SFLC's Legal Guide On Free Software

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.'"

Comments

Re:The Primer is nice and all...

[palegray.net]

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 keep popping up.

Exactly what I was expecting

[Secret Rabbit]

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.

Re:Exactly what I was expecting

[einhverfr]

Part of the issue is that the FSF-types have a rather odd interpretation of the BSD-like license. In their view, if you release a work under that license, I can take that work and change the license without adding a single line of code. Interestingly, I have never met a developer who actually read and used the license to take that interpretation with the exception of one large company who used it for reference implementations.

Most developers using this license interpret it instead as allowing other people to add copyrighted elements (thus creating derivative works) which can carry additional restrictions, but that the verbatim work cannot be relicensed. Nearly all lawyers I have met outside the FSF proper have also held this view (main exceptions being Eben Moglen who is involved in the FSF and Larry Rosen who isn't). IANAL.

Under the FSF view, the license change of the Ath5k drivers for Linux from BSD to GPL was perfectly legal. In the BSD developer's view it was not.

In general, I have found the SFLC folk seem divided about whether the FSF interpretation of that license is correct or whether the license addresses all third-party recipients of copyrighted elements released under such a license.

Re:Exactly what I was expecting

[LingNoi]

Under the FSF view, the license change of the Ath5k drivers for Linux from BSD to GPL was perfectly legal. In the BSD developer's view it was not.

If the BSD code is always going to be available under BSD then what's the problem? Nothing lost, nothing gained.

Re:I don't like the "you should..." bits

[einhverfr]

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 that license and so this is possible. I.e. only the notice of the license (as mentioned in the license) not the actual permissions need be passed on (by what does "... is permitted provided that..." mean in this context?)

Richard Fontana states no, and thinks the BSD-license does not permit this because the BSD-license only allows for new copyrighted elements to carry additional restrictions, not for new restrictions to be extended to elements merely used with the permission of the original author.

I suspect that Fontana's points are more closely reflected in the official SFLC advice that licenses to BSD-licensed files only are done after substantial modification and hence is more likely to be correct as it fits with my lay interpretation of copyright law better. Furthermore after in-depth discussions with many individuals who license their works under BSD-like licenses, I have come to the conclusion that this is the correct answer.

I do wish the SFLC woudl address the question of the scope of the GPL v3 section 7 but I suspect with this sort of difference of opinion, the courts will get to it first....

My review of the document

[einhverfr]

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.

Re:Does it cover international law?

[rapiddescent]

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 the organisation sufficiently with regard to warranties. This is because in the Scotland it is impossible to disclaim all warranties - yet the GPL tries to do this. They are worried that one of our Developers contributes code that eventually causes a consequential loss that comes to court. Since we are a brand name insurance company - they are extra-special-nervous about this.

Management understand we can only get the best out of OSS by contributing back - but have found the US-centric legal approach very unhelpful.

We were contributing back through shell companies and "home" accounts but group legal have explicitly asked us not to do this because in Scotland a chain of liability could still lead back to the company...

any ideas gratefully received!

IDCALBTWFAU = "I did consult a lawyer but they were F.A. use"