02C-SameIdeaDifferentLicenseModelsInc.tex

% Telekom osCompendium 'for being included' snippet template
%
% (c) Karsten Reincke, Deutsche Telekom AG, Darmstadt 2011
%
% This LaTeX-File is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
% 3.0 Germany License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/): Feel
% free 'to share (to copy, distribute and transmit)' or 'to remix (to adapt)'
% it, if you '... distribute the resulting work under the same or similar
% license to this one' and if you respect how 'you must attribute the work in
% the manner specified by the author ...':
%
% In an internet based reuse please link the reused parts to www.telekom.com and
% mention the original authors and Deutsche Telekom AG in a suitable manner. In
% a paper-like reuse please insert a short hint to www.telekom.com and to the
% original authors and Deutsche Telekom AG into your preface. For normal
% quotations please use the scientific standard to cite.
%
% [ Framework derived from 'mind your Scholar Research Framework' 
%   mycsrf (c) K. Reincke 2012 CC BY 3.0  http://mycsrf.fodina.de/ ]
%

\chapter{Open Source: The Same Idea, Different Licenses}\label{sec:LicenseTaxonomies}

%% use all entries of the bibliography
%\nocite{*}
\footnotesize \begin{quote}\itshape This chapter describes different license
models which follow the common idea of free open source software. We want to
discuss existing ways of grouping licenses to underline the limits of building
such clusters: These groups are often used as `virtual prototypical licenses'
which are supposed to provide simplified conditions for acting according to
the respective real license instances. But one has to meet the requirements of a
specific license, not one's own generalized idea of a set of licenses.
Nonetheless, we, too,  offer a new way of structuring the world of the open
source licenses. We will use a novel set of grouping criteria by referring
to the common intended purpose of licenses: each license is designed to protect
something or someone against something or someone. Following this pattern, we
can indeed summarize all Open Source Licenses in a comparable way.
\end{quote}
\normalsize{}

Grouping open source licenses\footnote{Talking about licenses is sometimes a bit
tricky: Normally, they have a longer official name and a well known, often
abbreviating inofficial nickname. But that's not enough for talking about a
specific license adequately: one has additionally to refer to the version of the
license itself. The Linux Foundation offers a set of normalized names and
identifiers, to minimize the confusion how to denote a license correctly
(\cite[cf.][\nopage wp]{LinuxFounSpdxList2014a}). The OSLiC tries to use these
SPDX identifiers as far as possible. But sometimes the OSLiC wants to group
specific licenses by their authors without discriminating the release numbers.
Then, the OSLiC uses prefixes of the SPDX.} is commonly done.
Even the set of the \emph{open source li\-cen\-ses}\footcite[cf.][\nopage
wp]{OSI2012b} itself is already a cluster being established by a set of grouping
criteria: The \enquote{distribution terms} of each software license that intends
to become an open source license \enquote{[\ldots] must comply with the [\ldots]
criteria} of the \emph{Open Source De\-fi\-ni\-tion,}\footcite[cf.][\nopage
wp]{OSI2012a} maintained by the \emph{Open Source
Initiative}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{OSI2012c} and often abbreviated as
\emph{OSD}. So, this \emph{OSD} demarcates `the group of [potential] open source
licenses' against `the group of not open sources licenses.'\footnote{More
precisely: meeting the OSD is only a necessary condition for becoming an
\emph{open source license}. The sufficient condition for becoming an \emph{open
source license} is the approval by the OSI, which offers a process for the
official approval of \emph{open source license} (\cite[cf.][\nopage
wp]{OSI2012d}).}

Another way to cluster the \emph{Free Software Licenses} is specified by the
\enquote{Free Software Definition.} This \emph{FSD} contains four conditions
which must be met by any free software license: any FSD compliant license must
grant \enquote{the freedom to run a program, for any purpose [\ldots]},
\enquote{the freedom to study how it works, and adapt it to (one's) needs
[\ldots]}, \enquote{the freedom to redistribute copies [\ldots]}, and finally
\enquote{the freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements
[\ldots]}\footcite[cf.][41]{Stallman1996a} Surprisingly this definition
implies that the requirement \emph{the sourcecode must be openly accessible}
is `only' a derived condition. If the \enquote{freedom to make changes and the
freedom to publish improved versions} shall be \enquote{meaningful}, then the
\enquote{access to the source code of the program} is a prerequisite.
\enquote{Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary condition for
free software.}\footcite[cf.][41]{Stallman1996a}

The difference between the OSD and the FSD has often been described as a
difference of emphasis:%
  \footnote{This is also the viewpoint of Richard M. Stallman: 
  On the one hand, he clearly states that the \enquote{Free Software
  movement} and the \enquote{open source movement} generally \enquote{[\ldots]
  disagree on the basic principles, but agree more or less on the practical
  recommendations} and that he \enquote{[\ldots] (does) not think of the open
  source movement as an enemy}.  On the other hand, he delineates the two
  movements by stating that \enquote{for the open source movement, the issue of
  whether software should be open source is a practical question, not an ethical
  one}, while \enquote{for the Free Software movement, non-free software is a
  social problem and free software is the solution}
  (\cite[cf.][55]{Stallman1998a}). \label{RmsFsPriority} Consequently, Richard
  M. Stallman summarizes the positions in a simple way: \enquote{[\ldots] `open
  source' was designed not to raise [\ldots] the point that users deserve
  freedom}. But he and his friends want \enquote{to spread the idea of freedom}
  and therefore \enquote{[\ldots] stick to the term `free software'}
  (\cite[][59]{Stallman1998a}). For a brush-up of this position, expressing
  again that \enquote{(o)pen source is a development methodology [and that] free
  software is a social movement} with an \enquote{ethical imparative}
  \cite[cf.][31]{Stallman2009a} }
Although both definitions \enquote{[\ldots]
(cover) almost exactly the same range of software}, the \emph{Free Software
Foundation}---as it is said---\enquote{prefers [\ldots] (to emphazise) the
idea of freedom [\ldots]} while the \emph{OSI} wants to underline the
philosophically indifferent \enquote{development methodology.}\footcite[pars pro
toto: cf.][232]{Fogel2006a}

A third method to group of free software and free software licenses is specified
by the \enquote{Debian Free Software Guideline}, which is embedded into the
\enquote{Debian Social Contract}. This \enquote{DFSG} contains nine defining
criteria, which---as Debian itself says---have been \enquote{[\ldots] adopted
by the free[sic!] software community as the basis of the Open Source
Definition.}\footcite[cf.][wp]{DFSG2013a}

A rough understanding of these methods might result in the conclusion that these
three definitions are extensionally equal and only differ intensionally.
But that is not true. To unveil the differences, let us compare the clusters
\emph{OSI approved licenses}, \emph{OSD compliant licenses}, \emph{DFSG
compliant licenses}, and \emph{FSD compliant licenses} extensionally, by asking
whether they \emph{could} establish different sets of licenses.\footnote{Indeed,
for analyzing the extensional power of the definition we have to regard all
potentially covered licenses, not only the already existing licenses, because
the subset of really existing licenses still could be expanded be developing new
licenses which fit the definition.}

First, the difference most easy to determine is that of an unidirectional
inclusion: By definition, the \emph{OSI approved licenses} and the \emph{OSD
compliant licenses} meet the requirements of the OSD.\footcite[cf.][\nopage
wp]{OSI2012a} But only the \emph{OSI approved licenses} have successfully
passed the OSI process\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{OSI2012a} and therefore are
officially listed as \emph{open source licenses.}\footcite[cf.][\nopage
wp]{OSI2012b}
% TODO: what does this mean? 
Hence, on the one hand, \emph{OSI approved licenses} are
\emph{open source licenses} and vice versa. On the other hand, both---the
\emph{OSI approved licenses} and the \emph{open source licenses}---are
\emph{OSD compliant licenses}, but not vice versa.

Second, a similar argumentation allows us to distinguish the \emph{DFSG compliant
licenses} from the \emph{OSI approved licenses}. As it is stated, the OSD
\enquote{[\ldots] is based on the Debian Free Software Guideline and any
license that meets one definition almost meets the
other.}\footcite[cf.][233]{Fogel2006a} But then again, meeting the definition is
not enough for being an official open source license: the license has to be
approved by the OSI.\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{OSI2012b} Thus, it follows that
all \emph{OSI approved licenses} are also \emph{DFSG compliant licenses}, but
not vice versa.

Third, by ignoring the \enquote{few exceptions} which have appeared
\enquote{over the years,}\footcite[cf.][233]{Fogel2006a} it can be said that,
because of their `kinsmanlike' relation, at least the \emph{OSD compliant
licenses} are also \emph{DFSG compliant licenses} and vice versa.

Last but not least, it must be stated that the (potential) set of free software
licenses must be greater than all the other three sets: On the one side, the FSD
requires that a license of free software must not only allow to read the
software, but must also permit to use, to modify, and to distribute
it.\footcite[cf.][41]{Stallman1996a} These conditions are covered by at least
the first three paragraphs of the OSD concerning the topics \enquote{Free
Redistribution,} \enquote{Source Code,} and \enquote{Derived
Works.}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{OSI2012a} On the other side, the OSD contains
at least some requirements which are not mentioned by the FSD and which
nevertheless must be met by a license in order to be qualified as an OSD
compliant license.\footnote{For example, see the condition that \enquote{the
license must be technology-neutral} (\cite[cf.][\nopage wp]{OSI2012a}).} It
follows then that there may exist licenses which fulfill all conditions of the
FSD and nevertheless do not fulfill at least some conditions of the
OSD.\footnote{Again: we must consider the extensional potential of the
definitions, not the set of really existing licenses. In this context, it is
irrelevant that actually all existing Free Software Licenses like GPL, LGPL or
AGPL indeed are also classfied as open source licenses. We are referring to the
fact that there might be generated licenses which fulfill the FSD, but not the
OSD.} So, the set of all (potential) \emph{Free Software Licenses} must be
greater than the set of all (potential) \emph{open source licenses} and greater
than the set of \emph{OSD compliant licenses}.

All in all, we can visualize the situation as follows:

\begin{center}

\begin{tikzpicture}
\label{LICTAX}
\small

\node[ellipse,minimum height=5.8cm,minimum width=11.6cm,draw,fill=gray!10] (l0210) at (5,5)
{ };

\draw [-,dotted,line width=0pt,white,
    decoration={text along path,
              text align={center},
              text={|\itshape|All Software Licenses}},
              postaction={decorate}] (0,6.1) arc (120:60:10cm);

\node[ellipse,minimum height=4.4cm,minimum width=10cm,draw,fill=gray!20] (l0210) at (5,5)
{ };

\draw [-,dotted,line width=0pt,white,
    decoration={text along path,
              text align={center},
              text={|\itshape|FSD Compliant Licenses}},
              postaction={decorate}] (0,5.4) arc (120:60:10cm);
              

\node[ellipse,minimum height=3cm,minimum width=8.4cm,draw,fill=gray!30] (l0210) at (5,5)
{ };


             
\draw [-,dotted,line width=0pt,white,
    decoration={text along path,
              text align={center},
              text={|\itshape|OSD Compliant Licenses}},
              postaction={decorate}] (0,4.7) arc (120:60:10cm);
              
\draw [-,dotted,line width=0pt,white,
    decoration={text along path,
              text align={center},
              text={|\itshape|DFSG Compliant Licenses}},
              postaction={decorate}] (0,5) arc (240:300:10cm);
          

\node[ellipse,text width=4.4cm, text centered,minimum height=1.6cm,minimum width=6cm,draw,fill=gray!40] (l0210) at (5,5)
{ \textit{OSI approved licenses} = \\ \textit{\textbf{open source licenses}}
};

\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}

It should be clear without longer explanations that these clusters don't allow
to extrapolate to the correct compliant behaviour according to the \emph{open source
licenses}: On the one hand, all larger clusters do not talk about the \emph{open
source licenses}. On the other hand, the \emph{open source license cluster}
itself only collects its elements on the basis of the OSD which does not stipulate
concrete license fulfilling actions for the licensee.

The next level of clustering \emph{open source licenses} concerns the inner
structure of these \emph{OSI approved licenses}. Even the OSI itself has recently
discussed whether a different way of grouping the listed licenses would better fit
the needs of the visitors of the OSI site.\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{OSI2013a}
And finally the OSI came up with the categories \enquote{popular and widely used
(licenses) or with strong communities,} \enquote{special purpose licenses,}
\enquote{other/miscellaneous licenses,} \enquote{licenses that are redundant
with more popular licenses,} \enquote{non-reusable licenses,} \enquote{superseded
licenses,} \enquote{licenses that have been voluntarily retired,} and \enquote{
uncategorized licenses.}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{OSI2013b}

Another way to structure the field of open source licenses is to think in
\enquote{types of open source licenses} by grouping the \emph{academic
licenses}, \enquote{named as such because they were originally created by academic
institutions,}\footcite[cf.][69]{Rosen2005a} the \emph{reciprocal
licenses}, named as such because they \enquote{[\ldots] require the
distributors of derivative works to dis\-tri\-bu\-te those works under same
license including the requirement that the source code of those derivative works
be published,}\footcite[cf.][70]{Rosen2005a} the \emph{standard
licenses,} named as such because they refer to the reusability of
\enquote{industry standards,}\footcite[cf.][70]{Rosen2005a} and the
\emph{content licenses}, named as such because they refer to
\enquote{[\ldots] other than software, such as music art, film, literary works}
and so on.\footcite[cf.][71]{Rosen2005a}

Both kinds of taxonomies directly help to find the relevant licenses that should
be used for new (software) projects. But again: none of these categories 
allows us to infer license compliant behaviour, because the categories are
mostly defined based on license external criteria: whether a license is
published by a specific kind of organization or whether a license deals with
industry standards or other kind of works than software inherently does not
determine a license fulfilling behaviour.

Only the act of grouping into \emph{academic licenses} and 
\emph{reciprocal licenses} touches the idea of license fulfillment
tasks, if one---as it has been done---expands the definition of the  
\emph{academic licenses} by the specification that these licenses
\enquote{[\ldots] allow the software to be used for any purpose whatsoever with
no obligation on the part of the licensee to distribute the source code of
derivative works.}\footcite[cf.][71]{Rosen2005a} With respect to this additional
specification, the clusters \emph{academic licenses} and the
\emph{reciprocal licenses} indeed might be referred as the
\enquote{main categories} of (open source)
licenses:\footcite[cf.][179]{Rosen2005a} By definition, they are constituting
not only a contrary, but contradictory opposite. However, it must  be kept in
mind that they constitute an inherent antagonism, an antinomy inside of the set
of open source licenses.\footnote{Hence, it is at least a little confusing to say
that \enquote{the open source license (OSL) is a reciprocal license} and
\enquote{the Academic Free License (AFL) is the exact same license without the
reciprocity provisions} (\cite[cf.][180]{Rosen2005a}): If the BSD license is an
AFL and if an AFL is not an OSL and if the OSI approves only OSLs, then the BSD
license can not be an approved open source license. But in fact, it still is 
(\cite[cf.][\nopage wp]{OSI2012b}).}

Similiar in nature to the clustering into \emph{academic licenses} and 
\emph{reciprocal licenses} is the grouping into \emph{permissive licenses}, 
\emph{weak copyleft licenses}, and \emph{strong copyleft licenses}: 
Even Wikipedia uses the term \enquote{permissive free software licence} in the
meaning of \enquote{a class of free software licence[s] with minimal
requirements about how the software can be redistributed} and \enquote{contrasts}
them with the\enquote{copyleft licences} as those with \enquote{reciprocity%
\,/\,share-alike requirements.}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{wpPermLic2013a}

Some other authors name the set of \emph{academic licenses} the
\enquote{permissive licenses} and specify the \emph{reciprocal licenses} as
\enquote{restrictive licenses}, because in this case---as a consequence of the
embedded \enquote{copyleft} effect---the source code must be published in case
of modifications. They also introduce the subset of \enquote{strong
restrictive licenses} which additionally require that an (overarching)
derivative work must be published under the same license.\footcite[pars pro toto
cf.][57]{Buchtala2007a} The next refinement of such clustering concepts
directly uses the categories \enquote{[open source] licenses with a strict
copyleft clause,}\footcite[Originally stated as \enquote{Lizenzen mit einer
strengen Copyleft-Klausel.} Cf.][24]{JaeMet2011a} \enquote{[open source]
licenses with a restricted copyleft clause,}\footcite[Originally stated as
\enquote{Lizenzen mit einer beschränkten Copyleft-Klausel.}
Cf.][71]{JaeMet2011a} and \enquote{[open source] licenses without any copyleft
clause.}\footcite[Originally stated as \enquote{Lizenzen ohne Copyleft-Klausel.}
Cf.][83]{JaeMet2011a} Finally, this viewpoint can directly be mapped to the
categories \emph{strong copyleft} and \emph{weak copyleft:} While on the one
hand, \enquote{only changes to the weak-copylefted software itself become
subject to the copyleft provisions of such a license, [and] not changes to the
software that links to it}, on the other hand, the \enquote{strong copyleft}
states \enquote{[\ldots] that the copyleft provisions can be efficiently imposed
on all kinds of derived works.}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{wpCopyleft2013a}

Based on this approach to an adequate clustering and labeling,%
  \footnote{Finally, we should also mention that there exists still other
  classifications which might become important in other contexts. For example,
  the ifross license subsumes under the main category \enquote{Open Source
  Licenses} the subcategories \enquote{Licenses without Copyleft Effect,}
  \enquote{Licenses with Strong Copyleft,} \enquote{Licenses with Restricted
  Copyleft,} \enquote{Licenses with Restricted Choice,} or \enquote{Licenses
  with Privileges}---and lets finally denote these categories also licenses
  which are not listed by the OSI (\cite[cf.][\nopage wp]{ifross2011a}). This is
  reasonable if one refers to the meaning of the OSD (\cite[cf.][\nopage
  wp]{OSI2012a}). The \oslic{} wants to simplify its object of study by
  referring to the approved open source licenses (\cite[cf.][\nopage
    wp]{OSI2012d}) listed by the OSI (\cite[cf.][\nopage wp]{OSI2012b}).}
we can develop the following picture:

\begin{center}

\begin{tikzpicture}
\label{OSLICTAX}
\small



\node[ellipse,minimum height=8.5cm,minimum width=14cm,draw,fill=gray!10] (l0100) at (6.8,6.8)
{  };

\draw [-,dotted,line width=0pt,white,
    decoration={text along path,
              text align={center},
              text={|\itshape| OSI approved licenses}},
              postaction={decorate}] (-0.8,6.5) arc (142:38:9.5cm);

\draw [-,dotted,line width=0pt,white,
    decoration={text along path,
              text align={center},
              text={|\itshape|open source licenses}},
              postaction={decorate}] (-0.8,6.5) arc (218:322:9.5cm);
              
\node[ellipse,minimum height=6.2cm,minimum width=4cm,draw,fill=gray!20] (l0100) at (2.75,6.8)
{  };

\draw [-,dotted,line width=0pt,white,
    decoration={text along path,
              text align={center},
              text={|\itshape| permissive licenses}},
              postaction={decorate}] (0.9,7.4) arc (180:0:1.8cm);

\node[rectangle,draw,text width=1.3cm, text height=0.36cm, fill=gray!40, text
centered] (l0101) at (1.9,7.7) { \footnotesize  \textit{Apache-2.0}};
\node[rectangle,draw,text width=1.3cm, text height=0.36cm, fill=gray!40, text
centered] (l0102) at (3.6,7.7) { \footnotesize  \textit{BSD-X-Clause}};
\node[rectangle,draw,text width=1.3cm, text height=0.36cm, fill=gray!40, text
centered] (l0103) at (1.9,6.7) {  \footnotesize  \textit{MIT}};
\node[rectangle,draw,text width=1.3cm, text height=0.36cm, fill=gray!40, text
centered] (l0104) at (3.6,6.7) {  \footnotesize  \textit{MS-PL}};
\node[rectangle,draw,text width=1.3cm, text height=0.36cm, fill=gray!40, text
centered] (l0105) at (1.9,5.7) {  \footnotesize  \textit{Post-greSQL}};
\node[rectangle,draw,text width=1.3cm, text height=0.36cm, fill=gray!40, text
centered] (l0106) at (3.6,5.7) {  \footnotesize  \textit{PHP-3.X}};

\node[ellipse,minimum height=6cm,minimum width=8.5cm,draw,fill=gray!20] (l0200) at (9.2,6.5)
{  };

\draw [-,dotted,line width=0pt,white,
    decoration={text along path,
              text align={center},
              text={|\itshape| copyleft licenses}},
              postaction={decorate}] (7.5,8.5) arc (120:60:4cm);


\node[ellipse,minimum height=4.5cm,minimum width=4.2cm,draw,fill=gray!30] (l0210) at (7.45,6.5)
{  };

\draw [-,dotted,line width=0pt,white,
    decoration={text along path,
              text align={center},
              text={|\itshape| weak copyleft licenses}},
              postaction={decorate}] (5.4,6.2) arc (180:0:2cm);

\node[rectangle,draw,text width=1.2cm, text height=0.36cm, fill=gray!40, text
centered] (l0211) at (6.7,6.9) {  \footnotesize  \textit{EPL-1.X}};
\node[rectangle,draw,text width=1.2cm, text height=0.36cm, fill=gray!40, text
centered] (l0212) at (8.2,6.9) {  \footnotesize  \textit{EUPL-1.X}};
\node[rectangle,draw,text width=1.2cm, text height=0.36cm, fill=gray!40, text
centered] (l0213) at (6.7,5.7) {  \footnotesize  \textit{LGPL-Y.Y}};
\node[rectangle,draw,text width=1.2cm, text height=0.36cm, fill=gray!40, text
centered] (l0214) at (8.2,5.7) {  \footnotesize  \textit{MPL-X.Y}};

\node[ellipse,minimum height=4.5cm,minimum width=3cm,draw,fill=gray!30] (l0220) at (11.4,6.5)
{  };
 
% line width=0pt,white,
\draw [-,dotted,line width=0pt,white,
    decoration={text along path,
              text align={center},
              text={|\itshape| strong copyleft}},
              postaction={decorate}] (10.4,7) arc (180:0:1cm);

\draw [-,dotted,line width=0pt,white,
    decoration={text along path,
              text align={center},
              text={|\itshape| licenses}},
              postaction={decorate}] (10.4,5.4) arc (180:360:1cm);        

\node[rectangle,draw,text width=1.2cm, text height=0.36cm, fill=gray!40, text
centered] (l0221) at (11.4,6.8) {  \footnotesize  \textit{GPL-X.Y}};
\node[rectangle,draw,text width=1.2cm, text height=0.36cm, fill=gray!40, text
centered] (l0222) at (11.4,5.6) {  \footnotesize \textit{AGPL-3.X}};


\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}

This extensionally based clarification of a possible open source license
taxonomy is probably well-known and often---more or less explicitly---%
referred to.\footnote{Even the FSF itself uses the term `permissive non-copyleft
free software license' (\cite[pars pro toto: cf.][\nopage wp/section `Original BSD
license']{FsfLicenseList2013a}) and contrasts it with the terms `weak copyleft'
and `strong copyleft' (\cite[pars pro toto: cf.][\nopage wp/section `European
Union Public License']{FsfLicenseList2013a})} Unfortunately, this taxonomy
still contains some misleading underlying messages:

\emph{Permissive} has a very positive connotation. So, the antinomy of
\emph{permissive licenses} versus \emph{copyleft licenses} implicitly signals,
that the \emph{permissive licenses} are in some sense better than the
\emph{copyleft licenses}. Naturally, this `conclusion' is evoked by
confusing the extensional definition and the intensional power of the labels.
But that is the way we---the human beings---like to think. 

Anyway, this underlying message is not necessarily `wrong.' It might be
convenient for those people or companies who only want to use open source
software without being restricted by the \emph{obligation to give something
back} as it has been introduced by the `copyleft.'\footnote{De facto,
\emph{copyleft} is not \emph{copyleft}. Apart from the definition, its effect
depends on the par\-ti\-cu\-ar licenses which determine the conditions for
applying the copyleft `method.' For example, in the GPL, the copyleft effect is
bound to the criteria of `being distributed.' Later on, we will collect these
conditions systematically (see chapter \emph{\nameref{sec:OSUCdeduction}}, pp.\
\pageref{sec:OSUCdeduction}). Therefore, here we still permit ourselves to use a
somewhat `generalizing' mode of speaking.} But there might be other people and
companies who emphasize the protecting effect of the copyleft licenses. And,
indeed, at least the open source license\footnote{Although RMS naturally prefers
to call it a \emph{Free Software License} (s. p.\ \pageref{RmsFsPriority})
} \emph{GPL}\footnote{As the original source \cite[cf.][\nopage
wp]{Gpl20FsfLicense1991a}. Inside of the \oslic, we constantly refer to the
license versions which are published by the OSI, because we are dealing with
officially approved open source licenses. For the `OSI-GPL' \cite[cf.][\nopage
wp]{Gpl20OsiLicense1991a}} has initially been developed to protect the freedom,
to enable the developers to help their \enquote{neighbours}, and to get the
modifications back:%
  \footnote{The history of the GNU project is multiply told. For
  the GNU project and its initiator \cite[cf.\ pars pro toto][\nopage
  passim]{Williams2002a}. For a broader survey \cite[cf.\ pars pro toto][\nopage
  passim]{Moody2001a}. A very short version is delivered by Richard M. Stallman
  himself where he states that---in the years when the early free community was
  destroyed---he saw the \enquote{nondisclosure agreement} which must be signed ,
  \enquote{[\ldots] even to get an executable copy} as a clear \enquote{[\ldots]
  promise not to help your neighbour}: \enquote{A cooperating community was
  forbidden.} (\cite[cf.][16]{Stallman1999a}).}
So, \enquote{Copyleft} is defined
as a \enquote{[\ldots] method for making a program free software and requiring
all modified and extended versions of the program to be free software as
well.}\footcite[cf.][89]{Stallman1996c} It is a method\footnote{Based on the
American legal copyright system, this method uses two steps: first one states,
\enquote{[\ldots] that it is copyrighted [\ldots]} and second one adds those
\enquote{[\ldots] distribution terms, which are a legal instrument that gives
everyone the rights to use, modify, and redistribute the program's code or any
program derived from it but only if the distribution terms are unchanged}
(\cite[cf.][89]{Stallman1996c}).} by which \enquote{[\ldots] the code and the
freedoms become legally inseparable}.\footcite[cf.][89]{Stallman1996c} Because
of these disparate interests of hoping not to be restricted and hoping to be
protected, it could be helpful to find a better label---an impartial name for
the cluster of \emph{permissive licenses}. But until that time, we should at
least know that this taxonomy still contains an underlying declassing message.

The other misleading interpretation is---counter-intuitively---prompted by using
the concept of `copyleft licenses.' By referring to a cluster of \emph{copyleft
licenses} as the opposite of the \emph{permissive licenses}, one implicitly also
sends two messages: First, that republishing one's own modifications is
sufficient to comply with the \emph{copyleft licenses}. And, second, that the
\emph{permissive licenses} do not require anything to be done for obtaining the
right to use the software. Even if one does not wish to evoke such an
interpretation, we---the human beings---tend to take the things as simple as
possible.\footnote{And indeed, in the experience of the authors sometimes
such simplifications gain their independent existence and determine decisions at
the management level. But that is not the fault of the managers. It is their
job to aggregate, generalize and simplify information. It is the job of the
experts to offer better viewpoints without overwhelming the others with
details.} But because of several aspects, this understanding of the antinomy of
\emph{copyleft licenses} and \emph{permissive licenses} is too misleading for
taking it as a serious generalization:

On the one hand, even the `strongly copylefted' GPL imposes other obligations
in addtion to republishing derivative works. For example, it also requires
giving \enquote{[\ldots] any other recipients of the [GPL licensed] Program a
copy of this License along with the Program.}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp.\
§1]{Gpl20OsiLicense1991a} Furthermore, the `weakly copylefted' licenses require
also more and different criteria to be fulfilled for acting in accordance with
these licenses. For example, the EUPL requires that the licensor, who does not
directly deliver the binaries together with the sourcecode, must offer a
sourcecode version of his work free of charge,\footnote{The German version of the
EUPL uses the phrase \enquote{problemlos und unentgeltlich(sic!) auf den
Quellcode (zugreifen können)} (\cite[cf.][3, section 3]{EuplLicense2007de})
while the English version contains the specification \enquote{the Source Code is
easily and freely accessible} (\cite[cf.][2, section 3]{EuplLicense2007en})}
while the MPL requires that under the same circumstances a recipient
\enquote{[\ldots] can obtain a copy of such Source Code Form [\ldots] at a
charge no more than the cost of distribution to the recipient
[\ldots]}\footcite[cf.][\nopage section 3.2.a]{Mpl20OsiLicense2013a}
And last but not least, also the \emph{permissive licenses} require tasks 
to be fulfilled for a license compliant usage---moreover, they also require
different things. For example, the BSD license demands that \enquote{the
(re)distributions [\ldots] must (retain [and/or]) reproduce the above copyright
notice [\ldots]}. Because of the structure of the \enquote{copyright notice},
this compulsory notice implies that the authors / copyright holders of the
software must be publicly named.\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{BsdLicense2Clause} As
opposed to this, the Apache License requires that \enquote{if the Work includes
a \enquote{NOTICE} text file as part of its distribution, then any Derivative Works that
You distribute must include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained
within such NOTICE file} which often means that you have to present central
parts of such files publicly\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp.\ section
4.4]{Apl20OsiLicense2004a}---parts which can contain much more information than
only the names of the authors or copyright holders.

So, no doubt---and contrary to the intuitive interpretation of this taxonomy---%
each \emph{open source license} must be fulfilled by some actions, even the most
permissive one. And for ascertaining these tasks, one has to look into these
licenses themselves, not the generalized concepts of licenses taxonomies. Hence
again, we have to state that even this well known type of grouping of \emph{open
source licenses} does not allow to derive a specific license compliant behavior:
The taxonomy might be appropriate, if one wants to live with the implicit
messages and generalizations of some of its concepts. But the taxonomy is not an
adequate tool to determine, what one has to do for fulfilling an \emph{open
source license}. A license compliant behaviour for obtaining the right to use a
specific piece of \emph{open source software} must be based on the concrete
\emph{open source license} by which the licensor has licensed the software.
There is no shortcut.

Nevertheless, human beings need generalizing and structuring viewpoints for
enabling themselves to talk about a domain---even if they finally have to
regard the single objects of the domain for specific purposes. We think that
there is a subtler method to regard and to structure the domain of \emph{open
source licenses}. So, we want to offer this other possibility to cluster the
\emph{open source licenses}:\footnote{even if we also have to concede that,
ultimately, one has to always look into the license itself}

We think that, in general, licenses have a common purpose: they should protect
someone or something against something. The structure of this task is based on
the nature of the word `protect' which is a trivalent verb: it links someone or
something who protects, to someone or something who is protected and both
combined to something against which the protector protects and against the other
one is protected. Licenses in general do that. Moreover, to \enquote{protect}
the \enquote{rights} of the licensees is explicitly mentioned in the
GPL-2.0,\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp. Preamble]{Gpl20OsiLicense1991a} in the
LGPL-2.1,\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp. Preamble]{Lgpl21OsiLicense1999a} and the
GPL-3.0\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp. Preamble]{Gpl30OsiLicense2007a}---by which the
LGPL-3.0 inherits this purpose.\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp.
prefix]{Lgpl30OsiLicense2007a} Following this viewpoint, we want to generally
assume that open source licenses are designed to protect: They can protect
the user (recipient) of the software, its contributor resp.\ developer and/or
distributor, and the software itself. And they can protect them against
different threats:

\begin{itemize}
  \item First, we assume, that---in the context of open source software---the
  user can be protected against the loss of the right to use it, to modify it,
  and to redistribute it. Additionally, he can be protected against patent
  disputes.
  \item Second, we assume, that open source contributors and distributors can be
  protected against the loss of feedback in the form of code improvements and
  derivatives, against warranty claims, and against patent disputes.
  \item Third, we assume, that the open source programs and their specific forms%
  ---may they be distributed or not, may they be modified or not, may they be
  distributed as binaries or as sources---can be protected against the
  re-closing resp. against the re-privatization of their further development.
  \item Fourth, we want to assume that new on-top developments being based on
  open source components can be protected against the privatization for enlarging
  the world of freely usable software.\footnote{In a more rigid version, this
  capability of a license could also be identified as the power to protect the
  community against a stagnation of the set of open source software---but this
  description is at least a little to long to be used by the following pages}
\end{itemize}

With respect to these viewpoints, one gets a subtler picture of the license
specific protecting power. Thus, we are going to describe and deduce the
protecting power of each of the open source licenses on the following pages.
Table \ref{tab:powerOfLicenses} summarizes the results as a quick
reference.\footnote{$\rightarrow$ table \ref{tab:powerOfLicenses} on p.\
\pageref{tab:powerOfLicenses}. In February 2014, the Black Duck list of the
\enquote{Top 20 Open Source Licenses} additionally mentions the Artistic License
(AL), the Code Open Project License, the Common Public License, the zlib/png
License, the Academic Free License (AFL), the Microsoft Reciprocal License
(MS-RL) and the Open Software License (OSL) (\cite[cf.][\nopage
wp.]{wpBlackDuck2014a}). The Code Open Project License and Common Public License
are still not OSI approved open source licenses. (\cite[cf.][\nopage
wp.]{OSI2012b}). Thus, finally the OSLiC should additionally analyze not only
the AGPL and the CDDL, but also the AL, the AFL, the MS-RL, the OSL and the
zlib/png License for being able to justiufiably say, that the OSLiC covers the
most important open source licenses.
}

\begin{table}
\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
\centering
\footnotesize
\caption{Open Source Licenses as Protectors}
\label{tab:powerOfLicenses}

\begin{tabular}{|c|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
  \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textit{Open}} &
  \multicolumn{13}{c|}{\textit{are protecting}}\\
\cline{3-15}
  \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textit{Source}} &
  \multicolumn{4}{c|}{ \textbf{Users}} &
  \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{Contributors}} &
  \multicolumn{5}{c|}{\textbf{Open Source Software}} &
  \multirow{4}{*}{\rotatebox{270}{\scriptsize{\textbf{On-Top Develop.\ }}}} 
  \\
\cline{10-14}
  \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textit{Licenses\footnote{'\checkmark' indicates that the
  license protects with respect to the meaning of the column, `$\neg$' indicates
  that the license does not protect with regard to the meaning of the column,
  and `--' indicates, that the corresponding statement must still be evaluated.
  \textit{Slanted names of licenses} indicate that these licenses are only
  listed in this table while the corresponding mindmap ($\rightarrow$ p.\
  \pageref{OSCLICMM}) does not cover them }}} &
  \multicolumn{4}{c|}{} &
  \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\tiny{(Distributors)}} &  
  not &
  \multicolumn{4}{c|}{distributed as} 
  & \\
\cline{3-9}\cline{11-14}
  \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{} &
  \multicolumn{4}{c|}{\scriptsize{\textit{who have already got}}} &
  \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\scriptsize{\textit{who spread open}}} & 
  dis- &
  \multicolumn{2}{c|}{unmodified} &
  \multicolumn{2}{c|}{modified} 
  & \\
  \cline{11-14}
  \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{} &
  \multicolumn{4}{c|}{\scriptsize{\textit{sources or binaries}}} &
  \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\scriptsize{\textit{source software}}} & 
  \parbox[t]{1cm}{tri\-bu\-ted} & 
 \rotatebox{270}{\footnotesize{sources\ }} &
 \rotatebox{270}{\footnotesize{binaries\ }} &
 \rotatebox{270}{\footnotesize{sources\ }} &
 \rotatebox{270}{\footnotesize{binaries\ }} 
 & \\
\cline{3-15}
  \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{} &
  \multicolumn{13}{c|}{\textit{against}}\\
\cline{3-15}
  \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{} &
  \multicolumn{3}{c|}{the loss of} & 
  \multirow{3}{*}{\rotatebox{270}{Patent Disputes}} &
  \multirow{3}{*}{\rotatebox{270}{Loss of Feedback}} & 
  \multirow{3}{*}{\rotatebox{270}{Warranty Claims}} & 
  \multirow{3}{*}{\rotatebox{270}{Patent Disputes}} & 
  \multicolumn{5}{c|}{}
  & \\
% no seperator line 
  \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{} &
  \multicolumn{3}{c|}{the right to} &
  & & & &
  \multicolumn{5}{c|}{\footnotesize{Re-Closings / Re-Privatization}} &
  \multirow{3}{*}{\rotatebox{270}{Privatization}}
   \\
\cline{3-5}
  \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{} & 
  \rotatebox{270}{use it} & 
  \rotatebox{270}{modify it} & 
  \rotatebox{270}{redistribute it\ } &
  &  &  &  &
  \multicolumn{5}{c|}{of already opened software}
  & \\
\hline
\hline
  Apache & 2.0 & \checkmark  & \checkmark  & \checkmark  &
  \checkmark & $\neg$ & \checkmark & \checkmark & $\neg$ &
   \checkmark  & $\neg$ & \checkmark & $\neg$ & $\neg$ \\
\hline
  \multirow{2}{*}{BSD} & 3-Cl & \checkmark & \checkmark  & \checkmark  & 
    $\neg$ & $\neg$ & \checkmark & $\neg$  &
    $\neg$ & \checkmark  & $\neg$ & \checkmark & $\neg$ & $\neg$ \\
\cline{2-15}
   & 2-Cl & \checkmark  & \checkmark  & \checkmark  & 
    $\neg$ & $\neg$ & \checkmark & $\neg$  &
    $\neg$ & \checkmark  & $\neg$ & \checkmark & $\neg$ & $\neg$ \\
\hline
  MIT & ~ & \checkmark  & \checkmark  & \checkmark  &
  $\neg$ & $\neg$ & \checkmark & $\neg$ & $\neg$ &
   \checkmark  & $\neg$ & \checkmark & $\neg$ & $\neg$ \\
\hline
  MS-PL & ~ & \checkmark  & \checkmark  & \checkmark  &
  \checkmark & $\neg$ & \checkmark & \checkmark & $\neg$ &
   \checkmark  & $\neg$ & \checkmark & $\neg$ & $\neg$ \\
\hline
  PostgreSQL & ~ & \checkmark  & \checkmark  & \checkmark  &
  $\neg$ & $\neg$ & \checkmark & $\neg$ & $\neg$ &
   \checkmark  & $\neg$ & \checkmark & $\neg$ & $\neg$ \\
\hline
  PHP & 3.0 & \checkmark  & \checkmark  & \checkmark  &
  $\neg$ & $\neg$ & \checkmark & $\neg$ & $\neg$ &
   \checkmark  & $\neg$ & \checkmark & $\neg$ & $\neg$ \\
\hline
\hline
  \textit{CDDL} & 1.0 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark &
  -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- \\
\hline
  EPL & 1.0 & \checkmark  & \checkmark  & \checkmark  &
  \checkmark  & \checkmark  & \checkmark & \checkmark & $\neg$ &
   \checkmark  & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & $\neg$ \\
\hline
  EUPL & 1.1 & \checkmark  & \checkmark  & \checkmark  &
  \checkmark  & \checkmark  & \checkmark & \checkmark & $\neg$ &
   \checkmark  & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & $\neg$ \\
\hline
  \multirow{2}{*}{LGPL} & 2.1 & \checkmark  & \checkmark  & \checkmark  &
   $\neg$ & \checkmark  & \checkmark & $\neg$ & $\neg$ &
   \checkmark  & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & $\neg$ \\
\cline{2-15}
   & 3.0 & \checkmark  & \checkmark  & \checkmark  &
   \checkmark & \checkmark  & \checkmark & \checkmark & $\neg$ &
   \checkmark  & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & $\neg$ \\
\hline
  \multirow{3}{*}{MPL} & 1.0 & --  & --  & --  &
   -- & --  & -- & -- & -- &
   --  & -- & -- & -- & -- \\
\cline{2-15}
   & 1.1 & --  & --  & --  &
   -- & --  & -- & -- & -- &
   --  & -- & -- & -- & -- \\
\cline{2-15}
   & 2.0 & \checkmark  & \checkmark  & \checkmark  &
  \checkmark  & \checkmark  & \checkmark & \checkmark & $\neg$ &
   \checkmark  & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & $\neg$ \\
\hline
  \textit{MS-RL} & ~ & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark &
  -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- \\
\hline
\hline
  AGPL & 3.0 & \checkmark  & \checkmark  & \checkmark  &
   \checkmark & \checkmark  & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark &
   \checkmark  & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark \\
\hline
  \multirow{2}{*}{GPL} & 2.1 & \checkmark  & \checkmark  & \checkmark  &
   $\neg$ & \checkmark  & \checkmark & $\neg$ & $\neg$ &
   \checkmark  & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark \\
\cline{2-15}
  & 3.0 & \checkmark  & \checkmark  & \checkmark  &
   \checkmark & \checkmark  & \checkmark & \checkmark & $\neg$ &
   \checkmark  & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark \\
\hline
\hline

\end{tabular}

\end{minipage}
\end{table}

\section{\texorpdfstring{The protecting power of the}{The} GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL)}
\protectionlabel{AGPL}

[TODO...]

\section{\texorpdfstring{The protecting power of the}{The} Apache License
(Apache-2.0)}
\protectionlabel{APL}

As an approved \emph{open source license,}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{OSI2012b}
the Apache License%
  \footnote{The Apache License, version 2.0 is maintained by the
  Apache Software Foundation (\cite[cf.][\nopage wp]{AsfApacheLicense20a}).  Of
  course, the OSI is hosting a duplicate of the Apache license
  (\cite[cf.][\nopage wp]{Apl20OsiLicense2004a}) and is listing it as an
  officially approved open source license (\cite[cf.][\nopage wp]{OSI2012b}). The
  Apache license 1.1 is classified by the OSI as \enquote{superseded
  license}(\cite[cf.][\nopage wp]{OSI2013b}). In the same spirit, the Apache
  Software Foundation itself classifies the releases 1.0 and 1.1 as
  \enquote{historic} (\cite[cf.][\nopage wp]{AsfLicenses2013a}). Thus, the \oslic{}
  only focuses on the most recent license Apache-2.0 version. For those who have
  to fulfill these earlier Apache licenses it could be helpful to read them as siblings of
  the BSD-2-Clause and BSD-3-Clause licenses.}
protects the user against the loss of the
right to use, to modify and/or to distribute the received copy of the source
code or the binaries.\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp. §2]{Apl20OsiLicense2004a}
Furthermore, based on its patent clause,\footnote{$\rightarrow$ \oslic{} pp.\
\patentpageref{APL}} the Apache-2.0 protects the users against patent
disputes.\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp. §3]{Apl20OsiLicense2004a} Because of this
patent clause and the \enquote{disclaimer of warranty} together with the
\enquote{limitation of liability,} the Apache license also protects the
contributors and distributors against patent disputes and warranty
claims.\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp. §3, §7, §8]{Apl20OsiLicense2004a} Finally, the
Apache-2.0 protects the distributed sources themselves \emph{against} a change of the
license which would \emph{convert} the work \emph{to closed software}, because,
first, one \enquote{[\ldots] must give any other recipients of the Work or
Derivative Works a copy of (the Apache) license,} second, \enquote{in the Source
form of any Derivative Works that (one) distributes}, one has \enquote{[\ldots]
to retain [\ldots] all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices
[\ldots],} and third, one must \enquote{[\ldots] include a readable copy [\ldots
of the] NOTICE file} being supplied by the original package one has
received.\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp. §4]{Apl20OsiLicense2004a}

But the Apache License does not protect the contributors against the loss of
feedback because it does not `copyleft' the software: the Apache license does
not contain any sentence requiring that one has also to publish the source code.
In the same spirit, the Apache-2.0 does not protect the undistributed software or the
distributed binaries against re-closing (neither in unmodified nor in
modified form) because the Apache License allows to (re)distribute the
binaries without also supplying the sources---even if the binaries rest upon
sources modified by the distributor. Finally, the Apache-2.0 does not protect the
on-top developments against privatization.


\section{\texorpdfstring{The protecting power of the}{The} BSD licenses}
\protectionlabel{BSD}

As approved \emph{open source licenses,}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{OSI2012b} the
BSD Licenses%
  \footnote{BSD has to be resolved as \emph{Berkely Software Distribution}. 
  For details of the BSD license release and namings
  \cite[cf.][\nopage wp.\ editorial]{BsdLicense3Clause}} 
protect the user against
the loss of the right to use, to modify and/or to distribute the received copy
of the source code or the binaries.\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp. §1ff]{OSI2012a}
Additionally, they protect the contributors and/or distributors against warranty
claims of the software users, because these licenses contain a `No Warranty
Clause.'\footcite[one for all version cf.][\nopage wp]{BsdLicense2Clause} And
finally they protect the distributed sources against a change of the license
which closes the sources, because each modification and \enquote{redistributions
of [the] source code must retain the [\ldots] copyright notice, this list of
conditions and the [\ldots] disclaimer}:\footcite[cf.][\nopage
wp]{BsdLicense2Clause} Therefore it is incorrect to distribute BSD licensed
code under another license---regardless of whether it closes the sources or
not.%
  \footnote{In common sense based discussions you may have heard that BSD
  licenses allow to republish the work under another, an own license. Taking the
  words of the BSD License seriously that is not valid under all circumstances:
  Yes, it is true, you are not required to redistribute the sourcecode of a
  modified (derivative) work. You are allowed to modify a received version and to
  distribute the results only as binary code and to keep your improvements closed.
  But if you distribute the source code of your modifications, you have retain the
  licensing, because \enquote{Redistribution [\ldots] in source [\ldots], with or
  without modification, are permitted provided that [\ldots] (the) redistributions
  of source code [\ldots] retain the above copyright notice, this list of
  conditions and the following disclaimer} (\cite[cf.][\nopage
  wp]{BsdLicense2Clause})}

But the BSD Licenses protect neither the users nor the contributors
and/or distributors against patent disputes (because they do not contain any
patent clause). They do not protect the contributors against the loss of
feedback (because they do not `copyleft' the software). Moreover, they do not
protect the undistributed software or the distributed binaries against
re-closing---neither in unmodified nor in modified form---because they
allow to redistribute only the binaries without also supplying the source
code.\footnote{see both, the BSD-2-Clause License (\cite[cf.][\nopage
wp]{BsdLicense2Clause}), and the BSD-3Clause License (\cite[cf.][\nopage
wp]{BsdLicense3Clause})} Finally, the BSD licenses do not protect the on-top
developments against privatization.

\section{\texorpdfstring{The protecting power of the}{The} CDDL [tbd]}
\protectionlabel{CDDL}

As an approved \emph{open source license,}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{OSI2012b}
the Common Develop and Distribution License protects the user
against the loss of the right to use, to modify and/or to distribute the
received copy of the source code or the binaries\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp. 
§?]{Cddl10OsiLicense2004a}

[\ldots]

\section{\texorpdfstring{The protecting power of the}{The} Eclipse Public License (EPL)}
\protectionlabel{EPL}

As an approved \emph{open source license,}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{OSI2012b}
the Eclipse Public License%
  \footnote{The Eclipse Public License, version 1.0 is maintained by the Eclipse
  Software Foundation (\cite[cf.][\nopage wp]{Epl10EclipseFoundation2005a}).
  Of course, also the OSI is hosting a duplicate (\cite[cf.][\nopage
  wp]{Epl10OsiLicense2005a}).} 
protects the user against the loss of the right to use, to modify and/or to
distribute the received copy of the source code or the binaries\citeEPL{§2a}. 
Furthermore, based on its patent clause,\footnote{$\rightarrow$ \oslic{} 
pp.\ \patentpageref{EPL}} the EPL protects the users also against
patent disputes.\citeEPL{§2b \& §2c} Besides this patent clause, the EPL contains the
sections \enquote{no warranty} and \enquote{disclaimer of
liability.}\citeEPL{§5 \& §6} These three elements together protect the
contributors\,/\,distributors against patents disputes and warranty
claims. Finally, the EPL protects the distributed sources themselves
\emph{against} a change of the license which would \emph{reset} the work
\emph{as closed software}: First, the Eclipse Public Licenses requires that 
if a work---released under the EPL---\enquote{[\ldots] is made available in
source code form [\ldots] (then) it must be made available under this (EPL)
agreement, too} while this act of `making avalaible' \enquote{must} incorporate
a \enquote{copy} of the EPL into \enquote{each copy of the [distributed]
program} or program package.\citeEPL{§3} But in opposite to the permissive
licenses, the EPL does not only protect the distributed source code---regardless
whether it is modified or not. The EPL also protects the distributed modified or
unmodified binaries: The EPL allows each modifying \enquote{contributor} and
distributor \enquote{[\ldots] to distribute the Program in object code form
under (one's) own license agreement [\ldots]} provided this license clearly
states that the \enquote{source code for the Program is available} and where the
\enquote{licensees} can \enquote{[\ldots] obtain it in a reasonable manner on or
through a medium customarily used for software exchange.}\citeEPL{§3, esp. §3.b.iv}
Thus, one has to conclude that the EPL is a copyleft license.

But the Eclipse Public License is not a license with strong copyleft; the EPL
uses `only' a weak copyleft effect:%
  \footnote{Even if one can find contrary specifications in the
  internet. \cite[Pars pro toto cf.][\nopage wp]{ifross2011a}: This page is
  listing the EPL in the section \enquote{Other Licenses with strong Copyleft
  Effect}}
Indeed, the EPL says that for each EPL
licensed \enquote{program}---distributed in object form---a place must be made
known where one can get the corresponding source code.\citeEPL{§3, esp. §3.b.iv}
The term `Program' is defined as any \enquote{Contribution distributed in
accordance with [\ldots] (the EPL)} while the term `Contribution'
refers---besides other elements---to \enquote{changes to the Program, and
additions to the Program.}\citeEPL{§1} Unfortunately, this is a circular definition:
`Program' is defined by `Contribution'; and `Contribution' is defined by
`Program.' Nevertheless, one has to read the license benevolently.
Uncontroversial should be this: If one distributes any modified EPL licensed
program, library, module, or plugin, then one has to publish the modified source
code, too. If one \enquote{adds} some own plugins or additional libraries which
are used by an EPL licensed program (which on behalf of this use must have been
modified by adding [sic!] procedure calls) then one has to publish the code of
both parts: that of the program and that of the added elements. In this sense,
the EPL clearly protects the binaries against re-closings like other weak
copyleft using licenses. But if one distributes only an EPL licensed library
which is used as a component by another not EPL licensed on-top program, then
this library does not depend on the top development---provided that the library
itself does not call any (program) functions or procedures delivered by the
overarching on-top development. Hence, nothing is added to the library; and
hence, no other code than that of the library must be published. Therefore, the
EPL does not use the strong copyleft effect in the meaning of---for example --
the GPL.
 
\section{\texorpdfstring{The protecting power of the}{The} European Union Public License (EUPL)}
\protectionlabel{EUPL}

As an approved \emph{open source license,}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{OSI2012b}
the European Union Public License%
  \footnote{The European Union Public License, version 1.1 is maintained by the
  European Union and hosted under the label \enquote{Joinup} 
  (\cite[cf.][\nopage wp]{EuplLicense2007en}).  This EUPL has officially been
  translated into many languages, among others into German 
  (\cite[cf.][\nopage wp]{EuplLicense2007de}). Because of this multi lingual
  instances, the OSI does not offer its own version, but just a landing page
  linked to the lading page of the European host \enquote{Joinup} 
  (\cite[cf.][\nopage wp]{Eupl11OsiLicense2007a}).} 
protects the user against the loss of the right to use, to modify and/or to
distribute the received copy of the source code or the binaries.\citeEUPL{§2}
Furthermore, based on its patent clause\footnote{$\rightarrow$ \oslic{}
pp.\ \patentpageref{EUPL}}, the EUPL protects the users against
patent disputes.\citeEUPL{§2, at its end} Besides this patent clause, the EUPL
additionally contains a \enquote{Disclaimer of Warranty} and a
\enquote{Disclaimer of Liability.}\citeEUPL{§7 \& §8} These three elements
together protect the contributors\,/\,distributors against patents disputes and
warranty claims. Finally, the EUPL also protects the distributed sources against
a re-closing\,/\,re-privatization and the contributors against the loss of
feedback. This protection is based on two steps: First, the European Public
License contains a particular paragraph titled \enquote{Copyleft clause} which
stipulates that \enquote{copies of the Original Work or Derivative Works based
upon the Original Work} must be distributed \enquote{under the terms of (the
European Union Public) License.}\citeEUPL{§5} Second, the EUPL requires that
each licensee---as long as he \enquote{[\ldots] continues to distribute and/or
communicate the Work}---has also to \enquote{[\ldots] provide [\ldots] the
Source Code}, either directly or by \enquote{[\ldots] (indicating) 
a repository where this Source will be easily and freely available
[\ldots]}\citeEUPL{§5} This condition seems to be so important for the EUPL that
the license repeats its message: in another paragraph the EUPL requires again
that \enquote{if the Work is provided as Executable Code, the Licensor provides
in addition a machine-readable copy of the Source Code of the Work along with
each copy of the Work [\ldots] or indicates, in a notice [\ldots], a repository
where the Source Code is easily and freely accessible for as long as the
Licensor continues to distribute [\ldots] the Work.}\citeEUPL{§3} Based on 
the meaning of \enquote{Work} which is defined by the EUPL as \enquote{the
Original Work and/or its Derivative Works}\citeEUPL{§1} it must be concluded
that the EUPL is a copyleft license. 

But nevertheless, the European Union Public License is not a license with strong
copyleft: On the one hand, if one takes the core of the EUPL then the license
seems to protect not only the modifications of the original work against
re-closings and (re-)privatization, but also the on-top developments because
normally you have to publish the source code in both cases. Understood in this
way, the EUPL would be a `strong copyleft license.' But on the other hand, the
EUPL additionally contains a \enquote{Compatibility clause} stating that
\enquote{if the Licensee Distributes [\ldots] Derivative Works or copies thereof
based upon both the Original Work and another work licensed under a Compatible
Licence, this Distribution [\ldots] can be done under the terms of this
Compatible Licence}\citeEUPL{§5}---while the term \enquote{Compatible Licence}
is explicitly defined by a list of compatible licenses, for example the Eclipse
Public License.\citeEUPL{Appendix}. Based on this compatibility clause the
obligation to publish the code of an on-top development can be subverted: As
% RPD: futile???
first step, you could release a little, more or less futile on-top application
licensed under the Eclipse Public License%
  \footnote{Taking the license text very seriously, it is not even necessary
  that this little futile application must depend on the EUPL library by calling
  functions of EUPL library. The license text only says that \enquote{another
  [any other] work licensed under a Compatible Licence} can be distributed
  together with \enquote{derivative works}. By this wording, the license itself
  is establishing a contrast between the derivative work and the other
  work---what indicates that the other work has not necessarily also to be a
  derivative work.} 
which uses a library licensed under the EUPL. As second step, you add this `EUPL
library' which you now may also distribute under the EPL instead of retaining
the EUPL licensing. So, finally you obtain the same work under the Eclipse
Public License which is a weak copyleft license\footnote{$\rightarrow$ \oslic,
p.\ \protectionpageref{EPL}}. Hence the protection of the EUPL-1.1 is
not as comprehensive as one might assume on the basis of the license text
itself,%
  \footnote{This kind of specifiying the protective power of the EUPL is
  initially presented by the FSF (\cite[cf.][wp.\ section `European Union
  Public License']{FsfLicenseList2013a}). The EU answers that publishing such a
  trick will comprise its user in the eyes of the open source community
  (\cite[cf.][wp]{FsfEuplRecomment2013}). That is undoubtely true. But
  unfortunately, this argument does not close the hole in the protecting shield
  put up by the EUPL.}
it can at most be a weak copyleft license---even if the reader might get the
impression that the authors of the EUPL wished to write a strong copyleft
license. Howsoever, the EUPL license does not protect the on-top developments
against a privatization. 

\section{\texorpdfstring{The protecting power of the}{The} GNU General Public License (GPL)}
\protectionlabel{GPL}

The GNU General Public License---also known as GPL---is maintained and offered
by the Free Software Foundation and hosted as part of the well known
\enquote{GNU operating system homepage.}\footcite[cf.][\nopage
wp]{FsfGnuOsLicenses2011a} Currently, there are two versions of the GPL which
are classified as OSI approved open source licenses\footcite[cf.][\nopage
wp]{OSI2012b}, the GPL-2.0%
  \footnote{For the original version, offered by the FSF 
  \cite[cf.][\nopage wp]{Gpl20FsfLicense1991a}. For the version, offered by the 
  OSI \cite[cf.][\nopage wp]{Gpl20OsiLicense1991a}.}
and the GPL-3.0.
  \footnote{For the original version, offered by the FSF 
  \cite[cf.][\nopage wp]{Gpl30FsfLicense2007a}. For the version, offered by the
  OSI \cite[cf.][\nopage wp]{Gpl30OsiLicense2007a}.}
Although both versions of the GPL aim for the same results and the same spirit,
they differ with respect to textual and arguing structure. Therefore, it is
helpful to treat these two licenses separately.  

\subsection{GPL-2.0}
\protectionlabel{GPLa}

The protecting power of the GPL-2.0 can easily be determined: First, the license
allows the users of a received software to \enquote{copy and distribute}
unmodified \enquote{copies of the [\ldots] source code}\citeGPLtwo{§1} as well
as to \enquote{[\ldots] modify [\ldots] copies [\ldots] or any portion of it,
[\ldots] and (to) distribute such modifications [\ldots]}\citeGPLtwo{§2}---%
not only in the form of source code, but also in the form of
binaries.\citeGPLtwo{§3} Thus---and in accordance of being an approved
\emph{open source license}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{OSI2012b}---the GPL-2.0
protects the user against the loss of the right to use, to modify and/or to
distribute the received copy of the source code or the binaries. Second, it
protects the contributors against warranty claims\citeGPLtwo{§11, §12}
and---based on its copyleft effect\citeGPLtwo{§3}---also against the
loss of feedback. Third, the GPL-2.0 protects the source code itself in a nearly
complete mode against privatization: even if one initially distributes only the
binary version of a modification which one has generated (as a \enquote{work
based on the} original) by \enquote{copying} any {portion} of the original work
into this new derivative work,\citeGPLtwo{§2} then one has nevertheless to offer
a possibility to get the source code\citeGPLtwo{§4}---namely for \enquote{the
modified work as whole.}\citeGPLtwo{§3} This modified \enquote{work based on the
[original] Program} has to be read in a very broad sense; it \enquote{[\ldots]
means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to
say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with
modifications and/or translated into another language.}\citeGPLtwo{§0} Hence, in
the context of software distribution, the GPL-2.0 does not only protect the
software against re-privatization, but also possible on-top developments against
privatization. 

But the GPL-2.0 does not protect against patent disputes\footnote{$\rightarrow$
\oslic, p. \patentpageref{GPLa}}---neither the users, nor the
contributors or distributors---and it does not protect the (modified) software
which is not distributed against (re-)privatization.%
  \footnote{This is a `lack' in the GPL which the AGPL wants to close: you are
  indeed allowed to modify and install a GPL-2.0 licensed server software on
  your own machine for offering a service based on this modified software
  without being obliged to give your improvements back to the
  community. But---at least in Germany---this viewpoint seems to have to respect
  rigorous limits. Sometimes, it is said that even distributing software over
  the parts of a holding is already a distribution which---in the case of 
  GPL-2.0 licensed software---would evoke the obligation to distribute the
  source code, too. [IMPORTANT: citation still needed!]}

\subsection{GPL-3.0}
\protectionlabel{GPLb}

An important modification of the GPL-3.0 is evoked by the use of the new wording
to \enquote{propagate} or to \enquote{convey} a \enquote{covered work}: On the
one hand a \enquote{covered work} denotes \enquote{either the unmodified Program
or a work based on the Program}. This \enquote{work based on the Program} is
defined as a \enquote{modified version} of an \enquote{earlier} instance of the
program which has been derived from this earlier instance by \enquote{(copying
it) from or (adapting) all or part of it} in way other than exactly copying the
earlier instance.\citeGPLthree{§0} On the other hand, \enquote{to propagate a
work} denotes \enquote{copying, distribution (with or without modification),
making available to the public} and any other kind of treating the work
\enquote{[\ldots] except executing it on a computer or modifying a private
copy.}%
  \footnote{\cite[cf.][\nopage wp. §0]{Gpl30OsiLicense2007a}. The GPL 3.0 wants
  to cover the copyright systems of all countries of the world without dealing
  with their particular constraints directly. Therefore it generally states,
  that the meaning of the phrase \enquote{to propagate a work}---in the spirit
  of the FSF---is whatever the specific copyright system wants to be covered by
  these words, \enquote{[\ldots] except executing it on a computer or modifying
  a private copy}.}
Third, the GPL 3.0 specifies that to \enquote{convey} a work \enquote{[\ldots]
means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive
copies.}\citeGPLthree{§0} This specification shall later on help to clarify that
it is an act of distribution if the recipient himself actively copies or fetches
a program. 

Referring to this new wording, the GPL-3.0 allows as a \enquote{basic
permission} to \enquote{[\ldots] make, run and propagate covered works
[\ldots] without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in
force.}\citeGPLthree{§2} This might be read as \emph{anything is allowed without
any restrictions---provided there does not exist any rule which must be
respected}. Based on these specifications, the use and the modification of a
GPL-3.0 program only for yourself is not restricted.%
  \footnote{In general, you have to infer that you do not have to fulfill any
  tasks if you are using a piece of open source software only for
  yourself---namely based of the fact that the particular license rules focus 
  only on the distribution of the software, not on the private use. But in the
  GPL-3.0, this assertion concerning the private use becomes more explicit: It is
  one of your \enquote{basic permissions} to \enquote{[\ldots] make, run and
  propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as
  your license otherwise remains in force}. And \enquote{to propagate a work}
  refers to anything \enquote{[\ldots] except executing it on a computer or
  modifying a private copy} 
  (\cite[cf.][\nopage wp. §2 and §0]{Gpl30OsiLicense2007a}). 
  Thus, the GPL-3.0 supports your total freedom on your own machine: Do whatever
  you want to do; anything goes---as long as you do not hand the result over to
  any third party in any sense.}  

So, in general---like all the other open source licenses and in accordance to
the OSD\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{OSI2012a}---also the GPL protects the user
against the loss of the right to use, to modify and/or to distribute the
received copy of the source code or the binaries.\citeGPLthree{§3, §4, §5, and~§6} 
Furthermore, based on its patent clauses, the GPL-3.0 protects the users and the
contributors of a software against patent disputes.%
  \footnote{$\rightarrow$ \oslic, p.\ \patentpageref{GPLb}}
Additionally, the GPL-3.0 tries to protect the contributors or distributors
against warranty claims by its well known \enquote{Disclaimer of
Warranty}\citeGPLthree{§15} and \enquote{Limitation of
Liability}\citeGPLthree{§16} which must explicitly made been known at least in  
each case of source code distribution.\citeGPLthree{§4} Finally, the most forceful
protection of the GPL-3.0 concerns the protection against the loss of feedback
and against the privatization: Whenever you distribute a GPL-3.0 licensed
program in the form of binaries, you have to make the source accessible,
too.\citeGPLthree{§6} Moreover, this obligation concerns every covered 
work, hence not only the unmodified original, but also any modification or
adaption derived by any other kind of copying parts of the original into the
\enquote{resulting work}:\citeGPLthree{§0} \enquote{You may convey a covered
work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you
also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this
License.}\citeGPLthree{§6} So, no doubt: the GPL wants also the source code of
all on-top developments to be published, not only the modified programs and
libraries used as base of these on-top developments. The single mode of use, the
GPL does not protect against privatization, is the mode of using the software
only for yourself.%
  \footnote{Quite the contrary: The GPL-3.0 explicitly allows to
  delegate the modification to third parties and allows to distribute the source
  code as working base \enquote{[\ldots] to others for the sole purpose of having
  them make modifications exclusively for you [\ldots]} 
  (\cite[cf.][\nopage wp. §2]{Gpl30OsiLicense2007a}).}

\section{\texorpdfstring{The protecting power of the}{The} GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL)}
\protectionlabel{LGPL}

The LGPL is maintained and offered by the Free Software Foundation and hosted as
part of the well known \enquote{GNU operating system
homepage.}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{FsfGnuOsLicenses2011a} The meaning of the
name \emph{LGPL} was changed in the course of time. First, in 1991, it should be
resolved as \enquote{GNU Library General Public License} and should denote the
\enquote{first released version of the library GPL} which was \enquote{[\ldots]
numbered~2 because it goes with version~2 of the ordinary GPL.} Today, this
license is marked as \enquote{superseded by the GNU Lesser General Public
License}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{Lgpl20FsfLicense1991a}. This newer
\emph{LGPL} version from 1999 was released as \enquote{the successor of the GNU
Library Public License, version 2, hence [as] the version
number~2.1.}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{Lgpl21FsfLicense1999a} Finally, in June
2007, the---for now---last version of the \emph{LGPL} was released---namely with a
new structure: While GPL-2.0 and LGPL-2.1 are similar, but independent licenses,
the LGPL-3.0 has to be read as an addendum to GPL-3.0. At the beginning of the
LGPL-3.0 license, the content of the corresponding GPL-3.0 was included into
the LGPL by the sentence that \enquote{this version of the GNU Lesser General
Public License incorporates the terms and conditions of version~3 of the GNU
General Public License, supplemented by the additional permissions listed
below.}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{Lgpl30FsfLicense2007a} Based on these
differences, it seems to be suitable to treat the different LGPLs separately.

\subsection{LGPL-2.1}
\protectionlabel{LGPLa}

Like the other versions of the GPL or LGPL, the LGPL-2.1 also explicitly
describes its purpose as the task to \enquote{protect} the \enquote{rights} of
the software users: it states that generally all \enquote{[\ldots] the GNU
General Public Licenses are intended to guarantee your freedom to share and
change free software [\ldots]}\citeLGPLtwo{Preamble} Of course, the LGPL-2.1 is
an approved \emph{open source license}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{OSI2012b} which
protects the user against the loss of the right to use, to modify and/or to
distribute the received copy of the source code or the binaries.\citeLGPLtwo{§1, §2, §4} 
But the LGPL-2.1 does not offer any sentences to infer that it grants any patent
rights to the software user.\footnote{$\rightarrow$ \oslic,
p.\ \patentpageref{LGPLa}} So, it does not protect anyone against
patent disputes, neither the users, nor the
contributors\,/\,distributors. Instead of this, the LGPL-2.1 contains a special 
section \enquote{No Warranty} offering two paragraphs which together establish
the protection of the contributors and distributors against warranty
claims.\citeLGPLtwo{§15, §16} Finally, the LGPL-2.1 also protects the
distributed sources against a re-closing\,/\,re-privatization and the
contributors against the loss of feedback. For that purpose, the LGPL-2.1 on the
one hand states that the recipient \enquote{[\ldots] may modify (his) copy or
copies of the Library or any portion of it [\ldots] and copy and distribute such
modifications [\ldots]} provided that the results of these modifications are
\enquote{[\ldots] licensed at no charge to all third parties under the terms of
(the LGPL-2.1).}\citeLGPLtwo{§2} On the other hand, this LGPL version allows to
distribute such modifications \enquote{in object code or executable form}
provided that one accompanies these entities \enquote{[\ldots] with the complete
corresponding machine-readable source code} which itself must be distributed
under the terms of the LGPL-2.1.\citeLGPLtwo{§4}

But contrary to the GPL, the LGPL does not require to publish the code of an
overarching program or any on-top development: It distinguishes the
\enquote{work that \emph{uses} the Library} from the \enquote{work \emph{based
on} the Library}: First, it defines the \enquote{Library} as any
\enquote{software library or work} licensed under the LGPL-2.1 and adds that
\enquote{a `work \emph{based on} the Library' means either the Library or any
derivative work under copyright law.}\citeLGPLtwo{§0, emphasis ours} 
Second, it defines the \enquote{work that \emph{uses} the Library} as any
\enquote{[\ldots] program that contains no derivative of any portion of the
Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked
with it} whereas this \enquote{work that \emph{uses} the Library}---taken
\enquote{in isolation}---clearly \enquote{[\ldots] is not a derivative work of
the Library [\ldots]}% 
  \footnote{\cite[cf.][\nopage wp. §5, emphasis ours]{Lgpl21OsiLicense1999a}. To
  be exact: the LGPL states also, that this work can nevertheless become a
  derivative work under the particular circumstances of being linked to the
  library. But even then, the LGPL allows to treat this `derivative work' as a
  work which is not a derivative work, provided one fulfills some additional
  conditions. With respect to this viewpoint, the hint of the LGPL that the
  non-derivative work becomes a derivate work by linking it, seems not to be as
  crucial as one might expect.}
Third---and explictily \enquote{as an exception to the Sections above}---the
LGPL-2.1 allows to \enquote{[\ldots] combine or link a \enquote{work that uses
the Library} with the Library to produce a work containing portions of the
Library, and distribute that work under terms of (one's own) choice} provided
one \enquote{(accompanies) the work with the complete corresponding
machine-readable source code for the Library}. Together, these three
specifications clearly require that one must publish\,/\,distribute the source
code of the library itself---regardless, whether it is modified or not, and
regardless, whether one distributes the code directly or makes `only' written
offer for receiving the source code of the library separately.\citeLGPLtwo{§6}
But these  specifications do not require that one also must publish\,/\,distribute
the source code of the \emph{work that uses the library} or---as the \oslic{} is
using to say---the \emph{the on-top developments}.

Thus---no surprise---it has to be inferred that the LGPL does not protect the
on-top developments against a privatization. And of course, that is the reason why
it is called the \emph{GNU \emph{Lesser} General Public License}.


\subsection{LGPL-3.0}
\protectionlabel{LGPLb}

The LGPL-3.0 wants to be read as an extension of the GPL-3.0. For that purpose,
it explicitly \enquote{[\ldots] incorporates the terms and conditions of
version~3 of the GNU General Public License, supplemented by (some) additional 
permissions [\ldots]}\citeLGPLthree{just before §0} Thus, the LGPL-3.0 inherits
the most parts of the protecting power of the GPL-3.0---except those parts which
deal with the overarching on-top development: In opposite of the GPL-3.0, the
LGPL allows to embed LGPL-3.0 licensed libraries into libraries of higher
complexity\citeLGPLthree{§3}, into on-top applications\citeLGPLthree{§4}
and into sets of reorganized library systems.\citeLGPLthree{§5} Moreover, the
LGPL-3.0 allows to \enquote{convey} these overarching units \enquote{under terms
of (one's own) choice.}\citeLGPLthree{§4}  Therefore, one is not necessarily obliged to
publish the source code of these on-top developments, too%
  \footnote{To be exact:  The LGPL-3.0 wants to assure that \enquote{combined
  works} can be re-combined on the base of newer versions of the embedded
  library. For that purpose, one has either to use \enquote{a suitable shared
  libary mechanism} which allows to replace the embedded library without
  relinking the larger unit, or one has to publish at least \enquote{the minimal
  corresponding source [code]} and a set of binaries by which the user himself
  can relink the overarching unit on the base of a newer version ob the embedded
  library (\cite[cf.][\nopage wp. §4]{Lgpl30FsfLicense2007a})}%
---but, of course,  one is obliged to publish the source code of the (modified)
embedded libraries themselves. 

Based on the already described protecting power of the GPL-3.0%
\footnote{$\rightarrow$ \oslic, p.\ \protectionpageref{GPLb}}  
and on these additional specifications of the LGPL-3.0, one can summarize the
protecting power of the LGPL-3.0 this way:

First, the LGPL protects the users against the loss of the right to use, to
modify and/or to distribute the received software. Additionally, it protects
them against patent disputes. Second, it protects the contributors and
distributors against the loss of feedback, against warranty claims and against
patent disputes. Finally, it protects the distributed software itself against
re-privatization.

But the LGPL-3.0 does not protect the undistributed source code and does not
protect the on-top developments against privatization.

\section{\texorpdfstring{The protecting power of the}{The} MIT license}
\protectionlabel{MIT}

As an approved \emph{open source license,}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{OSI2012b}
the MIT License%
  \footnote{`MIT' has to be resolved as \enquote{Massachusetts
  Institute of Technology} (\cite[cf.][\nopage wp]{wpMitLic2011a}).} 
protects the user against the loss of the right to use, to modify and/or to
distribute the received copy of the source code or the binaries.%
\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp 1ff]{OSI2012a} 
Additionally, it protects the contributors and/or distributors
against warranty claims of the software users, because it contains a `No
Warranty Clause.'\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{MitLicense2012a} And finally it
protects the distributed sources against a change of the license which would
close the sources, because the \enquote{permission [\ldots] to use, copy,
modify, [\ldots] distribute, [\ldots] (is granted) subject to the [\ldots]
conditions, [that] the [\ldots] copyright notice and this permission notice
shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the
Software.}%
  \footnote{\cite[cf.][\nopage wp]{MitLicense2012a}. The argumentation
  why the source code is protected, but not the binary form follows that of the 
  BSD licenses: By these requirements, one is not obliged to redistribute the
  sourcecode of a modified (derivative) work. One is allowed to modify a received
  version and to distribute the results only in binary form and to keep one's
  improvements closed. But if one distribute the source code of the modifications,
  the licensing is retained, simply because the MIT \enquote{[\ldots] permission
  note shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the software}.}

But the MIT License does not protect the users or the contributors and/or
distributors against patent disputes (because it does not contain any patent
clause). Additionally, it does not protect the contributors against the loss of
feedback (because it does not `copyleft' the software). Moreover, the MIT
license does not protect the undistributed software or the distributed binaries
against re-closings---neither in unmodified nor in modified form---because it
allows to redistribute only the binaries without also supplying the source
code.\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{MitLicense2012a} Finally, the MIT license does
not protect the on-top developments against a privatization.

\section{\texorpdfstring{The protecting power of the}{The} Mozilla Public License (MPL)}
\protectionlabel{MPL}
 
As an approved \emph{open source license,}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{OSI2012b}
the Mozilla Public License%
  \footnote{In 2012, the Mozilla Public License 2.0 
  (\cite[cf.][\nopage wp]{Mpl20MozFoundation2012a}) has been released as a
  result of a longer \enquote{Revision Process}(\cite[cf.][\nopage
  wp]{Mpl11To20MozFoundation2013a}) by which the  Mozilla Public License 1.1 
  (\cite[cf.][\nopage wp]{Mpl11MozFoundation2013a}) has been ousted. The OSI is 
  also hosting its version of the MPL-2.0 (\cite[cf.][\nopage
  wp]{Mpl20OsiLicense2013a}) and is listing it as an OSI approved license 
  (\cite[cf.][\nopage wp]{OSI2012b}) while it classifies the MPL-1.1 as a
  \enquote{superseded license}(\cite[cf.][\nopage wp]{OSI2013b}). The Mozilla
  Foundation itself says concerning the difference between the two licenses that 
  \enquote{the most important part of the license---the file-level copyleft---is
  essentially the same in MPL~2.0 and MPL~1.1} (\cite[cf.][\nopage
  wp]{Mpl11To20MozFoundation2013a}). By reading the MPL-1.1, one could get the
  impression that fulfilling all conditions of the MPL-2.0 would imply also to act
  in accordance to the MPL-1.1. Thus the \oslic{} focuses on the MPL-2.0, at least
  for the moment. Nevertheless, in this section we want to use the general label
  `MPL' without any release number for indicating that with respect to its
  protecting power the MPL-2.0 and the MPL-1.1 can be taken as equipollent.}
protects the user against the loss of the right to use, to modify and/or to
distribute the received copy of the source code or the
binaries.\citeMPL{§2.1.a}  Furthermore, based on its split and distributed patent
clause,\footnote{$\rightarrow$ \oslic{} pp.\ \patentpageref{MPL}} the
MPL protects the users against patent disputes.\citeMPL{§2.1.b, §2.3, §5.2}
Besides this patent sections, the MPL additionally contains a
\enquote{Disclaimer of Warranty} and a \enquote{Limitation of
Liability.}\citeMPL{§6 \& §7} These three elements together protect the
contributors\,/\,distributors against patents disputes and warranty claims.
Finally, the MPL also protects the distributed sources against a
re-closing\,/\,re-privatization and the contributors against the loss of
feedback: The MPL clearly says that, on the one hand, \enquote{all distribution
of Covered Software in Source Code Form, including any Modifications [\ldots]
must be under the terms of this License}\citeMPL{§3.1} and that, on the other
hand, MPL licensed software \enquote{[\ldots] (distributed) in Executable
Form [\ldots] must also be made available in Source Code Form
[\ldots]}\citeMPL{§3.2} So, it must be inferred that the MPL is a copyleft
license. 

But nevertheless, the Mozilla Public License is not a license with strong
copyleft. It does not protect on-top developments against privatization: First,
the MPL does not use the term \emph{derivative work.}%
  \footnote{\cite[cf.][\nopage wp]{Mpl20OsiLicense2013a}. The MPL-1.1 uses the
  term \emph{derivative work} only in the context of writing new
  \enquote{versions of the license}, not in the context of licensing software
  (\cite[cf.][\nopage wp. §6.3]{Mpl11MozFoundation2013a}).}
Instead of this, the MPL denotes the
\enquote{[\ldots] (initial) Source Code Form [\ldots] and Modifications of such
Source Code Form} by the label \enquote{Covered Software}\citeMPL{§1.4}---while
the term \enquote{Modifications} refers to \enquote{any file in Source Code Form
that results from an addition to, deletion from, or modification of the contents
of Covered Software or any file in Source Code Form that results from an
addition to, deletion from, or modification of the contents of Covered
Software.}%
  \footnote{\cite[cf.][\nopage wp.\ §1.10]{Mpl20OsiLicense2013a}. The Mozilla
  Foundation denotes this reading by the term \enquote{file-level copyleft}
  (\cite[cf.][\nopage wp]{Mpl11To20MozFoundation2013a}).}
Second, the MPL contrasts the source code
form and its modifications with the \enquote{Larger Work} by specifying that the
larger work is \enquote{[\ldots] material, in a seperate file or files, that is
not covered software.}\citeMPL{§1.7}
Finally, the MPL states, that \enquote{you may create and distribute a Larger
Work under terms of Your choice, provided that You also comply with the
requirements of this License for the Covered Software.}\citeMPL{§3.3} Based on
these specifications, one has to reason that an on-top development which depends
on MPL licensed libraries by calling some of their functions, is undoubtably a
derivative work,%
  \footnote{This follows from the general meaning of a \emph{derivative work} as
  a benevolent software developer would read this term ($\rightarrow$ \oslic, pp.\
  \pageref{sec:BenevolentDerivativeWorkUnderstanding}). But again: The MPL does
  not focus on this general aspect; it uses its own concept of a \emph{larger
  work}.}
but also only a larger work in the meaning of the MPL so that code of
this on-top application needs not to be published---provided, that the library
and the on-top development are distributed as different files.%
  \footnote{It might be discussed whether integrating a declaration of a
  function, class, or method into the on-top development by including the
  corresponding header files indeed means that one is \enquote{including
  portions (of the Source Code Form)} into a file which therefore has to be
  taken as \enquote{Modification} (\cite[cf.][\nopage
  wp.\ §1.4]{Mpl11MozFoundation2013a}). From the viewpoint of a benevolent
  developer it should be difficult to argue that the including of declaring
  (header) files alone can evoke a derivative work. It is the call of the
  function in one's code which establishes the dependency. But that is not the 
  point, the MPL focuses. The MPL aims on the textual reuse of (defining) code
  snippets. Hence, one could ignore the textual integration of parts of the
  declaring header files: it should not trigger that one's own work becomes a
  modification in the eyes of the Mozilla Findation. But of course, one would
  circumvent the idea of the MPL if one hides defining code in header files and
  reuses that code by one's own compilation. This would undoubtably be an
  incorporation of portions and therefore would make the incorporating file
  becoming a modification of the MPL licensed initial work.} 
Hence, the MPL is license with a weak copyleft effect and does not protect the
on-top developments against privatization.

\section{\texorpdfstring{The protecting power of the}{The} Microsoft Public License (MS-PL)}
\protectionlabel{MSPL}

As an approved \emph{open source license,}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{OSI2012b}
the Microsoft Public License protects the user against the loss of the right to
use, to modify and/or to distribute the received copy of the source code or the
binaries.\citeMSPL{§2} Furthermore, based on its patent
clause,\footnote{$\rightarrow$ \oslic{} pp.\ \patentpageref{MSPL}} the
MS-PL protects the users against patent disputes.\citeMSPL{§2.B and §3.B}
Because of this patent clause and of its 
concise \emph{disclaimer of warranty}, the MS-PL also protects the
contributors\,/\,distributors against patents disputes and warranty 
claims.\citeMSPL{§2B, §3B, §3D}
Finally, the Microsoft Public License protects the distributed sources
themselves---and even \enquote{portions of these sources}---\emph{against} a
change of the license which would \emph{reset} the work \emph{as closed
software}, because first, one \enquote{[\ldots] must retain all copyright,
patent, trademark, and attribution notices that are part of the
software,}\citeMSPL{§3C} and because, second, one must also incorporate
\enquote{a complete copy of this license} into one's own distribution premised
one distributes the source code.\citeMSPL{§3D}

But the Microsoft Public License does not protect the contributors against the
loss of feedback because it does not `copyleft' the software: The license does
not contain any sentence which requires that one has to publish the sources,
too.%
  \footnote{There seems to be some misunderstandings on the internet: The
  English wikipedia specifies the MS-PL as a permissive license and the MS-RL as
  a license with copyleft effect (\cite[cf.][\nopage wp]{wpMsSharedSources2013a}).
  The German wikipedia says that the MS-PL is a license with a \enquote{schwachen
  [weak] copyleft} (\cite[cf.][\nopage wp]{wpMspl2013a}). And it says also that
  the \enquote{Microsoft Reciprocal License} (MS-RL) is a license with weak
  copyleft, too (\cite[cf.][\nopage wp]{wpMsrl2013a}). But for the very
  thoroughly working \enquote{ifross license center}, the MS-RL is a license
  with restricted (weak) copyleft, while the MS-PL is a permissive license with
  some selectable options (\cite[cf.][\nopage wp]{ifross2011a}). Based on the
  license text itself and these other readings, we decided to take the MS-PL as
  a permissive license in accordance to the English wikipedia page and the
  ifross page.}
In the same spirit, the MS-PL does not protect the undistributed
software or the distributed binaries against re-closings---neither in
unmodified nor in modified form---because the MS-PL License allows to
(re)distribute the binaries without also supplying the sources---even if the
binaries rest upon sources modified by the distributor. Finally, also the MS-PL
does not protect the on-top developments against a privatization.


\section{\texorpdfstring{The protecting power of the}{The} Postgres License
(PostgreSQL)}
\protectionlabel{PGL}

As an approved \emph{open source license,}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{OSI2012b}
the PostgreSQL License protects the user against the loss of the right to use,
to modify and/or to distribute the received copy of the source code or the
binaries.\citePGL{}
Because of its \emph{disclaimer of warranty}, the PostgreSQL also protects the
contributors\,/\,distributors against warranty claims.\citePGL{} Finally, the
PostgreSQL protects the distributed sources themselves \emph{against} a change of the
license which would \emph{reset} the work \emph{as closed software}, because the
\enquote{copyright notice} and the whole license must \enquote{[\ldots] appear
in all copies.}\citePGL{}

But the PostgreSQL License does not protect the contributors against the loss of
feedback because it does not `copyleft' the software: The license does not
contain any sentence which requires that one has to publish the sources, too. 
In the same spirit, the PostgreSQL does not protect the undistributed software or the
distributed binaries against re-closings---neither in unmodified nor in
modified form---because the PostgreSQL allows to (re)distribute the binaries without
also supplying the sources---even if the binaries rest upon sources modified by
the distributor. Finally, the PostgreSQL does not protect the on-top developments
against a privatization.


\section{\texorpdfstring{The protecting power of the}{The} PHP License}
\protectionlabel{PHP}

As an approved \emph{open source license,}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{OSI2012b}
the PHP-3.0 License protects the user against the loss of the right to use, to
modify and/or to distribute the received copy of the source code or the
binaries.\citePHP{} Because of its \emph{disclaimer of warranty,} the PHP
license also protects the contributors\,/\,distributors against warranty
claims.\citePHP{}  Finally, the PHP license protects the distributed
sources themselves \emph{against} a change of the license which would
\emph{reset} the work \emph{as closed software,} because
\enquote{redistributions of source code must retain the [\ldots] copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the [\ldots] disclaimer.}\citePHP{}

But the PHP-3.0 License does not protect the contributors against the loss of
feedback because it does not `copyleft' the software: The license does not
contain any sentence which requires that one has to publish the sources, too. 
In the same spirit, the PHP license does not protect the undistributed software
or the distributed binaries against re-closings---neither in unmodified nor in
modified form---because the PHP license allows to (re)distribute the binaries
without also supplying the sources---even if the binaries rest upon sources
modified by the distributor.
  
\section{Summary}

All these specifications can not only be summarized by a
table,\footnote{$\rightarrow$ \oslic{}, p. \pageref{tab:powerOfLicenses}} but also
by a mindmap as it is shown at the end of this chapter. Moreover, based on these
specifications, one could generate new groups of open source licenses, new
classes, like `user protecting licenses,'\footnote{all of them because all of
them have to fulfill the OSD} `patent disputes fending licenses' up to more
sophisticated taxonomies.

However, one must keep in mind that all of these grouping viewpoints do not
legitimate the conclusion that all members of a group can be respected by
fulfilling the same requirements. This would only be possible if the grouping
criteria would directly refer to the fulfilling tasks. Indeed, nearly all open
source licenses do differ with respect to these criteria, and even if the
differences are very small, they can't be neglected.%
  \footnote{Pars pro toto:
  Both, the BSD license and the Apache license require that you provide an
  indication to the developers of the application. But in case of the BSD license
  you have to publish the copyright notice\,/\,line, while in case of the Apache
  license you have exactly to present the content of the notice file distributed
  together with the application.} 
So: reflecting on possible classes of open
source licenses is a good method to become familiar with the area of open source
licenses. But it is not a method to determine, what needs to be done to
obtain the right to use the software. For that purpose every license must be
considered individually.


\begin{tikzpicture}
\label{OSCLICMM}
\footnotesize

% (1.A) list of all licenses and their release numbers Level 5/6
\node[rectangle,draw,text width=1.4cm] (l0100) at (9,4)
{ \textit{BSD License} };
\node[text width=1.4cm] (l0101) at (8.25,3)
{ \scriptsize{3-Clauses} };
\node[text width=1.4cm] (l0102) at (10,3)
{ \scriptsize{2-Clauses} };
  
\node[rectangle,draw,text width=1.4cm] (l0200) at (10.2,5)
{ \textit{MIT License} }; 
  
\node[rectangle,draw,text width=1.4cm] (l0300) at (12,5.5)
{ \textit{\textbf{Apache} License}};
\node[text width=0.4cm] (l0301) at (12,4.5) {\scriptsize{2.0}};

\node[rectangle,draw,text width=1.4cm] (l0400) at (13,6.8)
{ \scriptsize{\textit{\textbf{M}icro\textbf{S}oft} \textbf{P}ublic
\textbf{L}icense} };
  
\node[rectangle,draw,text width=2.0cm] (l0500) at (13,8)
{\textit{\textbf{PostgreS[Q]} \textbf{L}icense}};
  
\node[rectangle,draw,text width=1.4cm] (l0600) at (13,9)
{\textit{\textbf{PHP} License}};
\node[text width=0.4cm] (l0601) at (14.5,9){\scriptsize{3.0}};
  

\node[rectangle,draw,text width=1.4cm] (l0800) at (13,10.7)
{ \textit{\textbf{M}ozilla \textbf{P}ublic \textbf{L}icense}};
\node[text width=0.4cm] (l0801) at (14.5,10.2){\scriptsize{1.1}};
\node[text width=0.4cm] (l0802) at (14.5,11.2){\scriptsize{2.0}};

\node[rectangle,draw,text width=1.4cm] (l0900) at (13,12.25)
{\textit{\textbf{E}clipse \textbf{P}ublic \textbf{L}icense}};
\node[text width=0.4cm] (l0901) at (14.5,12.25) {\scriptsize{1.0}};
 
\node[rectangle,draw,text width=1.5cm] (l1000) at (13,13.8)
{\textit{\textbf{E}uropean \textbf{P}ublic \textbf{L}icense}}; 
\node[text width=0.4cm] (l1001) at (14.5,13.3){\scriptsize{1.1}};
\node[text width=0.4cm,style=dotted] (l1002) at (14.5,14.3){\scriptsize{\textit{1.2}}};
  
\node[rectangle,draw,text width=1.4cm] (l1100) at (13,15.5)
{\textit{\textbf{L}esser \textbf{G}NU \textbf{P}ublic \textbf{L}icense}};

\node[text width=0.4cm] (l1101) at (14.5,15){\scriptsize{2.1}};
\node[text width=0.4cm] (l1102) at (14.5,16){\scriptsize{3.0} };

\node[rectangle,draw,text width=1.4cm] (l1200) at (13,17.5)
{\textit{\textbf{G}NU \textbf{P}ublic \textbf{L}icense}};

\node[text width=0.4cm] (l1201) at (14.5,17){\scriptsize{2.1}};
\node[text width=0.4cm] (l1202) at (14.5,18){\scriptsize{3.0} };

\node[rectangle,draw,text width=1.4cm] (l1300) at (13,19.5)
{ \textit{\textbf{A}ffero \textbf{G}NU \textbf{P}ublic \textbf{L}icense}};
\node[text width=0.4cm] (l1302) at (14.5,19.5){\scriptsize{3.0}};

% 2. the clustering concepts of licenses (level 4)
\node[rectangle,draw,text width=2.3cm] (n0100) at (10,8)
 { \textit{protecting the user, the con\-tri\-butor \& the initial code}\\
   \tiny{Permissive Licenses}      
 };

\node[rectangle,draw,text width=2.3cm] (n0200) at (10,12.5)
{ \textit{protecting the user, the con\-tri\-butor, the
  initial code, \& all di\-rect de\-ri\-va\-tions}\\
  \tiny{Weak Copyleft}        
};

\node[rectangle,draw,text width=2.3cm] (n0300) at (10,16.5)
{ \textit{protecting the user, the con\-tri\-bu\-tor, the 
  initial code, all di\-rect de\-ri\-va\-tions \& the 
  (in\-di\-rect\-ly de\-ri\-ved) on-top-deve\-lop\-ments}\\ 
  \tiny{Strong Copyleft}    
 };

% 3. the threats (level 3)
\node[ellipse,draw,text width=1.6cm] (c110000) at (4.5,0)
{ \textbf{\textit{Patent Disputes}}};

\node[ellipse,draw,text width=1.6cm] (c120000) at (4.5,2)
{ \textbf{\textit{Loss of Rights}} };

\node[ellipse,draw,text width=1.6cm] (c210000) at (4.5,4)
{ \textbf{\textit{Warranty Claims}} };
 
\node[ellipse,draw,text width=1.6cm] (c220000) at (4.5,6)
{ \textbf{\textit{Loss of Feeback}}};

\node[ellipse,draw,text width=0.6cm] (c311000) at (6.2,8)
{ \tiny{\textit{\textbf{reclos\-ings}}}};

\node[ellipse,,draw,text width=0.6cm] (c321000) at (6.2,10)
{ \tiny{\textit{\textbf{reclos\-ings}}} };

\node[ellipse,,draw,text width=0.6cm] (c331000) at (6.2,12)
{ \tiny{\textit{\textbf{reclos\-ings}}} };

\node[ellipse,,draw,text width=0.6cm] (c341000) at (6.2,14)
{ \tiny{\textit{\textbf{reclos\-ings}}} };

\node[ellipse,,draw,text width=0.6cm] (c351000) at (6.8,16.2)
{ \tiny{\textit{\textbf{reclos\-ings}}} };

\node[ellipse,,draw,text width=0.7cm] (c361000) at (7.5,17.5)
{ \tiny{\textit{\textbf{privati\-zings}}} };

\node[ellipse,,draw,text width=1.6cm] (c411000) at (6.5,19)
{ \textit{\textbf{clos\-ings}} };


% 4. the subtypes of protected entities (level 2)
\node[ellipse,draw,text width=1.5cm] (c310000) at (3,8)
 { \scriptsize{un\-modified} \textbf{Sources}};

\node[ellipse,draw,text width=1.5cm] (c320000) at (3.25,10)
 { \scriptsize{un\-modified} \textbf{Binaries}};

\node[ellipse,draw,text width=1.2cm] (c330000) at (3.5,12)
 { \scriptsize{modified} \textbf{Sources}};

\node[ellipse,draw,text width=1.4cm] (c340000) at (3.25,14)
 { \scriptsize{modified} \textbf{Binaries}};

\node[ellipse,draw,text width=2cm] (c350000) at (3.6,16)
 { \tiny{\textbf{part of} On-Top-Developments}};

\node[ellipse,draw,text width=2.9cm] (c360000) at (3.4,17.5)
 { \tiny{\textbf{On-Top-Developments}}};


% 5. the protected entities (level 1)
\node[ellipse,draw,text width=1cm] (c100000) at (1,1)
 { \textbf{Users} };

\node[ellipse,draw,text width=0.8cm] (c200000) at (1,5)
 { \textbf{Con\-tribu\-tors}};

\node[ellipse,draw,text width=0.8cm] (c300000) at (1,12)
 { distri\-buted \textbf{Soft\-ware}};
 
\node[ellipse,draw,text width=2.2cm] (c400000) at (1,19)
 { un\-distri\-buted \textbf{Soft\-ware}}; 

% 6. main node (leve 0)
\node[ellipse,draw,text width=1.3cm] (c000000) at (0,8)
{ \textbf{open source license}};

% a linking Licenses to their release numbers (Linking level 5 to 6)
\foreach \father/\daughter in {
  l0100/l0101/,
  l0100/l0102/,
  l0300/l0301/,
  l0600/l0601/,
  l0800/l0801/,
  l0800/l0802/,
  l0900/l0901/,
  l1000/l1001/,
  l1000/l1002/,
  l1100/l1101/,
  l1100/l1102/,
  l1200/l1201/,
  l1200/l1202/,
  l1300/l1302/
  }
  \draw[dashed] (\father) to  (\daughter) ;

% b) linking Licenses to license concepts (Linking level 5 to 4)
\foreach \father/\daughter/\outangle/\inangle in {
  n0100/l0100/270/150,       
  n0100/l0200/280/155,
  n0100/l0300/290/160,
  n0100/l0400/300/165,
  n0100/l0500/310/150,
  n0100/l0600/340/160,
  n0200/l0800/300/160,
  n0200/l0900/340/170,
  n0200/l1000/20/190,
  n0200/l1100/60/200,
  n0300/l1200/40/180,
  n0300/l1300/80/180 
  }
  %\draw[dashed] (\father) to [out=\outangle,in=\inangle] (\daughter) ;
  \draw[dashed] (\father) to  (\daughter) ;

% c) linking license concepts to the threats against they protect
% c.1) strong copyleft licenses
\foreach \father/\daughter/\outangle/\inangle in {
  c361000/n0300/0/180,
  c351000/n0300/0/180,
  c341000/n0300/45/190,
  c331000/n0300/50/200,
  c321000/n0300/55/210,
  c311000/n0300/60/220,
  c220000/n0300/25/225,
  c210000/n0300/25/230,
  c120000/n0300/25/235
  }
  \draw[<-,color=blue] (\father) to [out=\outangle,in=\inangle] (\daughter) ;
% c.2) weak copyleft licenses
\foreach \father/\daughter/\outangle/\inangle in {
  c341000/n0200/330/170,
  c331000/n0200/0/180,
  c321000/n0200/0/180,
  c311000/n0200/20/190,
  c220000/n0200/15/220,
  c210000/n0200/15/230,
  c120000/n0200/15/235
  }
  \draw[<-,color=cyan] (\father) to [out=\outangle,in=\inangle] (\daughter) ;
% c.3) permissive licenses
\foreach \father/\daughter/\outangle/\inangle in {
  c331000/n0100/355/150,
  c311000/n0100/0/180,
  c210000/n0100/5/210,
  c120000/n0100/10/230
  }
  \draw[<-,color=red] (\father) to [out=\outangle,in=\inangle] (\daughter) ;
%c.4 agpl license
\foreach \father/\daughter/\outangle/\inangle in {
  c411000/l1300/0/180    
}
  \draw[<-,color=green] (\father) to [out=\outangle,in=\inangle] (\daughter) ;


%d linking protected entities, their subtypes and the the relations
\foreach \father/\daughter/\edgetext/\outangle/\inangle in {
  c000000/c100000/protecting/260/120,
  c100000/c110000/against/360/180,
  c100000/c120000/against/360/180,
  c000000/c200000/protecting/270/180,
  c200000/c110000/against/340/150,
  c200000/c210000/against/0/180,
  c200000/c220000/against/0/180,
  c000000/c300000/protecting/90/230,
  c300000/c310000/as/300/180,
  c300000/c320000/as/330/180,
  c300000/c330000/as/0/180,
  c300000/c340000/as/30/180,
  c300000/c350000/as/60/180,
  c300000/c360000/as/70/180,
  c000000/c400000/protecting/100/240,
  c400000/c411000/against/0/180        
}
  \draw[->,dotted,
    decoration={text along path,
              text align={center},
              text={|\itshape|\edgetext}},
              postaction={decorate},] (\father) to [out=\outangle,in=\inangle] (\daughter) ;

\foreach \father/\daughter/\edgetext/\outangle/\inangle in {
  c310000/c311000/against/0/180,
  c320000/c321000/against/0/180,
  c330000/c331000/against/0/180,
  c340000/c341000/against/00/180,
  c350000/c351000/against/0/180,
  c360000/c361000/against/0/180      
}
  \draw[->,dotted,
    decoration={text along path,
              text align={center},
              text={|\itshape \tiny|\edgetext}},
              postaction={decorate},] (\father) to [out=\outangle,in=\inangle] (\daughter) ;

%f linking the patent clauses
\foreach \father/\daughter/\outangle/\inangle in {
  c110000/l1302/0/305,
  c110000/l1202/0/303,
  c110000/l1201/0/301,
  c110000/l1102/0/299,
  c110000/l1101/0/297,
  c110000/l1002/0/295,
  c110000/l0901/0/290,
  c110000/l0802/0/285,
  c110000/l0400/0/275,
  c110000/l0301/0/270   
}
  \draw[<-,color=gray] (\father) to [out=\outangle,in=\inangle] (\daughter) ;

\end{tikzpicture}




%\bibliography{../../../bibfiles/oscResourcesEn}

% Local Variables:
% mode: latex
% fill-column: 80
% End: