SourceForge versus the Export Laws

A news flurry has erupted over SourceForge’s policy denying access to users in nations sanctioned by US export law.  A blog states that The Obama administration insisted that Sourceforge adopt this policy — though the restriction in Sourceforge’s terms of service has already been in place for many years.  Sourceforge, of course, is caught in the cross-fire between US export regulation and the open source definition.  But statements that such a policy contravenes open source licenses are misguided — there are plenty of reasons why the rights granted under open source licenses may not be freely exerciseable: regulatory law, trademark law, patent law to name a few.  Those who are complaining about Sourceforge’s actions are probably unaware of the regulations that apply to software, and that they used to be far more egregious before they were revised in the early 1990s.  But the kerfuffle points up that the regulatory policy of the US is counterintuitive and awkward to apply to software.  It strains belief that any nefarious actor would be truly thwarted by a technical limitation on downloading code to a certain location.
The language of Sourceforge’s terms of use is standard in the on-line content industry, and if you read to the end, in almost every on line terms of service and end user license. 

Bruce Perens on the Busybox Case

Bruce Perens, the original author of BusyBox, commented in his blog about the recent wave of enforcement cases from SFLC.  Perens was the original author of Busybox.  The utility has morphed over the years, and the current authors claim Perens no longer has any copyright interest in it because none of his original code is in the code base — which Perens disputes.  Perens is not party to the recent suits.

This points up a significant legal issue lurking in open source enforcement — the question of whether open source programs are joint works or multiple works of authorship.  Rights in joint works can be enforced only with all the authors’ participation, whereas a quilt of individual works can be enforced by individual authors separately.  This means serious potential problems for a defendant who must settle with a series of claimants rather than a single joint author group. 

Also, even if no original code exists in a modified work, it can still be a derivative work, as every copyright lawyer knows.  (Consider, for instance, a port into another language, or a rewrite using the identical structure, sequence, and organization.)

FSF generally takes the position that GPL covers an entire program as a single copyrightable work — if not, then its position on linking creating a single executable work would fall into question.  But this position may contradict the idea that a program is a combination of multiple works, each of whose author has a separate right of action.   This issue will likely become crucial one day in a GPL suit.

Please see my previous entry for the facts concerning the suits that were filed.

Test your knowledge of open source licensing

For entertainment value only — no wagering!  

 

1. Rank these licenses in order of their restrictiveness.

□        LGPL

□        CDDL

□        BSD

□        GPL

□        Affero GPL

□        Artistic

 

2. Which of these licenses has/have explicit patent grants?

□        GPL version 2

□        GPL version 3

□        Artistic

□        Apache 2.0

 

3. Which of the following Creative Commons licenses is most similar to GPL?

□        Attribution (“By”)

□        Attribution No-Derivs

□        Attribution Sharealike

 

4. Which of the following is/are a permissive (i.e. not copyleft or “viral”) license?

□        GPL

□        Artistic

□        Apache 2.0

□        Python Software License

 

5. Which of the following legal issues is least important to open source?

□        Implied patent licenses

□        Bare licenses

□        Abstraction, filtration and comparison test

□        Online contract formation defenses

□        Limits to enforceability of warranty disclaimers

□        Licensee estoppel and the Medimmune case

 

6. “One of these things is not like the others.”  Which one?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. Fill in the blank

 

IBM Public License, ______________, Eclipse Public License

 

8. Which of the following computer languages allows a programmer to elect static linking?

 

□        PERL

□        Java

□        C++

□        HTML

□        BASIC

 

9. Which of the following computer languages are compiled languages?

 

□        PERL

□        Java

□        C++

□        HTML

□        BASIC

 

10. Fill in the blanks:

 

GNU Tools: Linux Kernel

__________: Microsoft Visual BASIC Macro 

 

Windows GUI: Windows Operating System

____________: Linux kernel