OSS license 101

December 10th, 2016
Hideki Yamane <henrich@debian.org>

Disclaimer: IANAL & Eng”r”ish ;)See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IANAL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engrish

License = Allow **some** rights
／￣＼|
|＼＿／
|／￣￣ ＼／ ＼ ／ ＼
よくぞこのセッションにきた／⌒⌒＼褒美としてこのソフトを使う|（ __ 人 __ ）|権利を許諾しよう＼｀ ⌒´／☆
/ ヽ､ -- ー､＿＿ ,-‐´ ＼─／／ >ヽ▼●▼ < ＼|| ｰ､ .
/ ヽ､＼ i | ｡ | |/ ヽ ( ニ､｀ヽ .
.lヽl | ｡ | | ｒ - ､ y ｀ﾆ ﾉ ＼l|| ー─ | ￣ l｀ ~ ヽ＿ノ＿＿＿ _／￣￣￣￣ヽ -' ヽ --'／ オープナ ／ |.| ￣￣￣￣￣￣ | ／ || ￣￣￣￣￣￣ | ／ | ＿＿＿＿＿＿／￣オプーナ／ | ￣ |__ 」／ _ オープナ ／ | ￣ |__, 」＿＿ _／|| ￣￣￣￣￣ | ／オープナ￣／￣￣￣￣ | ／ オプーナ ／ |／ .|| ￣￣￣￣￣ | ￣￣￣￣￣ | ／ l ￣￣￣￣ | ￣￣￣￣￣ | ／ | ／| ￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣Software license
Depends on "©"And relates to other layers...
PatentTrademarkContract

Patent“ 3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual,worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable(except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made,use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work,
where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable
by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by theirContribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s)with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You
institute patent litigation against any entity (including across-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Workor a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct
or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses
granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate
as of the date such litigation is filed.”

Trademark“Firefox” and Iceweasel

Contract
Red Hat エンタープライズ契約書
https://www.redhat.com/licenses/APAC_Enterprise_Agreement_WebVersion_Japan_20160330.pdf

Choose License
Depends on Your purpose

No “Best and Greatest” license

"Full-scratch" license?
OSS license = well-tested library
Software license = library written in natural language
Domain specific knowledge (law)License = protocol
Compatibility issue
Don't create new protocol until you **really** need it

Productivity
Time investment
writing Natural language(Legal Term) vs writing codeProprietary license vs OSS license
Default deny vs Default allow
Whitelist vs Blacklist

The Open Source Definition(https://opensource.org/osd-annotated)
1 . Free Redistribution
2 . Source Code3 . Derived Works
4 . Integrity of The Author's Source Code
5 . No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
6 . No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
7 . Distribution of License
8 . License Must Not Be Specific to a Product9 . License Must Not Restrict Other Software
1 0 . License Must Be Technology-Neutral

DFSG-free(OSS), OSI-Certified and fake

DFSG-free(OSS)

OSI-Certified

fake-OSSWell-known OSS license●GPL-{2,3}, AGPL●LGPL-{2.1,3}●

MIT/BSD-{2,3}-clause●Apache-2.0

●MPL

●

Etc…

OSI approval license = more than 60

Which license is best?
Not sure ;) - Depends on usage and purpose
Same as Library/Framework/Language
No “Best and Greatest”

Point of view
Copyleft vs Permissive
Patent-free or not
Domain-specfic

Copyleft vs Permissive
Copyleft: GPL,CDDL,MPL, etc.

Permissive : MIT,BSD-{2,3}-clause, etc.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.ja.html

Patent-free or not
GPL-3,Apache-2.0, MPLDomain-specfic
OFL,CC,GFDL, etc.

License casual talk :)Zstd (https://github.com/facebook/zstd)
BSD-3-clause license
However, its "PATENTS" file says
" The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and without notice,
if you (or any of your subsidiaries, corporate affiliates or agents) initiate
directly or indirectly, or take a direct financial interest in, any PatentAssertion: (i) against Facebook or any of its subsidiaries or corporate
affiliates, (ii) against any party if such Patent Assertion arises in whole orin part from any software, technology, product or service of Facebook or any ofits subsidiaries or corporate affiliates, or (iii) against any party relating
to the Software. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if Facebook or any of its
subsidiaries or corporate affiliates files a lawsuit alleging patent
infringement against you in the first instance, and you respond by filing apatent infringement counterclaim in that lawsuit against that party that isunrelated to the Software, the license granted hereunder will not terminate
under section (i) of this paragraph due to such counterclaim."Zfs (GPL vs CDDL) by Canonical, Ltd.
We cannot sue them, since we are not copyright holder: onlyOracle can do so.

GPLLinux "T-800" issue