is in the context of listening to a lot of other lawyers talk.

    I think the document seems to be a reasonable summary of the concensus view in a lot of cases. I think it is a good read.

    There are a few areas where I would prefer to see more detail (it is my understanding that prior to pursuing legal action for copyright infringement, one must register the copyrights but this may be different than enforcement as other forms of leverage may be applied in those cases).

    One thing I thought was particularly well put forward was the patent section and the question as whether to apply for patents. The key thing I have heard from patent lawyers is that unless you intend to monetize an invention in a major way, it is not worth applying for a patent for the simple reason that patent enforcement is difficult and expensive.

    • Analysis of Affero GPL is missing too (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      There are a few areas where I would prefer to see more detail

      Me too. Here is another such area where a key element is missing from the document.

      In the section on the Affero GPL, these not-so-eminent lawyers failed to identify the key conceptual AND LEGAL difference between GPL and Affero GPL: that while all other FOSS licenses trigger at the point of distributing the work (because it's the copying that triggers copyright), the terms of the Affero GPL trigger on ***USAGE*** of the server-side software. Af

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Aluvus ( 691449 )

      it is my understanding that prior to pursuing legal action for copyright infringement, one must register the copyrights but this may be different than enforcement as other forms of leverage may be applied in those cases

      In the United States (and most other countries), you own the copyrights beginning at the moment of creation [keepyourcopyrights.org]. Registering copyrights is not a prerequisite for pursuing someone for infringement, but does make it easier to do so.

      I am not a lawyer, etc.

      • My understanding (IANAL) is that you own the copyrights from the moment of creation. However, to have standing in court, you have to register them prior to seeking action (not prior to infringemnet). You are also limited to actual rather than statutory damages for the period of time between creation and registration.

        Of course, I have effectively enforced non-registered copyrights before by applying political rather than legal pressure, so enforcement and legal action might be seen as somewhat separate are

  • Does it cover international law? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Spudley ( 171066 ) on Wednesday February 20, 2008 @03:11AM (#22485342) Homepage Journal
    I haven't read it (YET!), but as legal issues mentioned on Slashdot tend to have a very US-centric perspective, and as I live outside the US, I'm curious as to how much of it will be applicable to me.

    To be honest, I would say that all developers, even those who are firmly based in the US, need to be considering international law in this regard -- you may be based in the US, but your software will almost certainly end up all over the world.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by rapiddescent ( 572442 )

      The parent poster has raised a good point. I'm an independent consultant who has helped large orgs use OSS and Linux in the UK. I'm currently at a large Life Assurance company who have just started using Linux and use Open Source software here and there (mainly in java dev). The software teams are energised about OSS and are keen to contribute back (with management approving time to do so).

      However, the Group Legal folks are very concerned because the various GPL and other OSS licences do not protect t

  • I wrote this goal oriented guide [dina.kvl.dk] for picking a free software license some years ago. It is slightly out of date (I would out suggest QPL anymore).
  • I went right to the section that looked like it might explain the considerations in choosing GPL license options (2 vs 3 vs 2 or later vs 3 or later vs LGPL, etc.), and found it very disappointing. The relevant section starts with a mention of the two versions (2 and 3), but then drifts off into vague generalities about how you should consider a version of the GPL if you want to take advantage of GPLed code. They don't even mention the important and difficult issues having to do with the emergence of GPLv

  • Hah (Score:1)

    by kamatsu ( 969795 )
    An Article in Slashdot telling us to RTFA? Not bloody likely.
  • It is quite true that forming a corporation you control may in various cases limit your personal losses from the results of the actions of others you employee (e.g. an employee does something wrong, so the only assets at risk are the corporations *and* the employee's for personal negligence, not yours). However, from discussing this issue myself with a non-profit lawyer, my understanding is that if *you* are the one writing the code, you remain personally liable for any problems it has even if you are total
  • FTFA:

    Projects sometimes ask us about registering their copyrights. You do not need to register in order to have a valid copyright. You do not need to register to enforce your copyright. However, registration can provide a project with better options and an increased ability to enforce its copyright license against violators.

    This is technically accurate but potentially dangerously misleading. For virtually all actual ways in which you are likely to want to enforce copyright, in the US at least, registration

Slashdot Top Deals

One good suit is worth a thousand resumes.

Close