This talk looks at a variety of Open Source licenses - given by David Teske, a lawyer who works in this area. Heh - he starts out by welcoming us to the "Less Stressful" part of the program. He calls the GPL the "800 lb Gorilla" rather than the "grandaddy" of Open Source licenses. It absorbs almost all discussion of OSS.

The basic problem behind this morning's earlier conversations - the mismatch between standard copyright law and software. We simply haven't resolved this issue. This talk will cover 4 licenses - Mozilla, (same as Sun's, generally), BSD, Sleepycat, and Apache.

• Non-restrictive - BSD, SleepyCat, and Apache
• Restrictive - MPL

The BSD license was the first one of these on the ground (including the GPL). It's purpose was to enhance collaboration while protecting the University (Berkely). The BSD is purely defensive - it doesn't "stick" to the code. What the BSD impacts are source and binary redistribution under a few conditions.

The BSD grants use "as-is" (i.e., like you found/developed it yourself). No express or implied warranties, no liabilities for damages under any theory of use. There are a few obligations - when you redistribute the source/binary, you must include the original copyright notice, and you can't use the contributor's name for advertising.

The SleepyCat license is a tweaked BSD license. It's nearly identical to the BSD - in the disclaimer, it specifically lists non-infringement as a warranty not provided. Section 3 adds some uncertainty:

• Some unclear language on how you must include source.
• The source must be freely redistributable under "reasonable conditions" (meaning what?)

This is an example of how a forked license often creates a less useful dead end. Next - the MPL, which was derived out of a desire to move between the openess of the BSD and the restrictions of the GPL. The main thing - covered code has to go under the MPL, so unlike the BSD, code under the MPL stays under the MPL. What rights does it grant?

• Reproduction
• Modification
• Display
• Perform (not really applicable to software, but included anyway).
• Use and sub-license

The MPL tries to define a modification more cleanly than the GPL. It's any "addition or deletion from the substance or structure". It's any new file that includes any part of the covered code. [ed] - again, very biased towards the world Smalltalk doesn't live in - I'd be interested to see how a new parcel in VW with an override of an existing method/class in the system gets defined here...

The original authors and each later contributor grants a broad patent license to each licensee in any patent rights it can license that would otherwise be infringed by that code inserted by the licensor. The business needs of Netscape (original developer of MPL) show through here. The MPL also includes explicit terms for the removal of license rights. It's a pretty broad attempt to prevent patent suits by licensees.The MPL also - like the GPL - prevents the licensor from changing the license terms in an additional document. On the other hand, release under different terms entirely is allowed.

Finally, the Apache License (1.0/1.1) - like the BSD. The ASL 2.0 combines aspects of the BSD, MPL, and GPL. The ASL 2.0 grants copyright license as per the MPL, in the same order. It then defines derivative works, more like the GPL. Patent license is like the MPL, somewhat less expansive. The ASL allows derived works to be distributed under a different license - provided that you are not breaching the ASl in your own use. It also explicitly allows warranties and liability, as well as charging for support (etc).