Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Legal

Red Hat Summit and License Track at FOSS-North

Filed under
Red Hat
OSS
Legal
  • A partner’s guide to the Red Hat Summit virtual experience

    Partners play a critical role in Red Hat’s efforts to drive innovation with enterprise open source technology. From OEMs to global systems integrators to cloud and service providers, Red Hat’s extensive partner ecosystem helps customers around the world achieve success and IT modernization. We appreciate our partners and look forward to showcasing their innovative work at the first-ever Red Hat Summit Virtual Experience, a free, immersive multi-day event.

    If you’re a partner participating in Red Hat Summit, you won’t want to miss any of the action. Here are a few insider tips and tricks to help you navigate our newly virtual event.

  • What a License Track!

    This year we had a great set of licensing related talks, and I’d like to discuss them all in this post.

    Monday morning started with Frank Karlitschek and his talk Why the GPL is great for business. This a great overview of how you can build an free and open source business – pros and cons and pitfalls to avoid.

Huawei in OIN

Filed under
Legal

Gresecurity maker finally coughs up $300k to foot open-source pioneer Bruce Perens' legal bill in row over GPL

Filed under
Linux
Security
Legal

After three years of legal wrangling, the defamation lawsuit brought by Brad Spengler and his company Open Source Security (OSS) against open-source pioneer Bruce Perens has finally concluded.

It was clear that the end was nigh last month when California's Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court ruling against the plaintiffs.

Spengler and OSS sued Perens for a June 2017 blog post in which Perens ventured the opinion that grsecurity, Open Source Security's Linux kernel security enhancements, could expose customers to potential liability under the terms of the General Public License (GPL).

OSS says that customers who exercise their rights to redistribute its software under the GPL will no longer receive software updates – the biz wants to be paid for its work, a problem not really addressed by the GPL. Perens, the creator of the open-source definition, pointed out that section six of the GPLv2 prohibits modifications of the license terms.

Read more

Antitrust Regulators Turn Attention to Standards Organizations

Filed under
OSS
Legal

It’s well recognized by courts and regulators in many countries that standard setting among competitors can be procompetitive and good for consumers. As noted by the 5th Circuit Court in 1988, “it has long been recognized that the establishment and monitoring of trade standards is a legitimate and beneficial function of trade associations . . . [and] a trade association is not by its nature a ‘walking conspiracy’, its every denial of some benefit amounting to an unreasonable restraint of trade.”(1)

But regulatory sands can shift, and especially at a time when broad and dramatic changes (political and otherwise) seem to be the rule rather than the exception, it makes sense for collaborative organizations to keep vigilant, and to review their policies and procedures on a regular basis to help ensure antitrust compliance.

In my recent blog regarding Antitrust Laws and Open Collaboration, I briefly mentioned recent U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) investigations into standards organizations. There were two, in particular, both focusing on internal policies and the importance of avoiding rules that might potentially disadvantage consumers or competitors. In this blog entry, we’ll take a deeper look at the specific types of conduct that concerned the regulators, and how the standards organizations under examination were eventually able to address those concerns.

Read more

Continuing Improvements to the OSS Supply Chain Ecosystem

Filed under
OSS
Legal

At the beginning of the 20th century, for the most part, production was local in nature, as it had been for several millennia. By the latter half of the century, with improvements in shipping and telecommunications, companies turned to lean production models (e.g., the Toyota Production System). Telecommunications meant that it was possible to specify components to a third party which was not local. Containerisation and transportation improvements meant that components could be transported cheaply and be delivered just-in-time by a supplier that was not local.

This allowed the production process to be modularised and contracted out, improving the efficiency of production. In today’s world, in which the Internet has driven communication costs down, companies no longer believe it is in their best interests to self-produce or locally source all components. Because of this, the world’s largest companies have built increasingly global and complicated supply chains. Benefiting from the computing and communications revolution that started in the 1990s and continues today, these companies are increasingly flexible in their choice of suppliers. The choices that they make about suppliers are not as rigid as they were when lean production was originally conceptualised.

Linux and other open source software (OSS) projects have driven the computing and communications revolution that has changed the world, including the nature of modern supply chains. Open source technologies are also increasingly being used in products themselves (e.g., Android on mobiles, Automotive Grade Linux in the auto sector, etc), as the world’s best-known brand names fully embrace OSS.

Read more

Some good coronavirus news: Monster Google-Oracle API copyright battle on hold as bio-nasty shuts Supremes

Filed under
Development
Google
OSS
Legal

The ten-year monster battle between Google and Oracle over the use of Java APIs will be delayed until further notice – after the US Supreme Court announced it was suspending oral arguments over coronavirus fears.

The two sides were due to present their argument to the court on Tuesday, March 24 and there has been a flood of filings in the case in the past month. But on Monday, the Supreme Court said that “in keeping with public health precautions recommended in response to COVID-19, the Supreme Court is postponing the oral arguments currently scheduled for the March session (March 23-25 and March 30-April 1).”

It’s not yet known when the case will be rescheduled - a meeting on Friday should provide more details. The court’s statement also noted that its closure is “not unprecedented,” but then gave two precedents there weren’t exactly comforting:

“The Court postponed scheduled arguments for October 1918 in response to the Spanish flu epidemic. The Court also shortened its argument calendars in August 1793 and August 1798 in response to yellow fever outbreaks.” How reassuring.

Read more

Also: Supreme Court Postpones Oral Arguments

What should fit in a FOSS license?

Filed under
OSS
Legal

What terms belong in a free and open source software license? There has been a lot of debate about this lately, especially as many of us are interested in expanding the role we see that we play in terms of user freedom issues. I am amongst those people that believe that FOSS is a movement thats importance is best understood not on its own, but on the effects that it (or the lack of it) has on society. A couple of years ago, a friend and I recorded an episode about viewing software freedom within the realm of human rights; I still believe that, and strongly.

I also believe there are other critical issues that FOSS has a role to play in: diversity issues (both within our own movement and empowering people in their everyday lives) are one, environmental issues (the intersection of our movement with the right-to-repair movement is a good example) are another. I also agree that the trend towards "cloud computing" companies which can more or less entrap users in their services is a major concern, as are privacy concerns.

Given all the above, what should we do? What kinds of terms belong in FOSS licenses, especially given all our goals above?

First, I would like to say that I think that many people in the FOSS world, for good reason, spend a lot of time thinking about licenses. This is good, and impressive; few other communities have as much legal literacy distributed even amongst their non-lawyer population as ours. And there's no doubt that FOSS licenses play a critical role... let's acknowledge from the outset that a conventionally proprietary license has a damning effect on the agency of users.

However, I also believe that user freedom can only be achieved via a multi-layered approach. We cannot provide privacy by merely adding privacy-requirements terms to a license, for instance; encryption is key to our success. I am also a supporter of code of conducts and believe they are important/effective (I know not everyone does; I don't care for this to be a CoC debate, thanks), but I believe that they've also been very effective and successful checked in as CODE-OF-CONDUCT.txt alongside the traditional COPYING.txt/LICENSE.txt. This is a good example of a multi-layered approach working, in my view.

So acknowledging that, which problems should we try to solve at which layers? Or, more importantly, which problems should we try to solve in FOSS licenses?

Here is my answer: the role of FOSS licenses is to undo the damage that copyright, patents, and related intellectual-restriction laws have done when applied to software. That is what should be in the scope of our licenses. There are other problems we need to solve too if we truly care about user freedom and human rights, but for those we will need to take a multi-layered approach.

To understand why this is, let's rewind time. What is the "original sin" that lead to the rise proprietary software, and thus the need to distinguish FOSS as a separate concept and entity? In my view, it's the decision to make software copyrightable... and then, adding similar "state-enforced intellectual restrictions" categories, such as patents or anti-jailbreaking or anti-reverse-engineering laws.

Read more

The CLA Denial-Of-Service attack

Filed under
OSS
Legal

Obviously, there's a flaw in that logic. A CLA is an agreement between a project and a (new) contributor. A project does not absolutely requires the contributor to sign the agreement to accept its contributions, in theory. It's the reverse: for the contributor to have their patch accepted, they need to accept the CLA. But the project could accept contributions without CLA without violating the law.

But it seems that projects sometimes end up doing a DOS on themselves by refusing perfectly fine contributions from drive-by contributors who don't have time to waste filling forms on all projects they stumble upon.

In the case of this typo, I could have submitted a patch, but because I didn't sign a CLA, again, the project couldn't have merged it without breaking their own rules, even if someone else submits the same patch, after agreeing to the CLA. So, in effect, I would have DOS'd the project by providing the patch, so I just opened an issue which strangely — and hopefully — isn't covered by the CLA.

Read more

Antitrust Laws and Open Collaboration

Filed under
OSS
Legal

If you participate in standards development organizations, open source foundations, trade associations, or the like (Organizations), you already know that you’re required to comply with antitrust laws. The risks of noncompliance are not theoretical – violations can result in severe criminal and civil penalties, both for your organization and the individuals involved. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has in fact opened investigations into several standards organizations in recent years.

Maybe you’ve had a training session at your company, or at least are aware that there’s an antitrust policy you’re supposed to read and comply with. But what if you’re a working group chair, or even an executive director, and therefore responsible for actually making sure nothing happens that’s not supposed to? Beyond paying attention, posting or reviewing an antitrust statement at meetings, and perhaps calling your attorney when member discussions drift into grey zones, what do you actually do to keep antitrust risk in check?

Well, the good news is that regulators recognize that standards and other collaboration deliverables are good for consumers. The challenge is knowing where the boundaries of appropriate conduct can be found, whether you’re hosting, leading or just participating in activity involving competitors. Once you know the rules, you can forge ahead, expecting to navigate those risks, and knowing the benefits of collaboration can be powerful and procompetitive.

We don’t often get glimpses into the specific criteria regulators use to evaluate potential antitrust violations, particularly as applicable to collaborative organizations. But when we do, it can help consortia and other collaborative foundations focus their efforts and take concrete steps to ensure compliance.

In July 2019, the DOJ Antitrust Division (Division) provided a new glimpse, in its Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs in Criminal Antitrust Investigations (Guidance). Although the Guidance is specifically intended to assist Division prosecutors evaluating corporate compliance programs when charging and sentencing, it provides valuable insights for building or improving an Organization’s antitrust compliance program (Program).

At a high level, the Guidance suggests that an effective Program will be one that is well designed, is applied earnestly and in good faith by management, and includes adequate procedures to maximize effectiveness through efficiency, leadership, training, education, information and due diligence. This is important because organizations that detect violations and self-report to the Division’s Corporate Leniency program may receive credit (e.g. lower charges or penalties) for having an effective antitrust compliance program in place.

Read more

Startup Mycroft AI declares it will fight 'patent troll' tooth and nail after its Linux voice-assistant attracts lawsuit

Filed under
Linux
Legal

An AI startup is battling a patent-infringement lawsuit filed against it for building an open-source Linux-based voice-controlled assistant.

Mycroft AI first learned trouble was brewing when it was contacted by a lawyer at Tumey LLP, a Texas law firm focused on intellectual property, in December. In an email to the startup’s CEO Joshua Montgomery, the legal eagle claimed Mycroft AI's technology infringed two US patents – 9,794,348 and 10,491,679 – belonging to Tumey's client, Voice Tech Corp.

Voice Tech's patents described a system for handling “voice commands from a mobile device to remotely access and control a computer." Mycroft AI develops voice-assistant software that runs on Linux systems, including Raspberry Pis and its own standalone Mark I and II gadgets, and responds to spoken requests, such as setting alarms and reminders, searching the web, and so on. You can add more features by installing add-ons called skills.

Read more

Syndicate content