Skip to content
Browse files

2013-03-06: patent clauses completed

  • Loading branch information...
1 parent 4aa64a0 commit 26e5e405de64538c8672354a2ab597afd08c1269 Karsten Reincke committed
View
71 bibfiles/oscResourcesDe.bib
@@ -1082,6 +1082,34 @@ @MISC{FsfLicenseList2013a
urldate = {2013-02-08}
}
+@MISC{Gpl30FsfLicense2007a,
+ author = {{Free Software Foundation}},
+ title = {GNU General Public License [version 3]},
+ year = {2007 [n.y. of the html page itself]},
+ shorttitle = {The GPL-3.0 License (FSF), 2007},
+ annote = {Die GPL-3.0 -- die aktuelle GNU Lizenz mit starkem Copyleft},
+ language = {english},
+ note = {FreeWeb/HTML},
+ owner = {reincke},
+ timestamp = {2013.03.06},
+ url = {http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html},
+ urldate = {2013-03-06}
+}
+
+@MISC{Lgpl30FsfLicense2007a,
+ author = {{Free Software Foundation}},
+ title = {GNU Lesser General Public License [version 3]},
+ year = {2007 [n.y. of the html page itself]},
+ shorttitle = {The LGPL-3.0 License (FSF), 2007},
+ annote = {Die LGPL-3.0 -- die aktuelle GNU Lizenz mit schwachem Copyleft},
+ language = {english},
+ note = {FreeWeb/HTML},
+ owner = {reincke},
+ timestamp = {2013.03.06},
+ url = {http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html},
+ urldate = {2013-03-06}
+}
+
@MISC{Gpl20FsfLicense1991a,
author = {{Free Software Foundation}},
title = {GNU General Public License, version 2},
@@ -1815,6 +1843,35 @@ @MISC{Epl11OsiLicense2007a
urldate = {2013-03-04}
}
+@MISC{Gpl30OsiLicense2007a,
+ author = {{Open Source Initiative}},
+ title = {GNU General Public License, version 3 (GPL-3.0)},
+ year = {2007 [n.y. of the html page itself]},
+ shorttitle = {The GPL-3.0 License (OSI), 2007},
+ annote = {Die Gnu Public License 3.0, wie sie von der OSI angeboten wird.},
+ language = {english},
+ note = {FreeWeb/HTML},
+ owner = {reincke},
+ timestamp = {2013.03.06},
+ url = {http://opensource.org/licenses/GPL-3.0},
+ urldate = {2013-03-05}
+}
+
+@MISC{Lgpl30OsiLicense2007a,
+ author = {{Open Source Initiative}},
+ title = {The GNU Lesser General Public License, version 3.0 (LGPL-3.0)},
+ year = {2007 [n.y. of the html page itself]},
+ shorttitle = {The LGPL-3.0 License (OSI), 2007},
+ annote = {Die Lesser Gnu Public License 3.0, wie sie von der OSI angeboten
+ wird},
+ language = {english},
+ note = {FreeWeb/HTML},
+ owner = {reincke},
+ timestamp = {2013.03.06},
+ url = {http://opensource.org/licenses/LGPL-3.0},
+ urldate = {2013-03-06}
+}
+
@MISC{Epl10OsiLicense2005a,
author = {{Open Source Initiative}},
title = {Eclipse Public License, Version 1.0},
@@ -1858,6 +1915,20 @@ @MISC{Gpl20OsiLicense1991a
urldate = {2013-02-05}
}
+@MISC{Lgpl21OsiLicense1991a,
+ author = {{Open Source Initiative}},
+ title = {The GNU Lesser General Public License, version 2.1 (LGPL-2.1)},
+ year = {1991 [n.y. of the html page itself]},
+ shorttitle = {The LGPL-1.1 License (OSI), 1991},
+ annote = {Die Lesser Gnu Public License 2.1, wie die OSI sie bereitstellt.},
+ language = {english},
+ note = {FreeWeb/HTML},
+ owner = {reincke},
+ timestamp = {2013.03.06},
+ url = {http://opensource.org/licenses/LGPL-2.1},
+ urldate = {2013-03-06}
+}
+
@BOOK{Phillips2009a,
author = {Douglas E. Phillips},
title = {The Software License Unveiled. How Legislation by License Controls
View
87 bibfiles/oscResourcesEn.bib
@@ -1075,6 +1075,51 @@ @MISC{FsfLicenseList2013a
urldate = {2013-02-08}
}
+@MISC{Gpl30FsfLicense2007a,
+ author = {{Free Software Foundation}},
+ title = {GNU General Public License [version 3]},
+ year = {2007 [n.y. of the html page itself]},
+ shorttitle = {The GPL-3.0 License (FSF), 2007},
+ annote = {The GPL-3.0 license -- the current GNU license using a strong copyleft
+ effect},
+ language = {english},
+ note = {FreeWeb/HTML},
+ owner = {reincke},
+ timestamp = {2013.03.06},
+ url = {http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html},
+ urldate = {2013-03-06}
+}
+
+@MISC{Lgpl30FsfLicense2007a,
+ author = {{Free Software Foundation}},
+ title = {GNU Lesser General Public License [version 3]},
+ year = {2007 [n.y. of the html page itself]},
+ shorttitle = {The LGPL-3.0 License (FSF), 2007},
+ annote = {The LGPL-3.0 license -- the current GNU license using a weak copyleft
+ effect},
+ language = {english},
+ note = {FreeWeb/HTML},
+ owner = {reincke},
+ timestamp = {2013.03.06},
+ url = {http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html},
+ urldate = {2013-03-06}
+}
+
+@MISC{Lgpl21FsfLicense1999a,
+ author = {{Free Software Foundation}},
+ title = {GNU Lesser General Public License, version 2.1},
+ year = {1999 [n.y. of the html page itself]},
+ shorttitle = {The LGPL-2.1 License (FSF), 1999},
+ annote = {The LGPL-2.1 license -- as the counterpart of the GPL-2.0 -- offers
+ a weak copyleft effect.},
+ language = {english},
+ note = {FreeWeb/HTML},
+ owner = {reincke},
+ timestamp = {2013.03.06},
+ url = {http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.html},
+ urldate = {2013-03-06}
+}
+
@MISC{Gpl20FsfLicense1991a,
author = {{Free Software Foundation}},
title = {GNU General Public License, version 2},
@@ -1800,6 +1845,34 @@ @MISC{Eupl11OsiLicense2007a
urldate = {2013-03-04}
}
+@MISC{Gpl30OsiLicense2007a,
+ author = {{Open Source Initiative}},
+ title = {GNU General Public License, version 3 (GPL-3.0)},
+ year = {2007 [n.y. of the html page itself]},
+ shorttitle = {The GPL-3.0 License (OSI), 2007},
+ annote = {The Gnu Public License 3.0 as it is offered by the OSI},
+ language = {english},
+ note = {FreeWeb/HTML},
+ owner = {reincke},
+ timestamp = {2013.03.06},
+ url = {http://opensource.org/licenses/GPL-3.0},
+ urldate = {2013-03-05}
+}
+
+@MISC{Lgpl30OsiLicense2007a,
+ author = {{Open Source Initiative}},
+ title = {The GNU Lesser General Public License, version 3.0 (LGPL-3.0)},
+ year = {2007 [n.y. of the html page itself]},
+ shorttitle = {The LGPL-3.0 License (OSI), 2007},
+ annote = {The Lesser Gnu Public License 3.0, as it is offered by the OSI},
+ language = {english},
+ note = {FreeWeb/HTML},
+ owner = {reincke},
+ timestamp = {2013.03.06},
+ url = {http://opensource.org/licenses/LGPL-3.0},
+ urldate = {2013-03-06}
+}
+
@MISC{Epl10OsiLicense2005a,
author = {{Open Source Initiative}},
title = {Eclipse Public License, Version 1.0},
@@ -1828,6 +1901,20 @@ @MISC{Apl20OsiLicense2004a
urldate = {2013-02-07}
}
+@MISC{Lgpl21OsiLicense1991a,
+ author = {{Open Source Initiative}},
+ title = {The GNU Lesser General Public License, version 2.1 (LGPL-2.1)},
+ year = {1999 [n.y. of the html page itself]},
+ shorttitle = {The LGPL-2.1 License (OSI), 1999},
+ annote = {The Lesser Gnu Public License 2.1, as it is offered by the OSI},
+ language = {english},
+ note = {FreeWeb/HTML},
+ owner = {reincke},
+ timestamp = {2013.03.06},
+ url = {http://opensource.org/licenses/LGPL-2.1},
+ urldate = {2013-03-06}
+}
+
@MISC{Gpl20OsiLicense1991a,
author = {{Open Source Initiative}},
title = {GNU General Public License, version 2 (GPL-2.0). Version 2, June
View
2 rel-number.tex
@@ -1 +1 @@
-0.88.4
+0.88.5
View
182 snippets/en/02C-SameIdeaDifferentLicenseModelsInc.tex
@@ -704,11 +704,13 @@ \chapter{Open Source: The Same Idea, Different Licenses}\label{sec:LicenseTaxono
\checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & $\neg$ &
\checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & $\neg$ \\
\hline
- \multirow{2}{*}{LGPL} & 2.1 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark &
- -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- \\
+ \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 &
- -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- \\
+ & 3.0 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark &
+ \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & $\neg$ &
+ \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & $\neg$ \\
\hline
MPL & 2.0 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark &
\checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & $\neg$ &
@@ -747,19 +749,19 @@ \section{The protecting power of the Apache License (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, also the OSI is hosting a duplicate (\cite[cf.][\nopage
-wp]{Apl20OsiLicense2004a}) in its list of the officially approved open source
-licenses (\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, also 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 APL-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-2CL and BSD-3CL 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.\
+course, also 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, also 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 APL-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-2CL and BSD-3CL 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.\
\pageref{subsec:ApLPatentClause}}, the ApL protects the users against patent
disputes\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp §3]{Apl20OsiLicense2004a}. Because of this
patent clause and of its \enquote{disclaimer of warranty} together with its
@@ -955,31 +957,30 @@ \section{The protecting power of the European Union Public License (EUPL)}
compatible licenses, for example the Eclipse Public
License\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp.\ Appendix]{EuplLicense2007en}. Based on this
compatibility clause the obligation to publish the code of an on-top development
-can be subverted: As first step, you could release a little more or less futile
+can be subverted: As 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 other work is an
-on-top application which depends on the EUPL library because it calls functions
-of EUPL library -- what would enforce the on-top application to be a derivative
-work. The license text says that \enquote{another work licensed under a
-Compatible Licence} can be distributed together with \enquote{derivative works}.
-So, the wording of the licenses itself is establishing a contrast between the
-derivative work and the other work - what indicates that the other work has not
-necessarily to be a derivative work.} which uses a library licensed under the
-EUPL. As second step, you add the library as originaly work 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.\
-\pageref{sec:ProtectingPowerOfEpl}}. Hence the protection of the EUPL-1.1 is not
-as comprehensive as one might assume on the base of the license text
+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 thisthe 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.\ \pageref{sec:ProtectingPowerOfEpl}}. Hence the protection of the EUPL-1.1 is
+not as comprehensive as one might assume on the base of the license text
itself\footnote{This kind of specifiying the protective power of the EUPL is
initially be presented by the FSF (\cite[cf.][wp.\ section 'European Union
Public License']{FsfEuplStatement2013a}). 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
+(\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
-reade might get the impression that the authors of the EUPL wished to write a
-strong copyleft license: the EUPL license does not protect the on-top
+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 privatizing.
@@ -1031,12 +1032,10 @@ \section{The protecting power of the MIT license}
code\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{MitLicense2012a}. Finally, the MIT license does
not protect the on-top developments against a privatizing.
-
-
-\section{The protecting power of the Mozilla Public License (MPl)}
+\section{The protecting power of the Mozilla Public License (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
+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
@@ -1045,37 +1044,40 @@ \section{The protecting power of the Mozilla Public License (MPl)}
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 with respect to 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}). While reading the MPL-1.1 one could get the
-impression that if one fulfills all conditions of the MPL-2.0, then one also
-acts in accordance to the MPL-1.1. Thus, for the moment the OSLiC focuses on the
-MPL-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\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp.\ §2.1.a]{Mpl20OsiLicense2013a}. Furthermore,
-based on its split and distributed patent clause\footnote{$\rightarrow$ OSLiC
-pp.\ \pageref{subsec:MplPatentClause}}, the MPL-2.0 protects the users against
-patent disputes\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp.\ §2.1.b, §2.3,
-§5.2]{Mpl20OsiLicense2013a}. Besides this patent sections, the MPL.2.0
+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 releasenumber 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\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp.\ §2.1.a]{Mpl20OsiLicense2013a}.
+Furthermore, based on its split and distributed patent
+clause\footnote{$\rightarrow$ OSLiC pp.\ \pageref{subsec:MplPatentClause}}, the
+MPL protects the users against patent disputes\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp.\
+§2.1.b, §2.3, §5.2]{Mpl20OsiLicense2013a}. Besides this patent sections, the MPL
additionally contains a \enquote{Disclaimer of Warranty} and a
\enquote{Limitation of Liability}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp.\ §6 \&
§7]{Mpl20OsiLicense2013a}. These three elements together protect the
contributors / distributors against patents disputes and warranty claims.
-Finally, the MPL-2.0 also protects the distributed sources against a re-closing
-/ re-privatizizing and the contributors against the loss of feedback: The
-MPL-2.0 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}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp.\
-§3.1]{Mpl20OsiLicense2013a} and that -- on the other hand -- an MPL licensed
+Finally, the MPL also protects the distributed sources against a re-closing /
+re-privatizing 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}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp.\
+§3.1]{Mpl20OsiLicense2013a} and that, on the other hand, an MPL licensed
software \enquote{[\ldots] (distributed) in Executable Form [\ldots] must also
be made available in Source Code Form [\ldots]}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp.\
-§3.2]{Mpl20OsiLicense2013a}. So, it must be concluded that the MPL is a copyleft
+§3.2]{Mpl20OsiLicense2013a}. 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 the on-top developments against a privatizing: At
-first, the MPL does not use the term \emph{derivative work}\footnote{
+copyleft. It does not protect on-top developments against privatizings: 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.
@@ -1087,37 +1089,43 @@ \section{The protecting power of the Mozilla Public License (MPl)}
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 itself denotes this
-definition by the term \enquote{file-level copyleft} (\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}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp.\ §1.7]{Mpl20OsiLicense2013a}.
-Finally, the MPL-2.0 states, that \enquote{you may create and distribute a
-Larger Work under terms of Your choice, provided that You also comply with the
+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}\footcite[cf.][\nopage
-wp.\ §3.3]{Mpl20OsiLicense2013a}. Based on these specifications, it must be
-concluded that an on-top development which depends on MPL licensed libraries
-because they calling some of its functions, can be taken as a larger work whose
-code needs not to be puglished -- 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 a privatizing.
+wp.\ §3.3]{Mpl20OsiLicense2013a}. 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 privatizings.
\section{The protecting power of the Microsoft Public License (MS-PL)}
View
233 snippets/en/03C-osImportantMinorPoints/0301-osAndPatentsInc.tex
@@ -136,21 +136,21 @@ \section{The problem of implicitly releasing patents}
\draw [-,dotted,line width=0pt,white,
decoration={text along path,
text align={center},
- text={|\itshape| without patent clauses}},
+ text={|\itshape| without granting patent clauses}},
postaction={decorate}] (0.9,7.4) arc (180:0:1.8cm);
\node[circle,draw,text width=1cm, fill=gray!40, text centered] (l0101) at (2,8)
-{ \footnotesize \bfseries \textit{?}};
+{ \footnotesize \bfseries \textit{MIT}};
\node[circle,draw,text width=1cm, fill=gray!40, text centered] (l0102) at (3.5,8)
{ \footnotesize \bfseries \textit{BSD}};
-\node[circle,draw,text width=1cm, fill=gray!40, text centered] (l0103) at (2,6.5)
-{ \footnotesize \bfseries \textit{MIT}};
-\node[circle,draw,text width=1cm, fill=gray!40, text centered] (l0104) at (3.5,6.5)
-{ \scriptsize \bfseries \textit{?}};
+\node[ellipse,draw,text width=1cm, fill=gray!40, text centered] (l0103) at (1.6,6.5)
+{ \footnotesize \bfseries \textit{LGPL-2.1}};
+\node[ellipse,draw,text width=1cm, fill=gray!40, text centered] (l0104) at (3.6,6.5)
+{ \footnotesize \bfseries \textit{GPL-2.0}};
\node[circle,draw,text width=1cm, fill=gray!40, text centered] (l0105) at (2,5)
-{ \footnotesize \bfseries \textit{?}};
+{ \footnotesize \bfseries \textit{PHP}};
\node[circle,draw,text width=1cm, fill=gray!40, text centered] (l0106) at (3.5,5)
-{ \footnotesize \bfseries \textit{?}};
+{ \footnotesize \bfseries \textit{PgL}};
\node[ellipse,minimum height=6cm,minimum width=8.5cm,draw,fill=gray!20] (l0200) at (9.2,6.5)
{ };
@@ -158,44 +158,45 @@ \section{The problem of implicitly releasing patents}
\draw [-,dotted,line width=0pt,white,
decoration={text along path,
text align={center},
- text={|\itshape| with patent clauses}},
- postaction={decorate}] (7.5,8.5) arc (120:60:4cm);
+ text={|\itshape| with granting patent clauses}},
+ postaction={decorate}] (2.2,2) arc (180:0:7cm);
-\node[ellipse,minimum height=5cm,minimum width=8cm,draw,fill=gray!40] (l0220) at (9.2,6.2)
-{ };
-\node[ellipse,minimum height=4cm,minimum width=4.5cm,draw,fill=gray!30] (l0210) at (7.8,6.2)
+\node[ellipse,minimum height=4.5cm,minimum width=6cm,draw,fill=gray!30] (l0210) at (8.4,6.2)
{ };
-
-
\draw [-,dotted,line width=0pt,white,
decoration={text along path,
text align={center},
text={|\itshape| granting + revoking}},
- postaction={decorate}] (4.7,4.7) arc (180:0:3cm);
-
-\node[ellipse,draw,text width=1cm, fill=gray!40, text centered] (l0211) at (6.7,6.5)
-{ \footnotesize \bfseries \textit{EpL}};
-\node[ellipse,draw,text width=1cm, fill=gray!40, text centered] (l0212) at (8.8,6.7)
-{ \footnotesize \bfseries \textit{ApL}};
-\node[ellipse,draw,text width=1cm, fill=gray!40, text centered] (l0213) at (6.7,5.5)
-{ \footnotesize \bfseries \textit{?}};
-\node[ellipse,draw,text width=1.1cm, fill=gray!40, text centered] (l0214) at (8.4,5)
+ postaction={decorate}] (4.4,3.8) arc (180:0:4cm);
+
+\node[ellipse,draw,text width=1cm, fill=gray!40, text centered] (l0212) at (8.4,7.2)
+{ \scriptsize \bfseries \textit{ApL}};
+
+\node[ellipse,draw,text width=1cm, fill=gray!40, text centered] (l0211) at (6.8,6.6)
+{ \scriptsize \bfseries \textit{EpL}};
+
+\node[ellipse,draw,text width=1cm, fill=gray!40, text centered] (l0213) at (10,6.6)
+{ \scriptsize \bfseries \textit{MpL}};
+
+\node[ellipse,draw,text width=1.2cm, fill=gray!40, text centered] (l0214) at (8.4,6)
{ \scriptsize \bfseries \textit{MS-PL}};
-
-% line width=0pt,white,
-\draw [-,dotted,line width=0pt,white,
- decoration={text along path,
- text align={center},
- text={|\itshape| granting}},
- postaction={decorate}] (8.5,6) arc (180:0:2cm);
+\node[ellipse,draw,text width=1.6cm, fill=gray!40, text centered] (l0213) at (7.1,5.3)
+{ \scriptsize \bfseries \textit{LGPL-3.0}};
+
+\node[ellipse,draw,text width=1.4cm, fill=gray!40, text centered] (l0213) at (9.9,5.3)
+{ \scriptsize \bfseries \textit{GPL-3.0}};
-\node[ellipse,draw,text width=1cm, fill=gray!40, text centered] (l0221) at (11.4,7)
+\node[ellipse,draw,text width=1.6cm, fill=gray!40, text centered] (l0214) at (8.4,4.5)
+{ \scriptsize \bfseries \textit{AGPL-3.0}};
+
+
+\node[ellipse,draw,text width=1cm, fill=gray!40, text centered] (l0221) at (11.6,8)
{ \footnotesize \bfseries \textit{EUPL}};
-\node[ellipse,draw,text width=1cm, fill=gray!40, text centered] (l0222) at (11.4,5.5)
-{ \footnotesize \bfseries \textit{??}};
+\node[ellipse,draw,text width=1cm, fill=gray!40, text centered] (l0222) at (12.4,6.2)
+{ \footnotesize \bfseries \textit{\ }};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
@@ -375,17 +376,167 @@ \subsection{EUPL statements concerning patents}\label{subsec:EupLPatentClause}
necessary to make use of the rights granted on the Work under this
Licence}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp.\ §2 at its tail]{EuplLicense2007en}.
Furthermore the EUPL does not contain any patent specific revoking clause, but
-only a general clause by which \enquote{[\ldots] the rights granted hereunder
-will terminate automatically upon any breach by the Licensee of the terms of the
-Licence}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp.\ §12]{EuplLicense2007en}. Thus, the EUPL is -
-as we are using to say in this chapter - a granting license and not a revoking
+only an abstract clause requiring that all \enquote{[\ldots] the rights granted
+hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by the Licensee of the
+terms of the Licence}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp.\ §12]{EuplLicense2007en}. Thus,
+the EUPL is - as we are using to say in this chapter - a granting license and
+not a revoking license.
+
+\subsection{GPL statements concerning patents}
+
+Although the LGPL versions 2.1 and 3.0 are aiming for the same results, they
+heavily differ with respect to textual and arguing structure. Therefore, it
+should be helpful to treat these two licenses separately.
+
+\subsubsection {GPL-2.0} \label{subsec:Gpl21PatentClause}
+
+The GPL-2.0 does not contain any specific patent clause by which it would grant
+(and revoke) the rights to use those patents which belong to the contributors
+and which are necessary to use the software in accordance with the legal patent
+system.
+
+Instead of this, the preamble of the GPL-2.0 alleges that \enquote{[\ldots] any
+free program is threatened constantly by software patents} and that the authors
+of the GPL -- for tackling this threat -- \enquote{[\ldots] had made it clear
+that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at
+all}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp., Preamble]{Gpl20OsiLicense1991a}. Unfortunately,
+this specification is only an indirect claim which needs a lot of arguing for
+establishing a protection against patent disputes. Howsoever, this paragraph of
+the GPL-2.0 does not directly grant any rights to the software users to use
+necessary patents too.
+
+With respect to the patent problem, the GPL-2.0 also states that a licensee has
+to fulfill the conditions of the GPL-2.0 completely, even if an existing patent
+infringement -- being \enquote{imposed} on the LGPL licensee --
+\enquote{[\ldots] contradicts the conditions of this license} so, that a waiving
+of the use of the software is the only way to fulfill both
+constraints\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp.\ §11]{Gpl20OsiLicense1991a}. And finally
+the GPL-2.0 allows the original copyright holder to \enquote{add an explicit
+geographical distribution limitation excluding [\ldots] countries} provided that
+these countries \enquote{[\ldots] (restict) the distribution and/or use of the
+library [\ldots] by patents [\ldots]}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp.\
+§12]{Gpl20OsiLicense1991a}. Based on these statements, one cannot infer that the
+GPL-2.0 grants any patent rights to the software user, neither directly, nor
+indirectly.
+
+Thus, we cannot say that the GPL-2.0 is a granting license or a revoking
license.
-\subsection{GPL statements concerning patents [tbd]}
+\subsubsection {GPL-3.0}\label{subsec:Gpl30PatentClause}
+
+Initially, the GPL-3.0 regrets that \enquote{[\ldots] every program is
+threatened constantly by software patents} what should be seen as the
+\enquote{[\ldots] danger that patents applied to a free program could make it
+effectively proprietary}. And therefore -- as the GPL-3.0 itself summarizes its
+patent rules -- \enquote{[\ldots] the GPL assures that patents cannot be used to
+render the program non-free}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp.\
+Preamble]{Gpl30OsiLicense2007a}. This kind of protection is then established by
+three steps. First, the GPL-3.0 stipulates that \enquote{each contributor grants
+[\ldots the licensees] a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license
+under the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for
+sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its
+contributor version}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp.\ §11]{Gpl30OsiLicense2007a}.
+Second, the GPL-3.0 defines that this patent license granted by the contributor
+\enquote{[\ldots] is automatically extended to all recipients} who lateron
+receive any version of the work, even if the indirectly receive them by third
+parties and even if they receive a \enquote{covered work} or \enquote{works
+based on it}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp.\ §11]{Gpl30OsiLicense2007a}. Moreover,
+the GPL-3.0 also specifies that those distributors of a \enquote{covered work}
+who have the right to use a patent necessary for the use of the distributed
+software but who are not allowed to relicense this patent to third parties must
+solve this problem by making the source code nevertheless available, by
+\enquote{depriving} themselves or by \enquote{extending the patent license to
+downstream recipients}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp.\ §11]{Gpl30OsiLicense2007a}.
+And finally, the GPL-3.0 also introduces an revoking clause by stating that a
+licensee \enquote{[\ldots] may not initiate litigation [\ldots] alleging that
+any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or
+importing the Program or any portion of it}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp.\
+§10]{Gpl30OsiLicense2007a} and that this licensee \enquote{automatically} loses
+the rights granted by the GPL-3.0 -- \enquote{including any patent licenses} --
+if he tries to propagate or modify a covered work against the rules of the
+GPL-3.0\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp.\ §8]{Gpl30OsiLicense2007a}.
+
+Thus, GPL-3.0 is - as we are using to say in this chapter - a granting and a
+revoking license: At first you are granted to use all patents of all
+contributors which are necessary to use the software legally. But if you -- with
+respect to the software -- install any litigation concerning an infringement of
+patents, then the rights granted to you are revoked.
+
+
+\subsection{LGPL statements concerning patents}
+
+As already mentioned above, the LGPL versions 2.1 and 3.0 heavily differ with
+respect to textual and arguing structure. Therefore, they should treated
+separately.
+
+\subsubsection {LGPL-2.1} \label{subsec:Lgpl21PatentClause}
+
+Like the GPL-2.0, the LGPL-2.1 does not contain any specific patent clause by
+which it would grant (and revoke) the rights to use those patents which belong
+to the contributors and which are necessary to use the software in accordance
+with the legal patent system.
+
+Instead of this, the preamble of the LGPL-2.1 says that \enquote{[\ldots]
+software patents pose a constant threat to the existence of any free program}
+and that the authors of the LGPL -- for tackling this threat --
+\enquote{[\ldots] insist that any patent license obtained for a version of the
+library must be consistent with the full freedom of use specified in this
+license}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp., Preamble]{Lgpl21OsiLicense1991a}.
+Unfortunately, this specification is only an indirect claim which needs a lot of
+arguing for establishing a protection against patent disputes.
+Howsoever, this paragraph of the LGPL-2.1 does not directly grant any rights to
+the software users to use necessary patents too.
+
+With respect to the patent problem, the LGPL-2.1 also states that a licensee has
+to fulfill the conditions of the LGPL-2.1 completely, even if an existing patent
+infringement -- being \enquote{imposed} on the LGPL licensee --
+\enquote{[\ldots] contradicts the conditions of this license} so that a waiving
+of the use of the software is the only way to fulfill both
+constraints\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp.\ §11]{Lgpl21OsiLicense1991a}. And finally
+the LGPL-2.1 allows the original copyright holder to \enquote{add an explicit
+geographical distribution limitation excluding [\ldots] countries} provided that
+these countries \enquote{[\ldots] (restict) the distribution and/or use of the
+library [\ldots] by patents [\ldots]}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp.\
+§12]{Lgpl21OsiLicense1991a}. Based on these statements, one cannot infer that
+the LGPL grants any patent rights to the software user, neither directly, nor
+indirectly.
+
+Thus, we cannot say that the LGPL-2.1 is a granting license or a revoking
+license.
-\subsection{LGPL statements concerning patents [tbd]}
+\subsubsection {LGPL-3.0}\label{subsec:Lgpl30PatentClause}
+
+The LGPL-3.0 is an extension of the GPL-3.0. Before starting with a section
+\enquote{Additional Definitions}, the LGPL-3.0 states that it \enquote{[\ldots]
+incorporates the terms and conditions of version 3 of the GNU General Public
+License} and then \enquote{supplements} this GPL-3.0 content by some
+\enquote{additional permissions}\footcite[cf.][\nopage
+wp.]{Lgpl30OsiLicense2007a}. The LGPL-3.0 itself does not contain the word
+'patent', but the GPL-3.0\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp.\ §11]{Gpl30OsiLicense2007a}.
+So, the LGPL-3.0 inherits its patent clause from the GPL-3.0 which is - as we
+already described\footnote{$\rightarrow$ OSLiC, p.\
+\pageref{subsec:Gpl30PatentClause}} - a granting and a revoking license.
-\subsection{MPL statements concerning patents [tbd]}
+\subsection{MPL statements concerning patents}\label{subsec:MplPatentClause}
+
+The MPL distributes its statements concerning the tolerated use of the patents
+over three paragraphs: First, it clearly says that \enquote{each Contributor
+[\ldots] grants [\ldots the licensee] a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive
+license [\ldots] under Patent Claims of such Contributor to make, use, sell,
+offer for sale, have made, import, and otherwise transfer either its
+Contributions or its Contributor Version}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp.\ §2.1, esp.
+§2.1.b]{Mpl20OsiLicense2013a}. Second, it hihlights some
+\enquote{limitations}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp.\ §2.1, esp.
+§2.3]{Mpl20OsiLicense2013a}. And finally, the MPL introduces a revoking clause
+which signifies that the rights, granted to the licensee \enquote{[\ldots] by
+any and all Contributors [\ldots] shall terminate} if the licensee
+\enquote{initiates litigation against any entity by asserting a patent
+infringement claim [\ldots] alleging that a Contributor Version directly or
+indirectly infringes any patent [\ldots]}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp.\
+§5.2]{Mpl20OsiLicense2013a}.
+
+Thus, the MPL is - as we are using to say in this chapter - a granting license
+and a revoking license.
\subsection{MS-PL statements concerning patents}\label{subsec:MsplPatentClause}
View
1 snippets/en/03C-osImportantMinorPoints/0302-derivativeWorksInc.tex
@@ -73,6 +73,7 @@ \section{Excursion: What is a 'Derivative Work' - the basic idea of open source}
\end{description}
This are our rules by which the OSLiC decides to take something as derivative Work:
+\label{sec:BenevolentDerivativeWorkUnderstanding}
\begin{description}
\item[Copy-Case] Copying a piece of code from a source file and pasting it

0 comments on commit 26e5e40

Please sign in to comment.
Something went wrong with that request. Please try again.