Lit Review 6: SFLC Legal Primer Chapter 3

Taking a step back in the Legal Primer, we are looking at Chapter 3. Let's dig in.

Who:

The Primer is written by a laundry list of who's who of FOSS: Richard Fontana, Bradley M. Kuhn, Eben Moglen, Matthew Norwood, Daniel B. Ravicher, Karen Sandler, James Vasile, and Aaron Williamson.

What:

The chapters of The Primer we are covering today detail much of the Primer is and some basic details on a couple of the many licenses that you can choose to file your project under.

Where:

You can find a copy of The Primer here.

When:


The Primer hasn't been updated in a while, but the last revision was put out in 2008.



The Gist:

Should your project form under a corporate banner or possibly join under the umbrella of a larger organization? What else can you do with it.

The Good:

Simple to read
Covers a fairly important subject
Gives several options to the reader

The Bad:
Fairly short chapter overall
Is fairly elementary with the subject matter




Any Questions?

Why choose one organization over another for Umbrellas?

Do Liability clauses in licenses not work?

If a library is been thrown over the wall, are you still liable?



Final Thoughts and Rating:

This is an important chapter as it lays the grounds for how a project should act when it comes to legal bodies. The lay terms help illustrate how things happen in at least a basic sense. Overall, 8/10.

Lit Review 1: Comprehensive GPL Guide - Chapter 1

The Comprehensive GPL Guide is rather long guide on all things GPL, but Chapter 1 is what we are interested in.

Who:

The GPL Guide was written by Bradley M. Kuhn, Anthony K. Sebro Jr., and Denver Gingerich

What:

A guide to what exactly is Software Freedom

Where:

You can find the Comprehensive GPL guide here.

When:

The GPL Guide was last updated in 2014, though the document itself doesn't specify when.

The Gist:

Software Freedom is important and it is important to know what that entails. Chapter 1 goes into everything that that means.

The Good:

• Good at introducing the concept of Free Software
• Talked a fair portion about the difference between Free and Public
• Introduced the philosophy behind the GPL

The Bad:

• Few examples of licenses in action
• While it explains freedom itself, it doesn't go into anything else at all.

Any Questions?

• License compatibility?
• Are there licenses which prevent sale period

In Conclusion:

This serves as an interesting document, mostly because it helps illustrate a key point of contention that most people don't understand about Free and Open Source Software. For that alone, it is noteworthy. While it tries to have a sense of humor about the subject a little, it is still a fairly dry read, but that is to be expected. Overall, 7/10.

Lit Review 3: SFLC Legal Primer Chapter 4

We are revisiting the Foss Legal Primer, this time with Chapter 4. Lets dive in. 

Who:

The Primer is written by a laundry list of who's who of FOSS: Richard Fontana, Bradley M. Kuhn, Eben Moglen, Matthew Norwood, Daniel B. Ravicher, Karen Sandler, James Vasile, and Aaron Williamson.

What:

The chapters of The Primer we are covering today detail much of the Primer is and some basic details on a couple of the many licenses that you can choose to file your project under.

Where:

You can find a copy of The Primer here.

When:


The Primer hasn't been updated in a while, but the last revision was put out in 2008.

The Gist:

This chapter primarily deals with patenting a FOSS project and what it can mean for your licenses.  

The Good:


Clear information
Has decent advice for not breaking patent and copyright claims
Shows philosophy behind patents and FOSS.



The Bad:


"It depends" is the standard response for untested licenses
Very GPL-oriented
Patent System doesn't really work for the people at all times



Any Questions?


What happens when you patent existing code bases and then update them?
Are there licenses with Patent clauses?
Willful Infringement?



Final Thoughts and Rating:


The Legal Primer is a good read overall, but this chapter takes it into a very weird area. This is mostly because the US Patent system is a very strange beast that doesn't really treat well with the nature of code. That said, the Primer does its best to explain to the layman how they should deal with it, even if only in a primary fashion. 9/10.

Lit Review 2: Itunes ToS, Fedora Project Contributor Agreement, and Python Software Foundation CLA

Who:

Itunes TOS was written up by Apple. The Fedora Project Contributor Agreement (FPCA) was written up by the fantastic legal team over at the Red Hat legal department. the Python Software Foundation CLA (PCLA) was written up by the Python Software Foundation

What:

Itunes TOS is just terms and conditions for usage. The FPCA is guidelines for project contribution to any existing Fedora projects. The PCLA is a form for signing your project up for distribution.

Where:

You can find the Itunes TOS here. You can find the FPCA here. You can find the PCLA here.

When:

Apple's TOS was last updated September 17th of 2014. The FPCA was last updated last month on February 3. It is unclear when the PCLA was written and is not easily listed on the site.


The Gist:

The Three documents are essentially just different kinds of usage requirements. Itunes is far more straightforward as it is a general product, while the SPCA is a guideline for contribution. The PCLA is meant for distribution rights.

The Good:


In general, not that long (PCLA)
Serve an important function for the community (SPCA and PCLA)
Kept up-to-date



The Bad:


Very much legalese (Itunes and SPCA)
Not very nicely formatted (Itunes)
A legal document, but not really clear on much (PCLA)



Any Questions?


How can one re-license code without having the copyright?
Why the specific licenses presented in the PCLA?



Final Thoughts and Rating:


Each of the three texts serves an important function. Itunes has a usage agreement due to it being a platform for content distribution. Meanwhile the SPCA and PCLA both are meant for actual content creation and as such have more guidelines following along those details, which aren't really required for the Itunes TOS. Overall, they each have their role and should be judged on their ability to fulfill that role. 8/10 overall.

Literature Review 0: Legal Issues Primer Chapters 1 and 2

Keeping it rolling with a review of the Handbook for the Business and Legal Aspects of FOSS class: A Legal Issues Primer for Open Source and Free Software Projects. Quite a Mouthful. I'm going to go with "The Primer" from this point forward. This will be reviewing the first two chapters in particular.

Who:

The Primer is written by a laundry list of who's who of FOSS: Richard Fontana, Bradley M. Kuhn, Eben Moglen, Matthew Norwood, Daniel B. Ravicher, Karen Sandler, James Vasile, and Aaron Williamson.

What:

The chapters of The Primer we are covering today detail much of the Primer is and some basic details on a couple of the many licenses that you can choose to file your project under.

Where:

You can find a copy of The Primer here.

When:

The Primer hasn't been updated in a while, but the last revision was put out in 2008.

The Gist:

The two chapters of The Primer that I am covering are detailing mainly what The Primer is and is not, as well as going into what certain licenses are meant for and a basic idea of when they should be used.

The Good:

1. Very clearly states that it isn't meant to replace sound legal advice.
2. Fairly easy to ready and clearly explains legal jargon.
3. Broaches several topics that are important for deciding your license.

The Bad:

1. Doesn't go too deep into many different licenses.
2. Slightly outdated.
3. Is a dry read, as expected of legal advice

Any Questions?

1. Why not include license X?
2. Why use the previous version of the GPL as opposed to the most recent?

In Conclusion:

Overall, The Primer was an okay read, but it offers sage advice that anyone who is planning on starting a FOSS project should definitely take a look at, at least to some degree. It will not replace proper legal counsel, but it can at least get you started on your way to knowing what is going on in the legal realm. 9.5 Lawyers/10

Video Review 0: Everything is a Remix

Time to get back into the swing of things with a video review: Everything Is A Remix

Who:

Everything is a Remix was made by Kirby Ferguson.

What:

Everything is a Remix is a 4-part video series detailing how...well...Everything is a remix of something else and how we create.

Where:

You can find Everything is a Remix here. You can also find the author's site, where he is also hosting other work here.

When:

Everything is a Remix was created over the course of 2011, with the last part released in December of that year.

The Gist:

Everything is a remix is a short documentary that is focused on showing how throughout modern history, our major breakthroughs are based on copying and improving upon existing ideas. Each part focuses on a different medium, from music, to movies, to technology.

The Good:

1. Highlights that no idea is entirely original
2. Individual parts are concise
3. Ideas are well formulated

The Bad:

1. Overall short length leaves many topics discussed very minor
2. Doesn't address issues with copyright law until very last part
3. Last part jumps around a large amount

Any Questions?

1. What are some of the more egregious things that have gotten away with being copied?
2. Are there more examples of things that were unfairly tried for their copying?
3. What are some of the ways that we are working to confront these issues?

In Conclusion

Overall, Everything is a Remix is a great conversation starter on the subject of copyright law and what it means to infringe upon the work of others. That said, it doesn't go in very deep detail and will be unlikely to do anything for those that are already invested in the subject. It should serve to enlighten a few more people about some of the dangers that intellectual property faces in the current age though. 8.8 Remixes out of 10.

Business and Legal Aspects of FOSS: First Flight

And so begins another chapter of schooling with the illustrious RemyD. First flight is always pretty easy assignment. I guess it is mostly just looking forward to what this class will have in store for us. It will hopefully be an enjoyable experience. This is a pretty short post overall since this is like the fourth time I've done a "First" flight.