decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
An Update on the IFOSS Law Review and Announcing the IFOSS Law Book
Friday, July 01 2011 @ 09:00 AM EDT

We have written before about the International Free and Open Source Law Review, but it's worth getting an update as to what was in the last issue. I also want to make you aware of the latest publication coming out of the community of lawyers interested in free and open source software, the IFOSS Law Book.


The International Free and Open Source Law Review

The latest edition of the IFOSS Law Review (Vol. 2, No. 2) was published on February 3rd of this year. You can read some portions of it on-line, or you can download it in pdf. This edition contains all of the following articles:

It also includes two Platform articles (these articles are more technical or business focused than the regular articles):
And, finally, there is an editorial by Iain Mitchell discussing the emergence and evolution of the Law Review. All of this is worthwhile reading for those interested in learning and understanding more about open source. The best part is that it is all free. Back issues are also accesible.


The International Free and Open Source Law Book

Unlike the IFOSS Law Review, the IFOSS Law Book is intended

to become the place where legal experts confronted with a legal question under a foreign jurisdiction can turn for an understanding on how Free and Open Source Licenses are treated under that law. From this starting point, experts can seek specific information or seek the advice of a local legal counsel. In short, the IFOSS Law Book is positioned as a bench mark reference that helps people quickly contextualize the key issues in the field.
The book is available on-line, but a hard copy edition will also be publishing soon. We will provide information on that as it is available.

The book contains a short history on free and open software law and licensing, and then there are country by country chapters. The following chapters are presently available:

As with the IFOSS Law Review, the electronic version of the IFOSS Law Book is free of charge. The authors also welcome any feedback on how the book can be improved. Enjoy.

  


An Update on the IFOSS Law Review and Announcing the IFOSS Law Book | 225 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Thread
Authored by: bugstomper on Friday, July 01 2011 @ 09:51 AM EDT
When you post a correction, please put a summary of the error->correction or
s/error/correction/ in the Title box. That makes it easy for Mark to scan to see
what needs to be corrected, and makes it easy for other readers to scan to see
if a correction has already been noted.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks Thread
Authored by: bugstomper on Friday, July 01 2011 @ 09:55 AM EDT
Pick your News here. Please put the title of the News Pick article in the Title
box. Include a link to the News Pick article in HTML Formatted mode for the
reader's convenience after the article has scrolled off the sidebar.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic threads
Authored by: bugstomper on Friday, July 01 2011 @ 09:56 AM EDT
Please stay off topic in these threads.

[ Reply to This | # ]

COMES goes here
Authored by: bugstomper on Friday, July 01 2011 @ 10:00 AM EDT
Please post Comes transcripts with HTML markup but posted in Plain Text mode, to
make it easy for PJ to copy and paste the markup.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SPDX
Authored by: complex_number on Friday, July 01 2011 @ 04:23 PM EDT
Well, I read the proposal (that is what it is). The conclusion says it all.

Getting the SPDXTM specification adopted across the ecosystem will be a challenge. We need participation and support from key Linux distros and package maintainers, legal experts, tool developers (commercial and open source) and package consuming organizations as well. With major players in all those categories already on board, and with the support from FOSSbazaar and the Linux Foundation, the pieces are finally coming together to let us achieve our goal of a useful specification.

A challenge? You bet. I'm sorry but personally I don't think they have a chance in you know what for get this adopted by sufficient package developers/maintainers and distros to make this a viable proposition.

Add to this all the gnashing of teeth and hair pulling over smartphone apps 'phoning home', I get a feeling that similar argument will be raised over this.

I do accept the nedd to be able to show compliance in software licensing especially for things like Sarbanes-Oxley but this just feels totally the wrong way to do it.

Open source projects of all shape and sizes have enough trouble 'getting to done'. ie making a finished and polished product. Say what you will about Apple but in terms of being a finished product the iPad 1 was pretty close. sure there were a few things missing but in terms of bugginess, is was pretty close to being 'done'.

I you add this requirement to every Open Source project then I predict a good number will just not bother and close up shop.

---
Ubuntu & 'apt-get' are not the answer to Life, The Universe & Everything which is of course, "42" or is it 1.618?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • SPDX - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 01 2011 @ 05:53 PM EDT
  • SPDX = Software Packet Data eXchange - Clickies - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 01 2011 @ 09:40 PM EDT
  • sig - Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, July 02 2011 @ 06:19 AM EDT
  • SPDX - Authored by: jjs on Saturday, July 02 2011 @ 08:35 AM EDT
    • SPDX - Authored by: complex_number on Saturday, July 02 2011 @ 02:04 PM EDT
      • SPDX - Authored by: jjs on Sunday, July 03 2011 @ 08:06 AM EDT
        • SPDX - Authored by: jonathon on Sunday, July 03 2011 @ 12:27 PM EDT
          • SPDX - Authored by: jjs on Monday, July 04 2011 @ 01:33 PM EDT
      • SPDX - Authored by: jonathon on Sunday, July 03 2011 @ 12:20 PM EDT
        • SPDX - Authored by: jjs on Monday, July 04 2011 @ 01:35 PM EDT
Analogy
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 02 2011 @ 02:26 AM EDT
Is Oracle saying that if Google gives away gold digging machines, built with
plastic Sun lookalike screws (or is it about the screwdriver), then Oracle is
entitled to a share of all gold dug up by those machines? Sounds like they are
really just trying to lock all others out of the gold digging business! Even if
they are only claiming that portion of the gold subsequently used to buy Google
advertising, it still seems to be overreaching.

jjb~49

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Analogy - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 02 2011 @ 02:32 AM EDT
Best Quote re Patents: Brad Burnham, on Patents
Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, July 02 2011 @ 05:56 AM EDT
“The patent lawyers are an entrenched interest and they have an incredible
amount of money and influence in the political sphere.”

http://www.betabeat.com/2011/07/01/4-5-billion-purchase-of-nortel-patents-is-a-p
otent-reminder-how-broken-the-system-has-become/

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

curiously predictable drumbeat of complaints that Google did not "protect Android"
Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, July 02 2011 @ 07:14 AM EDT
I am already seeing the curiously predictable drumbeat of complaints that Google did not "protect Android" by buying the portfolio. While I will usually be one of the last people to defend Google, there are a few things to remember:
The people criticizing Google have certainly not reviewed Nortel's portfolio to assess whether it would have been a good investment at this price level. At $4.5B, it's far from certain. Google's duty is to its shareholders. Calculated decisions will need to be made as to how "protecting" Android partners and developers serves the shareholders. $4.5B pays a lot of licensing fees against more specific threats. Patents grant the right to exclude others from doing things, not the right to do something. Patents are little defense against NPEs with no operating business to counterattack. Apple outshining Google in its support of its ecosystem is not news. It's corporate culture. (See also: music licensing)
igoeIP

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Elgan: Declare independence... from Facebook!
Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, July 02 2011 @ 09:27 AM EDT
Elgan: Declare independence... from Facebook! "Because "everybody" is too big a stream for anyone to deal with, Facebook filters your feed. Facebook actually stops most of your friends' status updates from showing up in your News Feed. Facebook uses a secret algorithm called EdgeRank to cut most of your connections without telling you. For most people, the majority of your "friends" don't ever see your status updates. "

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

IFOSS Law Book: databases
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 02 2011 @ 06:25 PM EDT
In reading the IFOSS Law Book, I noticed the complete absence of discussion
about databases, and where they fit in under copyright law of various
countries.

Also omitted was discussion about the copyrightabilty of "sweat of the
brow"
work.

Both are significant aspects of where FOSS is heading: navigation databases
( open streets, and the marine equivalent), translation memory (pootle), etc.

I realize adding those topics would increase the length, perhaps
substantially. However, as one who isn't quite the target audience, and yet
whose work touches on points of overlap of that target audience, the
additional length would be justifiable.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Prior Art - Lodsys
Authored by: PJ on Sunday, July 03 2011 @ 03:33 PM EDT
It's too late to put Lodsys prior art possibilities on that article, so I put it in News Picks, but I'll repeat the urls here: Google Books has an article from 1979 in Intelligent Machines Journal on a conference held on audio- and videotext, which the box on the page defines as interactive via a telephone.

The New York Times had a piece on a National Science Foundation study on audio- and videotext in 1982, titled "Teletext and Videotex in the United States," then available from McGraw-Hill Publications, 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, N.Y. 10020. It also references two-way interactive communication. I haven't found the study itself yet. IF I can find it, I'll post it here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

An Update on the IFOSS Law Review and Announcing the IFOSS Law Book
Authored by: cc0028 on Tuesday, July 05 2011 @ 09:39 AM EDT
The section entitled Great Britain (England and Wales) is, I think, mis-titled.
Northern Ireland (North of Ireland) appears not to be dealt with except to say
that the laws there are substantially similar to the laws in England and Wales,
but the situation in Scotland appears to be dealt with in some detail on a brief
skim through the content. The title would lead a researcher to believe that the
situation in Scotland was not covered; which appears not to be the case.

P.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Video: Ride Along with a Sounding Rocket
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, July 05 2011 @ 01:15 PM EDT
Video: Ride Along with a Sounding Rocket

Cool :-)

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )