Copyright or Copy left by manoranjan, glc, tvpm

COPYRIGHT OR COPYLEFT

Righteousness of Open Sourcing In The Eyes of Law

2011 BY GLC-Thiruvananthapuram


COPYRIGHTED OR PROPRIETARY SOFTWARES

A Software which comes with a licence providing the supplier, control over the source code;

The supplier holds ownership or intellectual property rights over it;

Restriction over modifications and the distribution of the source code.

PROPRIETARY SOFTWARES- A Close Watch

COST! License fee Product bundling—example: Microsoft office

Often not built to open standards, leading to interoperability problems

The user is having no access to the source code, and he is totally under the mercy of the developer

Vendors of proprietary software can “withdraw the product, discontinue its support, go out of business, and/or can be acquired by another vendor who can do any of the above”

No continuous development by information sharing

TRIPS considers a copyrighted software as a literary work and it is protected for a period of 60 years!! It will be obsolete by then…



The copyright law, which originally aims to restrict the unauthorized commercial exploitation of the work by others, itself is being used as a tool for exploitation !!!

OPEN SOURCE PHILOSOPHY


“GIVE USERSTHE FREEDOMS TO

RUN, COPY, DISTRIBUTE, STUDY,

CHANGE AND IMPROVE”


OPEN SOURCE DEFINITION(OSD)


FREE REDISTRIBUTION

SOURCE CODE

DERIVED WORKS

INTEGRITY OF THE AUTHOR’S SOURCE

CODE

NO DISCRIMINATION

AGAINST PERSONS

OR GROUPS

NO DISCRIMINATION

AGAINST FIELDS OF ENDEAVO

UR

DISTRIBUTION OF LICENCE

LICENCE MUST NOT

BE SPECIFIC

TO A PRODUCT

LICENCE MUST NOT RESTRICT

OTHER SOFTWAR

E


Copyleft Uses Copyright, To Guarantee The Freedom Of The Users To Use, Modify & Redistribute. . .

First the software is copyrighted

Then terms of distributions are added to it which gives to everyone the rights to

use, modify and redistribute the same, i.e., the program’s code or any program

derived from it


Features of Copylefting:-

FREEDOM TO USE THE

WORK

THE FREEDOM TO STUDY THE

WORK

THE FREEDOM TO COPY AND SHARE THE WORK WITH

OTHERS

THE FREEDOM TO MODIFY THE WORK, AND THE

FREEDOM TO DISTRIBUTE

MODIFIED AND THEREFORE DERIVATIVE

WORKS


Advantages of OSS PRICE: Generally no or low license fees;

Availability of source code coupled with permission to make modifications;

Access open source development community, which may be very active with respect to code used. Continuing improvement; outstanding development;

More likely to be built to open standards, so interoperable with other open standards systems.

Technology neutral, meaning that applications will run on more than one platform (such as Windows, Linux, Unix, and MacOSX)2011 BY GLC-Thiruvananthapuram


Viral Nature Of Copyleft Licenses

“The condition that any derivative work that is distributed or published must be licensed as a whole under the terms of the same license”

Term “viral” has generated an “unreasonable fear of infection” among commercial firms

The requirement of reciprocity only applies to works based on the program

Mere use of OSS software will not generate any obligation to release one’s own software code as an OSS

Fear Uncertainty Doubt (FUD)

Designed to undermine the popular perception of the open source philosophy

Achieved by issuing dire warnings about security concerns, interoperability, or simple ideological attack

Most effective way to achieve legal uncertainty is conducting litigation

► SCO v. IBM

► Red Hat v. SCO

► SCO v. Novell(dismissed)

► SCO v. AutoZone(dismissed)

► SCO v. DaimlerChrysler(dismissed)



► SCO v. DaimlerChrysler Main allegations: DC failed to certify, as requested by SCO, that

DC is in compliance with certain use restrictions in licenses to the UNIX operating system over which SCO claims ownership;

DC claims it has supplied the certification (and that it no longer uses the licensed software), and requests dismissal;

Case Dismissed.► SCO v. AutoZone Main allegations: AutoZone illegally copied (or included derived

works of) proprietary Unix code into Linux distributions based on the 2.4 and 2.6 kernels, thus violating SCO’s copyrights;

AutoZone requests a “stay” and advanced the following issues:

The elements of the claim are already at issue in SCO v. Novell, Red Hat v. SCO, and SCO v. IBM;

Used the Red Hat judge’s “waste of judicial resources” language;

In the alternative, SCO should provide more detail on its claims;

Stay allowed.


► SCO v. Novell

Main allegations: slander of title and rights to IP, slander of reputation, interference with business relationships;

Novell files motion to dismiss;

Case dismissed.

► SCO v. IBM

SCO sues IBM;

Main allegations: misappropriation of trade secrets (IBM’s AIX product includes proprietary SCO code); breach of contract;

Amended in July 2003 to include more specific claims of contract breach (IBM agreements and Sequent agreement);

IBM countersues SCO;

Main allegations: breach of contract, Lanham Act and unfair competition; unfair/deceptive trade practices; patent infringement; copyright infringement; breach of GPL;

Case pending.

Legal Validity Of OSS

In Jacobsen v. Katzer, {2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 63568 (N.D. Cal.

2007)}US Court, upholding the validity of an open source license

held that remedies for breach of an open source license

are in contract, not copyright

Court limited it to contract remedies which are monetary (not

injunctive relief for copyright infringement)

In Welte v. S. Deutschland, a German court has upheld the

enforceability of the GPL.


Legal Remedies In Indian Law, When Read With

Jacobsen V. Katzer

Following remedies may be sought under ICA,1872:

Damages

Injunction

Specific performance2011 BY GLC-Thiruvananthapuram

Certain Inconveniences of OSS:-

¤ License terms are NOT standard: thus important to pay close attention to terms;

¤ No maintenance and support (unless purchased separately);

¤ No warranties regarding media, viruses, and performance



Many disadvantages of the above mentioned, can be addressed by procuring open source software through a third party vendor that will provide maintenance, support, additional warranties, etc.


DANGER OF PUBLIC DOMAIN

Were OSS software to be in the public domain, everyone could appropriate it and modify it;

They could even remove the author’s name obtain copyright over it;

The structure of incentives that currently sustains OSS development would be jeopardized.


DANGER OF PUBLIC DOMAIN

“If put in public domain, middle level users may convert it

into proprietary software, and may

deny the freedom to modify or improve”


Case study: OSS In Libraries

Open source project organisation is “a loosely knit community of interested developers and end-users”. This is particularly applicable to projects to develop library and information management applications.

Librarians lack the skills to be active developers, but have extensive knowledge of their specialised requirements, while experienced developers are unlikely to have significant experience with library requirements

As Brandt (2001) notes, librarians have long been active not only in taking advantage of technological innovations, but also in experimenting with new approaches (e.g.: using Peter Scott’s HyTelnet ); the OSS approach should increase the opportunities for such activity.


Case study: OSS in Libraries , contd…

Library softwares are slow to evolve and expensive to upgrade; need driven approach of OSS is a good bargain for the requirements of Libraries.

WIBS (Windsor Internet Booking System) which allows libraries to schedule use of public computers is based on an earlier F/OS project, MRBS (Meeting Room Booking System)

In OSS there is no risk of vendors withdrawing the product, discontinuing its support or going out of business; It is possible for another organisation to take on the role of project “co-ordinator” if the project originator is unable to continue in the role.

In the MyLibrary project, when the project’s main developer, Eric Lease Morgan, changed jobs the support to the project was shifted from North Carolina State University to Notre Dame University.


This model shows the different project-related tasks done by people in the different roles, and it also shows that people’s involvement in a particular project may change over time. In a library and information context, the developers would not necessarily also be users of the software.


Open source as an alternative to copyright


COPYLEFT FOR COPYRIGHT

Though Copyleft uses copyright law, it flips it over, to serve the opposite of its usual purpose i.e., instead of a means of privatising software, it becomes a means of keeping software free; “Rather than diminishing the commons, the copyright in open source software protects the commons.”

It prevents the developer’s monopoly; promotes creativity, pace of improvement and reduces the cost

An individual programmer working for an MNC would feel foolish if he puts in all efforts to develop/update a code just to see the MNC, who will be the first owner under the present copyright law, selling his efforts and improvement without giving anything back to him

An OSS license assures a programmer :

The right to make copies of the program, and redistribute these copies further;

The right to make further improvements to the program


COPYLEFT FOR COPYRIGHT contd…

Copyleft licenses are enforceable, as commercial agreements according to the law of Contracts

Unlike Copyright, OSS protects the interest of both users and developers

“FUTURE IS OPEN”-Users Of Open Source

Its Users Are No Longer Just Geeks & Radical Specialty

Vendors

Heavy Hitters: IBM, C.A., H-P, Sun, PalmSource,

WebMethods, Apple, Novell, Sybase, SGI, etc., etc.


Graphical View Of Present OSS Activities:


“Love Thy Neighbor As Thou Love Thee”


THANK YOU


Copyright or Copy left by manoranjan, glc, tvpm

Education

Transcript of Copyright or Copy left by manoranjan, glc, tvpm