|
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.
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- Apple, Microsoft consortium beats Google for Nortel patents - Authored by: TiddlyPom on Friday, July 01 2011 @ 11:11 AM EDT
- The chess player does not give away stategy... maybe Google as the advantage? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 01 2011 @ 01:21 PM EDT
- Apple, Microsoft consortium beats Google for Nortel patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 01 2011 @ 03:09 PM EDT
- Apple, Microsoft consortium beats Google for Nortel patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 01 2011 @ 11:07 PM EDT
- Corporate Armageddon -- or Lawrriors and Patents at Dawn - Authored by: webster on Friday, July 01 2011 @ 11:08 PM EDT
- T%he market's losers scramble for patents. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 02 2011 @ 09:39 AM EDT
- How OLD are those patents anyway? Radio have been around for a long time. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 02 2011 @ 12:16 PM EDT
- Damages would be interesting - Authored by: globularity on Monday, July 04 2011 @ 12:29 AM EDT
- Sony and Erricsson - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 04 2011 @ 05:36 AM EDT
- need an end bold tag - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 01 2011 @ 04:36 PM EDT
- Google bid what for Nortel patents! Pi? LOL - Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, July 02 2011 @ 12:47 PM EDT
- Samsung Drops One Lawsuit Against Apple to Focus on Others -- Behind Paywall? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 03 2011 @ 01:51 AM EDT
- Scientists Discover Large Deposit of Rare Minerals Used in iPads - Authored by: JamesK on Monday, July 04 2011 @ 03:38 PM EDT
- Scientists Discover Large Deposit of Rare Minerals Used in iPads - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 04 2011 @ 05:44 PM EDT
- ACCESS and Acacia Affiliate License Smartphone Technology to Nokia - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 04 2011 @ 06:10 PM EDT
- Reporting Patent Cases is Hard - Authored by: betajet on Monday, July 04 2011 @ 06:28 PM EDT
- The Data Liberation Front Delivers What? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 04 2011 @ 08:12 PM EDT
- Pay Frozen, More New York Judges Leave Bench - Authored by: betajet on Tuesday, July 05 2011 @ 01:29 PM EDT
- Another Android Device Maker Signs Patent Agreement With Microsoft - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 05 2011 @ 01:46 PM EDT
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Friday, July 01 2011 @ 09:56 AM EDT |
Please stay off topic in these threads.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- thanks, bugs! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 01 2011 @ 11:39 AM EDT
- Lawyer to Judge: I Swear My Browser Ate My Homework - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 01 2011 @ 04:29 PM EDT
- Judge Who Doesn't Understand Technology Says WiFi Is Not A Radio Communication - Authored by: DannyB on Friday, July 01 2011 @ 04:46 PM EDT
- Dropbox Terms of Service - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 02 2011 @ 07:00 AM EDT
- Liar, liar, pantz on fire! - Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, July 02 2011 @ 01:25 PM EDT
- GoDaddy sold! - Authored by: complex_number on Saturday, July 02 2011 @ 02:33 PM EDT
- Got Root ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 02 2011 @ 11:20 PM EDT
- Remember the reactors at Fukushima? And a question for Tiger99 - Authored by: ETian on Sunday, July 03 2011 @ 04:40 AM EDT
- Microsoft, preloading and MPs/MEPs - Authored by: TiddlyPom on Sunday, July 03 2011 @ 06:15 AM EDT
- Happy Independence Day (n/t) - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 04 2011 @ 02:43 AM EDT
- Microsoft to help Chinese government censor search resultes - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 04 2011 @ 11:47 AM EDT
- The Campaign to Eliminate DRM - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 04 2011 @ 08:47 PM EDT
- A Woman’s Place - Can Sheryl Sandberg upend Silicon Valley’s male-dominated culture? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 04 2011 @ 10:53 PM EDT
- Lessig : US corrupt - undemocratic - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 05 2011 @ 01:42 AM EDT
- A (very) small nugget for the SCO files - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 05 2011 @ 11:55 AM EDT
- "slapdash clone" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 05 2011 @ 03:33 PM EDT
- Nokia price reduction - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 05 2011 @ 12:53 PM EDT
- Milly Dowler phone hacking: Speaker grants emergency Commons debate - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 05 2011 @ 01:47 PM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
|
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
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|