veyepar: A guide to selecting FOSS licences for programmers and open culture enthusiasts

Author(s):	James Scheibner
Location	Boardwalk Gallery
Date	jan Thu 19	Days Raw Files
Start	20:20	First Raw Start	20:19
Duration	0:45:0	Offset	0:00:02
End	21:05	Last Raw End	21:19
Chapters	00:00 0:23:47
Total cuts_time	38 min.

http://linux.conf.au/schedule/presentation/60/
raw-playlist raw-mp4-playlist encoded-files-playlist host archive tweet mp4 svg png

assets release.pdf A_guide_to_selecting_FOSS_licences_for_programmers_and_open_culture_enthusiasts.json
logs
Admin: episode episode list cut list raw files day marks day marks day image_files

State:

Locked:

clear this to unlock

Locked by:

user/process that locked.

Start:

initially scheduled time from master, adjusted to match reality

Duration:

length in hh:mm:ss

Name:

Video Title (shows in video search results)

Emails:

email(s) of the presenter(s)

Released:

has someone authorised pubication

Normalise:

Channelcopy:

m=mono, 01=copy left to right, 10=right to left, 00=ignore.

Thumbnail:

filename.png

Description:

markdown

This paper provides some insight for programmers on way that copyright and patent law in Australia affects free and open source software (FOSS) licences. Without a shadow of doubt the greatest area of legal debate amongst FOSS programmers surrounds the choice of FOSS licence. Many FOSS and Creative Commons style licences are designed to provide developers with a standardised licence which sets the terms for the release and public use of work. Crucially, many of these licences are designed so that developers do not have to seek legal advice for the release of their source code.

However, the complexity and uncertainty regarding the scope of copyright and patents with respect to software can be discouraging for many FOSS programmers. This confusion and uncertainty may lead to FOSS programmers choosing conflicting licences or choosing to not licence their code at all, which can lead to uncertainty as to who actually owns the software. These issues are important irrespective of whether the software is open source or proprietary, or developed as part of commercial work or on a gratis basis.

Nevertheless, a number of recent decisions in the United States have clarified both the scope of copyright and patent protection for software, fair use under copyright law and the conditions that are enforceable under both proprietary and open source software licences. Given the increasingly internationally standardised nature of patent and copyright law, these decisions are likely to have a considerable impact on the way that law affects software in Australia.

Accordingly, this paper is intended to provide a guide for FOSS programmers on how recent case law has impacted on open source licence enforceability, and the implications of releasing under certain FOSS licences. In particular, this paper provides advice on how open source developers should release their software depending on how they wish their software to be used or distributed. Specifically, this paper will attempt to provide some examples on where particular FOSS licences may or may not be appropriate depending on both the type of software and work licensed and the intent of the developer. Finally, this paper will also provide some tips on steps that FOSS developers or open culture enthusiasts can take to maximise downstream use or sharing of their work.

Comment:

production notes