8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 2/68
Disclaimers
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
U.S. GOVERNMENT DISCLAIMER NOTICE. The views expressed in this presentation are thothe author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. The information appearing on thispresentation is for general informational purposes only and is not intended to provide legal ato any individual or entity. Please consult with your own legal advisor before taking any actibased on information appearing in this presentation or any sources to which it may cite.
UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 3/68
Who is this guy?
MARCUS A. STREIPSAttorney-Advisor (Intellectual Property)
United States Army Medical Research & Materiel Comman
Fort Detrick, MD
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 4/68
Why are we here?OSEHRA Mission
“BUILD and SUPPORT an OPEN SOURCE COMMUNITY of users, developers,service providers, and researchers engaged in advancing electronic health recosoftware and related health information technology.”OSEHRA’s mission includthe creation of a VENDOR-NEUTRALcommunity for the creation, evolution,promotion and support of an open source Electronic Health Record (EHR). Thiscommunity will operate with the TRANSPARENCY and AGILITY that characteopen source software initiatives. This entails not only the development of a
community of software experts, clinicians, and implementers, but also a robusecosystem of complementary products, capabilities and services. OSEHRA is service organization. In one sense, our “product” is a thriving open source EHRcommunity. However, a more practical description of our products would list tservices OSEHRA provides to SUPPORT that community, such as our softwarerepository, testing, certification, and working group support. ”
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 5/68
Why are we here?
• BUILD
• SUPPORT
• TRANSPARENT
• AGILE
• VENDER-NEUTRAL
• OPEN SOURCE
• COMMUNITY
OSEHRA Mission (Abridged)
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 6/68
Open Source Principles1. Innovation comes from the outside. It must be channeled inside.
2. Software is knowledge transformed into code. It needs an engaged C
3. Software is never a finished product. Its evolution requires an involve
4. Attract interested people with shared goals. Earn their trust.
5. Transparency: remove any obstacles to the free flow of information
6. Meritocratic governance driven by: Autonomy, Mastery, and Purpose
7. Release Early, Release Often.8. Avoid Private Discussions.
9. Establish Credibility. Build relationships with Open Source Communit
10.Welcome the unexpected. Listen carefully to the Community.
SOURCE: http://osehra.org/sites/default/files/osehra_licensing_terms_v.1.0.pdf
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 7/68
How do we make that happen?
1. Open Source Ecosystem: Patents, Data, Standards and S
2. Open Source Software (OSS) Licenses Overview
3. OSS Compatibility: Aggregation, Integration, Linking
4. “Don’t Do it Yourself (DIYs)”: OSS Best Practices
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 8/68
How do we make that happen?
Part I: Open Source Ecosystem:Patents, Data, Standards and Software
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 9/68
OSEHRA System Architecture
SOURCE: http://architecture.osehra.org/
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 10/68
OSEHRA System Architecture
SOURCE: http://architecture.osehra.org/
• Data & Do• Standards• Software
• Architectu
• Patents
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 11/68
Licensing Landscape
SOURCE: http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/mr/psm/09_technical_data_rights_acquisition_strategy_guertin_2nov2011_v2
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 12/68
OSEHRA System Architecture
Patents
Standards
(copyrights)
Data
(data rights)
Software(copyrights)
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 13/68
OSEHRA System Architecture
Patents
Standards
(copyrights)
Data
(data rights)
Software(copyrights)
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 14/68
Defn. Patent • Intangible Property
• Concepts & Ideas
• Social Contract
• Hedge against risk
• Inventive concept covering “Anything under the Sun”
• NOT laws of nature, natural phenomena or abstract idea
• Government sanctioned monopoly to make, use, sell, import
• 20 years from earliest effective filing date
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 16/68
Patents and OSS
• VERY IMPORTANT to keep patents out of OSS code
• Restrict software use and distribution
• Undermine emergence of a commercial marketplace
•
Raise suspicion of costly litigation• Goes against principles of vendor-neutrality, agility and com
SOURCE: http://osehra.org/sites/default/files/osehra_licensing_terms_v.1.0.pdf
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 17/68
Patent Reciprocity and Open Standa
“Most users of software probably don’t realize how integral industry standards are business and financial applications, nor how disruptive it might be to them if the stsuddenly became more expensive or less available.”
Open standards should be made available under reasonable reciprocal licenses th
require licensees to share under the same terms their own patent claims reading o
standard, or the standard should not be called open.
SOURCE: http://www.rosenlaw.com/pdf-files/DefiningOpenStandards.pdfCopyright 2013 Lawrence Rosen. Licensed under the Open Software License version 3.0 (“OSL 3.0”)
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 18/68
Patent Reciprocity and Open Standa
• Create a common pool of patent claims that are available for all who share the stan
• Condition reciprocity for participation in the standards process
• Condition reciprocity for commercial distribution of software that implements the s
• Explicit in license conditions
• Implicit through defensive termination provisions
•
Covenants not to sue (Sun/Microsoft XML standard) – but see Microsoft's Open Specification Profor GPL, Copyright 2008, Software Freedom Law Center licensed under licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0.
SOURCE: http://www.rosenlaw.com/pdf-files/DefiningOpenStandards.pdfCopyright 2013 Lawrence Rosen. Licensed under the Open Software License version 3.0 (“OSL 3.0”)
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 19/68
Patent Reciprocity and Open Standa
SOURCE: http://www.hl7.org/legal/patentinfo.cfmCopyright 2007-2013 Health Level Seven International
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 20/68
Patent Reciprocity and Open Standa
SOURCE: http://www.hl7.org/legal/patentinfo.cfmCopyright 2007-2013 Health Level Seven Internatio
OSEHRA S t A hit t
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 21/68
OSEHRA System Architecture
Patents
Standards
(copyrights)
Data
(data rights)
Software(copyrights)
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 23/68
CopyrightsA Little History:
The earliest recorded historical case-law on the right to copy comes from ancient Ireland. The
earliest example of Irish writing. Around 560 AD St. Columba copied it from St. Finnian causincontroversy that precipitated the Battle of Cúl Dreimhne in 561 AD (3000 dead).
King Diarmait Mac Cerbhaill gave the judgment :
"To every cow belongs her calf, therefore to every book becopy
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 24/68
Copyright and Open Systems
•
Standards (HL7, ISO)• Data/Databases (US vs. EU/AU/CA)
• Schema
• Documentation
• Design Concepts/GUI/Trade Dress
• Software
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 25/68
Defn. Open Work (Knowledge/Data/Content/S
SOURCE: http://opendefinition.org/okd/
1. Access Agile
2. Redistribution Vendor-Neutral
3. Reuse Agile
4. Absence of Technological Restriction Transparent
5. Attribution Agile
6. Integrity Agile
7. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups Vendor-Neutral
8. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor Agile/Vendor-Neu
9. Distribution of License Agile
10. License must NOT be Specific to a Package Agile/Vendor Neu
11. License must NOT Restrict the Distribution of Other Works Agile
See Also: upcoming lecture: “Open Data”Dr. Fr
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 26/68
Open Work Conformant License
SOURCE: http://opendefinition.org/okd/
SOURCE: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 27/68
Open Work Conformant License
SOURCE http://creativecommons.org/choose/
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 28/68
Open Work NON-Conformant Lice
SOURCE http://opendefinition.org/licenses/nonconformant/
G D Ri h
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 29/68
Government Data Rights
SOURCE: http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/mr/psm/09_technical_data_rights_acquisition_strategy_guertin_2nov2011_v2.p
OSEHRA System Architecture
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 30/68
OSEHRA System Architecture
Patents
Standards
(copyrights)
Data
(data rights)
Software(copyrights)
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 31/68
Open Standards Requirement of
• Users of open standards aren’t locked into a particular implementation.
• Easily switch to a different implementation – Proprietary/FLOSS implemen
• The standard itself helps developers know what to do.
SOURCE: http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/open-standards-open-source.html Copyright 2013 David A. Wheeler and licensed under the Creative Commons “Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 LicensDocumentation License; or the GNU GPL (version 2 or later)
Open standards aid FLOSS projects, and it’s not hard to see why:
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 32/68
Open Standards Requirement of
1. No Intentional Secrets Transparent
2. Availability Agile/Vendor-Ne
3. Patents Vendor-Neutral
4. No Agreements Agile/Transparen
5. Attribution Agile
6. No OSR-Incompatible Dependencies Agile/Vendor-Ne
SOURCE: http://opendefinition.org/okd/
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 33/68
Open Standards Requirement of
SOURCE: http://www.hl7.org/documentcenter/public_temp_B65E8487-1C23-BA17-0CA344F46F3417A2/pressreleases/HCopyright 2013 Health Level Seven International
OSEHRA System Architecture
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 34/68
OSEHRA System Architecture
Patents
Standards
(copyrights)
Data
(data rights)
Software(copyrights)
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 35/68
How do we make that happen?
Part II: Open Source Software (O
Licenses Overview
f f
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 36/68
A Defn. Open Source Software
SOURCE: http://opensource.org/osd
See Also: http://osehra.org/sites/default/files/osehra_licensing_terms_v.1.0.pdf
See Also: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
1. Free Redistribution Vendor-Neutral
2. Source Code Transparent
3. Derived Works Agile
4. Integrity of the Author’s Source Code Agile
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups Vendor-Neutral
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavors Agile/Vendor-Neu
7. Distribution of License Agile
8. License Must Not be Specific to A Product Agile
9. License Must Not Restrict other Software Agile
10. License Must be Technology-Neutral Vendor-Neutral
OSS Li C t
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 37/68
OSS License Category
SOURCE: http://flosscc.opensource.org/content/spread-the-word content on this site is licensed under a Creative Common
3 Types of Licenses
1. Reciprocal (aka “Viral”, “Copyleft”, “Restrictive”)
- if you change the code and redistribute it, you must alsoredistribute the source code; the code will remain open source.- all code linked to the code with a reciprocal license must remainwith the same reciprocal license
2. Partially Reciprocal (“Weak Copyleft”)- similar to the reciprocal but you can distribute a singe componentof your code with this license and link it to code with other license
(even proprietary)
3. Academic (aka “Commercial Friendly”, “Permissive”)- you may relicense your derivative work under any license of yourchoice, or even make it proprietary
OSS Li C t
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 38/68
OSS License Category
SOURCE: http://flosscc.opensource.org/content/spread-the-word content on this site is licensed under a Creative Common
Popular and Widely Used License
1. Reciprocal (aka “Viral”, “Copyleft”, “Restrictive”)
- GNU General Public License (GPL)
2. Partially Reciprocal (“Weak Copyleft”)- Eclipse Public License (EPL)- GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL)- Mozilla Public License 2.0 (MPL)
3. Academic (aka “Commercial Friendly”, “Permissive”)- Apache License 2.0- BSD- MIT License
OSS Li C t
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 39/68
OSS License Category
SOURCE : http://www.openfoundry.org/en/foss-license-category
OSS Li C t
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 40/68
OSS License Category
SOURCE : http://www.openfoundry.org/en/comparison-of-licenses
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 41/68
Rank of OSS Licenses by Popularity
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 42/68
Rank of OSS Licenses by Popularity
SOURCE: http://osrc.blackducksoftware.com/data/licenses/ Copyright 2013 Black Duck Software,. Inc
SOURCE: http://johnhaller.com/jh/useful_stuff/open_source_license_Copyright 2011 John T. Haller
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 44/68
OSS License Category
BSD/MIT (“Commercial Friendly”, “Permissive”)
• The code is protected by copyright.
• code can be used in closed source projects.
• The code can be included in project with more restrictive licenses.
• The program that used this can be sold and licensed commercially.
• Derivative works need NOT be released (non-reciprocal).
• There is implicit permission to exercise patents.
• A number of terms that are left unspecified.
SOURCE: http://osehra.org/sites/default/files/osehra_licensing_terms_v.1.0.pdf
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 46/68
OSS License Category
GPL 3.0 (“Viral”, “Copyleft”, “Restrictive”)
• “Viral” because the licenses spreads a continuing use of the licenses in its derivatives.
• The code can be sold and licensed commercially as long as the source code is under the
• Derivative works, when distributed, must be distributed under the same license (recipr
• Does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it.
• Patent permissions are included more strongly than GPL 2.0.
• Hardware devices must allow modified versions to run.
• Prevents the practice of applying restrictive licenses to modifications of original source
• May NOT be distributed under any other license. Keep code “free forever”.
SOURCE: http://osehra.org/sites/default/files/osehra_licensing_terms_v.1.0.pdf
OSS License Category
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 47/68
OSS License Category
GPL 3.0 (“Viral”, “Copyleft”, “Restrictive”)
SOURCE: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/04/pick-a-license-any-license.html© 2013 Jeff Atwood.
“The archetypal bearded, sandal-clad free software
license. Your code can never be used in any
proprietary program, ever! Take that, capitalism!”
OSS License Category
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 48/68
OSS License Category
LGPL (“Lesser Copyleft”)
• The code is protected by copyright.
• Considered “halfway” point between “restrictive” and “permissive” licenses
• Allows combination with proprietary closed-source software impermissible under GPL
• Does not extend to LGPL license to works that link against the original code.
• Originally written to accommodate code libraries
Source: http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/foss-primer.pdf Copyright © 2006, 2007, 2008, Software Freedom Law Center, Inc. Verbatim copying anddistribution of this entire document is permitted in any medium; however, this notice must bepreserved on all copies.
H d k th t h ?
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 49/68
How do we make that happen?
Part III: OSS Compatibility:Aggregation, Integration, Linkin
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 51/68
OSS Aggregation
An "aggregate" consists of a number of separate programs, distributed
together on the same CD-ROM or other media. The GPL permits you to create
and distribute an aggregate, even when the licenses of the other software are
non-free or GPL-incompatible. The only condition is that you cannot release
the aggregate under a license that prohibits users from exercising rights that
each program's individual license would grant them.
SOURCE: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation Copyright © 2007, 2008, 2010, 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc.Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License
OSS I t ti
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 52/68
OSS Integration
SOURCE: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation Copyright © 2007, 2008, 2010, 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc.Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License
“If you integrate module Q, and release the combined program P+Q under the GPL,that means any part of P+Q can be used under the GPL.”
P : GPL Code
Q: Your Code
P+Q = P+Q = P = Q
OSS Linking
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 53/68
gThe Problem of “Derivative Works”
SOURCE: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6366Copyright © 1994 – 2013 Linux Journal.
The Copyright Act, at 17 U.S.C. §101, is a little vague and doesn't say anything atall about software:
A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works, suchas a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motionpicture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensationor any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed or adapted. Awork consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations or othermodifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a“derivative work”.
OSS Linking
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 54/68
OSS Linking
SOURCE: http://www.cs.binghamton.edu See Also: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic
OSS Linking
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 55/68
OSS Linking
SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_worText is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;
1. Dynamic and static linking violate GPL (FSF, LGPL, Stallman)
2. Static linking violates GPL but unclear as to dynamic linking (Torvalds,
3. Linking is does not automatically create a derivative work (OSI, Rosen)
Point of view:
OSS License Compatibility
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 56/68
OSS License Compatibility
SOURCE : http://www.openfoundry.org/en/compatibility-of-licenses
Here the term “compatibility” refers to the two followingconditions:
1. When a software developer makes use of more than oneexternal module in the development of a single project, andwhen the licenses of used modules do not conflict with eachother, we say these licenses are compatible with each other.
2. When a software developer modifies a given program, andthe modified part makes use of other modules; when the
licenses of the modules do not conflict with the license of themodified program, we say the licenses are compatible witheach other.
OSS Compatibility
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 57/68
OSS Compatibility
SOURCE: http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/floss-license-slide.pdf Copyright 2013 David A. Wheeler and licensed under the Creative Commons “Attribution-Share Alike 3.0License”; the GNU Free Documentation License; or the GNU GPL (version 2 or later)
OSS Compatibility
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 58/68
OSS Compatibility
SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_woText is available under the CC-BY-SA-3.0; Released under the GNU Free Documentation License
So which one?
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 59/68
So which one?
Apache License 2.0
SOURCE: http://osehra.org/sites/default/files/osehra_licensing_terms_v.1.0.pdf
How do we make that happen?
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 60/68
How do we make that happen?
Part IV: “Don’t Do it Yourself (DIOSS Best Practices
OSHERA OSS Key Features
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 61/68
y
1. Allow use in non-open source code (no reciprocity condition in license)
2. No licensing royalties
3. No Dual Licensing
4. Maximize business model diversity
5. Encourage, but NOT require contribution of improvements and modification
6. Allow for project forking, but AVOID it
7. Share maintenance cost of code base
SOURCE: http://osehra.org/sites/default/files/osehra_licensing_terms_v.1.0.pdf
Don’t “DIYs”
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 62/68
Don t DIYs
•
A GRAM license makes user and developer adoption quicker and easier.• A GRAM license has substantial licensing knowledge and support.
• Many GRAM licenses are shepherded by professional organizations (e.g., FSF, O
• Developers have a understanding and consensus of how the GRAM license mode
• Too many different licenses makes it difficult for licensors to choose
• License compatibility is a complex issue
• Multi-License distributions are complex and hard to understand
SOURCE: http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/foss-primer.pdf SOURCE: http://opensource.org/proliferation-reportall content licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0.
Pick Generally Recognized as Mature (GRAM) Licenses:
Don’t “DIYs”
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 63/68
Don t DIYs
The OSEHRA will only consider existing OSI-Approved licenses. There is already
variety of open source licenses to satisfy most common licensing situations. The O
Source Initiative repeatedly discourages projects from creating new licenses. The e
devising a new license will drain a significant amount of resources and distract the
from more pressing issues while providing no benefit for the open source stance o
project at large.
SOURCE: http://osehra.org/sites/default/files/osehra_licensing_terms_v.1.0.pdf
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 65/68
Discouraged Practices
• Continuous tension and fractioning of the Community
• Forking of the project into diverging branches (beyond experimental and explorato
• Litigation and uncertainty on potential future litigation
• Entrenchment of the software and use of it by only a small niche of users
• Unbalanced influence on the software by a small fraction of actors in the ecosystem
SOURCE: http://osehra.org/sites/default/files/osehra_licensing_terms_v.1.0.pdf
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 67/68
Sourceshttp://osehra.org/sites/default/files/osehra_licensing_terms_v.1.0.pdf http://architecture.osehra.org http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/mr/psm/09_technical_data_rights_acquisition_strategy_guertin_2nov2011_v2.pdf http://www.rosenlaw.com/pdf-files/DefiningOpenStandards.pdf http://www.hl7.org/legal/patentinfo.cfm http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm http://opendefinition.org/okd http://opendatacommons.org/licenses http://creativecommons.org/choose http://opendefinition.org/licenses/nonconformant/ http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/open-standards-open-source.html http://www.hl7.org/documentcenter/public_temp_B65E8487-1C23-BA17-0CA344F46F3417A2/pressreleases/HL7_http://opensource.org/osd http://osehra.org/sites/default/files/osehra_licensing_terms_v.1.0.pdf http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://flosscc.opensource.org/content/spread-the-word http://www.openfoundry.org/en/foss-license-category http://www.openfoundry.org/en/comparison-of-licenses
Sources (cont )
8/12/2019 OSS Licensing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oss-licensing 68/68
Sources (cont.)http://www.openfoundry.org/LicenseWizard/index.htm?en http://home.ccil.org/~cowan/floss http://osrc.blackducksoftware.com/data/licenses/ http://johnhaller.com/jh/useful_stuff/open_source_license_popularity http://www.openlogic.com/news/bid/154646/OpenLogic-Scanning-Data-Reveals-OSS-Developers-Choose-GPL-Ehttp://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/04/pick-a-license-any-license.html http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/foss-primer.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6366 http://www.cs.binghamton.edu http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic http://www.openfoundry.org/en/compatibility-of-licenses http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/floss-license-slide.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works http://opensource.org/proliferation-report