E-SPEAIT T6 Computers and Laws II - Revision history

Kaido.kikkas: /* To sum it up: a table of licenses */

2023-10-07T17:35:49Z

To sum it up: a table of licenses

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:35, 7 October 2023
Line 181:		Line 181:
	A comparison of various software licenses can be seen in Table 1.		A comparison of various software licenses can be seen in Table 1.

			[[File:TableOfSoftwareLicenses.png]]
	Table 1. A comparison of licenses.		Table 1. A comparison of licenses.

Kaido.kikkas: /* The MIT (X11) license */

2023-10-07T17:34:20Z

The MIT (X11) license

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:34, 7 October 2023
Line 175:		Line 175:

	[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License The MIT license] is a permissive license originating from the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Institute_of_Technology Massachusetts Institute of Technology]. It is considered compatible with the GPL (all versions) and used by projects like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_%28software%29 Mono] (among other licenses), [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lua_%28programming_language%29 Lua], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_on_Rails Ruby on Rails] and perhaps the most importantly, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System X Window System] (hence the parallel name of X11 license).		[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License The MIT license] is a permissive license originating from the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Institute_of_Technology Massachusetts Institute of Technology]. It is considered compatible with the GPL (all versions) and used by projects like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_%28software%29 Mono] (among other licenses), [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lua_%28programming_language%29 Lua], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_on_Rails Ruby on Rails] and perhaps the most importantly, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System X Window System] (hence the parallel name of X11 license).


			=== To sum it up: a table of licenses ===

			A comparison of various software licenses can be seen in Table 1.


			Table 1. A comparison of licenses.

	== Online content licenses ==		== Online content licenses ==

Kaido.kikkas: /* Free and open-source software */

2023-10-07T17:32:27Z

Free and open-source software

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:32, 7 October 2023
Line 82:		Line 82:

	As said above, the practical overlap between the schools is substantial (about 90% or so projects would fit into both, the overlap of licenses approved by both schools is about the same). Yet, the clash of ideas (and personalities) on these grounds still happens from time to time.		As said above, the practical overlap between the schools is substantial (about 90% or so projects would fit into both, the overlap of licenses approved by both schools is about the same). Yet, the clash of ideas (and personalities) on these grounds still happens from time to time.

Kaido.kikkas: /* Free and open-source software */

2023-10-07T17:29:27Z

Free and open-source software

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:29, 7 October 2023
Line 75:		Line 75:
	* their license allows the activities mentioned above, giving also the legal freedom to do them.		* their license allows the activities mentioned above, giving also the legal freedom to do them.
	* they do not discriminate on usage, i.e. both non-commercial and commercial use are allowed.		* they do not discriminate on usage, i.e. both non-commercial and commercial use are allowed.
	* they usually demand the preservation of moral rights, i.e. the 'family tree' of an application should be preserved when developing new solutions		* they usually demand the preservation of moral rights, i.e. the 'family tree' of an application should be preserved when developing new solutions.

			However, the ideas between the Free Software and Open Source schools of thought are different:
			* '''Free Software''' is the original term introduced by Richard Stallman and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation FSF]. The focus is on moral and ethical aspect - "Free, because it is a right thing to do".
			* '''Open Source''' was introduced in the late 1990s by a group of IT luminaries (including Bruce Perens, Linus Torvalds, E. S. Raymond and other founders of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Initiative OSI]) who claimed that Stallman's approach is too hostile towards business. Here, the focus is more pragmatic - "Open, because it makes more sense" (according to them, closed source is not 'evil', but rather a worse solution).

			As said above, the practical overlap between the schools is substantial (about 90% or so projects would fit into both, the overlap of licenses approved by both schools is about the same). Yet, the clash of ideas (and personalities) on these grounds still happens from time to time.



	=== A word of caution ===		=== A word of caution ===

Kaido.kikkas at 17:18, 7 October 2023

2023-10-07T17:18:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:18, 7 October 2023
Line 206:		Line 206:

	The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License GNU FDL] is a copyleft license developed in 1999 by the Free Software Foundation as the counterpart of GPL for documentation. It was the original license of Wikipedia and is still used by a number of free content projects.		The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License GNU FDL] is a copyleft license developed in 1999 by the Free Software Foundation as the counterpart of GPL for documentation. It was the original license of Wikipedia and is still used by a number of free content projects.


			== Conclusion ==

			As seen from the last two topics, the legal landscape in IT is extensive and it also has some peculiarities. For IT professionals, it is advisable to be familiar with the main tenets of the WIPO intellectual property model (even when one disagrees with it!) as well as be well-versed in free software (not all free and open-source software fits together without legal glitches) and content licenses (especially when publishing various materials on the Web).


	== References ==		== References ==

Kaido.kikkas: /* The Apache license */

2023-10-07T17:13:25Z

The Apache license

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:13, 7 October 2023
Line 163:		Line 163:
	==== The Apache license ====		==== The Apache license ====

	The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License#cite_note-4 Apache license] is a popular permissive license used by the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_HTTP_Server Apache web server] and related projects (recently also including [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org Apache OpenOffice]) but also a number of smaller projects (e.g. [VLC media player]. The version 2 is considered compatible with GPL 3<ref>https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2</ref>.		The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License#cite_note-4 Apache license] is a popular permissive license used by the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_HTTP_Server Apache web server] and related projects (recently also including [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org Apache OpenOffice]) but also a number of smaller projects (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLC_media_player VLC media player]. The version 2 is considered compatible with GPL 3<ref>https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2</ref>.

	==== The MIT (X11) license ====		==== The MIT (X11) license ====

Kaido.kikkas: /* The European Union Public License */

2023-10-07T17:12:52Z

The European Union Public License

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:12, 7 October 2023
Line 145:		Line 145:
	==== The European Union Public License ====		==== The European Union Public License ====

	The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EUPL EUPL] was actually planned as a strong copyleft license, but the attempts in achieving wider grades of compatibility currently allow the software under it to be turned to use weaker copyleft<ref>https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#EUPL</ref>. Thus it can be called a variable copyleft license<ref>http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/eupl</ref>.		The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EUPL EUPL] (created in 2007) was actually planned as a strong copyleft license, but the attempts in achieving wider grades of compatibility currently allow the software under it to be turned to use weaker copyleft<ref>https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#EUPL</ref>. Thus it can be called a variable copyleft license<ref>http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/eupl</ref>.

	Its strong points in Europe are the explicit compatibility with GPL ~~2 (~~and ~~indirectly also GPL 3~~), while being designed to be compatible with European legal tradition and EU legislation as well as having ~~official~~ translations in ~~many (in the future, likely~~ all) EU languages. Thus it could be a good choice for European developers (particularly as one license in multi-licensing).		Its strong points in Europe are the explicit compatibility with several more common free software licenses (including LGPL, GPL and AGPL), while also being designed to be compatible with European legal tradition and EU legislation as well as having authorized translations in all EU official languages. Thus it could be a good choice for European developers (particularly as one license in multi-licensing).

	==== Microsoft Public License and Reciprocal Public License ====		==== Microsoft Public License and Reciprocal Public License ====

Kaido.kikkas: /* Shareware */

2023-10-07T17:10:14Z

Shareware

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:10, 7 October 2023
Line 49:		Line 49:
	* some vital functions (e.g. saving your work) are disabled when not registered (crippleware)		* some vital functions (e.g. saving your work) are disabled when not registered (crippleware)

	While some of the shareware products are fully functional regardless of registration, they become illegal to use after expiration of the trial period (protected by legal means).		While some of the shareware products are fully functional regardless of registration, they become illegal to use after expiration of the trial period (protected by legal means). The golden age of this distribution model was likely in the 1990s, before wider adoption of open-source software - in the 21st century, smaller projects tend to use more open source approach, or alternatively proprietary freeware models.

			Still, there is another model which can be considered a spiritual successor of shareware: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemium freemium]. Instead of time constraints (limited free period), it uses functional limitations (while the software provides basic functionality without payment, extra functions are only available after registration and payment). Freemium is rather widely used in video games and add-on software (plugins, drivers, design themes etc).

	==== Proprietary (closed-source) freeware ====		==== Proprietary (closed-source) freeware ====

Kaido.kikkas: /* Commercial proprietary software */

2023-10-07T17:01:00Z

Commercial proprietary software

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:01, 7 October 2023
Line 38:		Line 38:

	On the other hand, due to the increased pressure from free software in recent years, volume licensing has surfaced as an option. Larger-scale schemes include [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Azure_Dev_Tools_for_Teaching Azure Dev Tools (earlier known as MS Academic Alliance, Microsoft Imagine and other names) and various volume licensing systems in business sector.		On the other hand, due to the increased pressure from free software in recent years, volume licensing has surfaced as an option. Larger-scale schemes include [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Azure_Dev_Tools_for_Teaching Azure Dev Tools (earlier known as MS Academic Alliance, Microsoft Imagine and other names) and various volume licensing systems in business sector.

			Another recent trend has been the move from traditional locally-installed software to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_as_a_service SaaS] (''Software as a Service'') which essentially means renting software and using it (often via web browser) over the network (can be either wholly - all software is installed remotely, or partially - some of it is installed locally and some remotely).

	==== Shareware ====		==== Shareware ====

Kaido.kikkas at 20:30, 20 January 2022

2022-01-20T20:30:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:30, 20 January 2022
Line 8:		Line 8:
	== Introduction ==		== Introduction ==

	We all use computers - yet there is a ~~suprisingly~~ low interest and knowledge in the wide public towards legal aspects and different licensing schemes. Several factors tend to contribute to this:		We all use computers - yet there is a surprisingly low interest and knowledge in the wide public towards legal aspects and different licensing schemes. Several factors tend to contribute to this:
	* Computers are usually sold with some software preloaded - this will give people the impression that 'it came with the computer' rather than it was '''bought together''' with the computer.		* Computers are usually sold with some software preloaded - this will give people the impression that 'it came with the computer' rather than it was '''bought together''' with the computer.
	* At workplaces, equipping the computers is the task for the employer, so the employees do not need to think about it.		* At workplaces, equipping the computers is the task for the employer, so the employees do not need to think about it.
	* ~~Agressive~~ marketing by software companies to create the impression that 'nothing but them' exist.		* Aggressive marketing by software companies to create the impression that 'nothing but them' exist.
	* Education being locked to certain providers (in many places - Estonian schools are now required to teach at least two software platforms)		* Education being locked to certain providers (in many places - Estonian schools are now required to teach at least two software platforms)
	* Carelessness of people - fueled by the dissonance between the numerous hysterical 'Catch the pirate!' campaigns and the reality where '~~eveyone~~ downloads stuff'.		* Carelessness of people - fueled by the dissonance between the numerous hysterical 'Catch the pirate!' campaigns and the reality where 'everyone downloads stuff'.
	* ...		* ...

Line 23:		Line 23:

	Proprietary software can be defined as software with restrictions imposed by its proprietor (owner) on its use, copying and modification. Restrictions can be		Proprietary software can be defined as software with restrictions imposed by its proprietor (owner) on its use, copying and modification. Restrictions can be
	* '''legal''' - mostly defined by the license agreement (the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EULA EULA] or End-User License ~~Agrement~~), in addition to the innate copyright from its creation.		* '''legal''' - mostly defined by the license agreement (the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EULA EULA] or End-User License Agreement), in addition to the innate copyright from its creation.
	* '''technical''' - the most common is binary-only release, keeping the source code which effectively blocks closer studying or modification (closed-source software).		* '''technical''' - the most common is binary-only release, keeping the source code which effectively blocks closer studying or modification (closed-source software).
	* the combination of these two.		* the combination of these two.
Line 151:		Line 151:
	=== Non-copyleft (permissive) licenses ===		=== Non-copyleft (permissive) licenses ===

	As mentioned, these licenses provide the biggest freedom to software developers and their use has increased during the recent years<ref>~~http~~://~~osrc~~.~~blackducksoftware~~.com/~~data~~/licenses~~/index~~.~~php~~</ref>. However, they still cannot compete with the market share of licenses with stronger copyleft, especially in some established free software collections like Debian<ref>https://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/52838-gpl-use-in-debian-on-the-rise-study?start=1</ref>. However, a suggestion that this kind of licensing is better for component-level technology while stronger ~~copylefts~~ suit better for large community efforts<ref>https://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2802551&cid=39762949</ref> seem to have some merit.		As mentioned, these licenses provide the biggest freedom to software developers and their use has increased during the recent years<ref>https://www.cio.com/article/239121/what-the-rise-of-permissive-open-source-licenses-means.html</ref>. However, they still cannot compete with the market share of licenses with stronger copyleft, especially in some established free software collections like Debian<ref>https://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/52838-gpl-use-in-debian-on-the-rise-study?start=1</ref>. However, a suggestion that this kind of licensing is better for component-level technology while stronger copyleft types suit better for large community efforts<ref>https://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2802551&cid=39762949</ref> seem to have some merit.

	==== The BSD license ====		==== The BSD license ====
Line 189:		Line 189:
	==== CC Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) ====		==== CC Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) ====

	Allows modifications but the original object can only be used ~~noncommercially~~. The NonCommercial clause will extend to the modifications too (although they will not have to use exactly the same license).		Allows modifications but the original object can only be used non-commercially. The NonCommercial clause will extend to the modifications too (although they will not have to use exactly the same license).

	==== CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA) ====		==== CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA) ====
Line 215:		Line 215:
	== Study & Write ==		== Study & Write ==

	* What impact does the copyleft (in its different forms; see above) have on choosing a software ~~licence~~ for one's project? Write a short analysis and provide an example for each category.		* What impact does the copyleft (in its different forms; see above) have on choosing a software license for one's project? Write a short analysis and provide an example for each category.

	[[E-SPEAIT \| Back to the course page]]		[[E-SPEAIT \| Back to the course page]]