Marc Jones

Several prominent FOSS projects have changed their FOSS licenses to alternate licenses that make software available, but with additional restrictions intended to help financially sustain FOSS development and combat "strip mining" by software-as-a-service providers. Additionally, recently several related organizations have jumped into the the role of helping sustain open source by providing (for a fee) funding conduits, fundraising services, or other mechanisms to route money to maintainers.

Affirmative position: FOSS benefits from sustainability efforts

1. First Affirmative Constructive (1AC) = 7 minutes a. Cross-examination of First Affirmative by Second Negative = 3 minutes
2. First Negative Constructive (1NC) = 7 minutes a. Cross-examination of First Negative by First Affirmative = 3 minutes
3. Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC) = 7 minutes a. Cross-examination of Second Affirmative by First Negative = 3 minutes
4. Second Negative Constructive (2NC) = 7 minutes a. Cross-examination of Second Negative by Second Affirmative = 3 minutes
5. First Negative Rebuttal (1NR) = 3 minutes
6. First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR) = 3 minutes
7. Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR) = 3 minutes
8. Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR) = 3 minutes

In a perfect world, lawyers (and the entire legal system) should not be necessary. And in a perfect FOSS world, everyone respects each and every provision of every license. The reality is, however, very different, and enforcement may be a necessary evil. This need does not mean we have to open the gates to be flooded by "copyleft trolls", but to establish a sound enforcement policy, in order to unleash the lawyers only for the most blatant and repeated violations

Affirmative position: FOSS licenses should not be enforced.

1. First Affirmative Constructive (1AC) = 7 minutes a. Cross-examination of First Affirmative by Second Negative = 3 minutes
2. First Negative Constructive (1NC) = 7 minutes a. Cross-examination of First Negative by First Affirmative = 3 minutes
3. Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC) = 7 minutes a. Cross-examination of Second Affirmative by First Negative = 3 minutes
4. Second Negative Constructive (2NC) = 7 minutes a. Cross-examination of Second Negative by Second Affirmative = 3 minutes
5. First Negative Rebuttal (1NR) = 3 minutes
6. First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR) = 3 minutes
7. Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR) = 3 minutes
8. Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR) = 3 minutes

This presentation will review several court cases interpreting the free software licenses. The focus will be on what the courts concluded the licenses meant, and what questions courts have left open. We will also review court cases covering nonfree software licenses, such as a case involving a Creative Commons license, to see what lessons we might learn from them, as well.

Understanding FOSS licenses are indisputably an important part of the process for contracting for IT services ranging from software agreements, professional services to create or support software, and to cloud solutions.

It’s not uncommon to find carve outs in those agreements saying that “Some Third-Party Content may be provided to you under a separate license, such as the Apache License, Version 2.0, or other open source license.” What does that mean? Are there any surprising terms to be found in those “other open source licenses”.

This presentation will briefly review the terms of some of the less commonly discussed licenses approved by OSI as “open source.” What are some of the interesting properties of these less common licenses? And do we really want to keep agreeing to use them in our contracts?

There are 83 licenses listed as approved “Open source” licenses on the Open source initiatives website. Most of the time when developers, lawyers, and FOSS compliance experts talk about “open source” licenses the permissions and obligations of the nine licenses listed on OSI’s “popular licenses” list are front and center. Occasionally a few other licenses like the AGPL and the Creative Commons licenses are considered as well. But what about the other 70 licences? Do the generalizations and expectations many of us have based on the popular licenses hold up when we start to consider the other OSI approved licenses?

This presentation will argue that many the spoken and unspoken expectations of open source licenses do not generalize well when we consider the full list of licenses approved by OSI. This can be a challenge when IT policies and contractuals are written about “open source” licenses generally. Do organizations that are comfortable working with and using open source software and licenses really want to bound by all of the obligations in every free software license? Are the generalizations we make about open source licenses really true for every license? Do we need to be more careful in crafting policies and contracts then treating all open source licenses the same?

This presentation will review attributes found in the un-”popular licenses” that have been approved by OSI that differ from the unique and common attributes found in the popular licenses.

For example not all of them are classified as free by the Free Software Foundation and some appear to not be acceptable for inclusion in Debian. We will look at the public rationale for Debian and the Free Software Foundation refusing to include those licenses. We will also look at other unexpected properties of other licenses that may challenge many of our internal models for open source licenses.

We will also look at which licenses have the unusual attributes such as: * Choice of Venue Clauses * Choice of Law clauses * Unusual distribution clauses such as - requirements to secure assent to the agreements and licenses - Mandatory Public publication requirements for specified periods of time - Grant of third party beneficiary rights for recipients * Retaliation clauses with broad scopes (terminating all rights for unrelated litigation) * Licenses that have restrictions or contingent obligations that trigger on use * Exclusion of patent rights * Restrictions on selling copies of software

We will pay particular attention to licenses that impose obligations on individuals for merely using the software even if they don’t modify the software such as: * requirements distribution when software is used and the various ways use triggers: * distribution and to whom distribution is required under those circumstances. such as the several licenses that require sharing source code when you use it or let others use it. * Indemnification of authors of the source code

This presentation will review some of the policies that governments have adopted over the years regarding the production of free software. Historically, the free software community has focused on news items about larger users of free software, including a program in Munich. We now live in a world where everyone uses free software at least some of the time, and a large number of companies, even Microsoft, have even created policies on how they are participating. We are just starting to see governments considering their role in free software beyond consumers. In this talk, we will review some of the existing policies by both national and state governments that are embracing free licensing, and we will look at some recent proposed/enacted policies and laws. We will also briefly discuss the role that copyleft and permissive licenses can play in those policies, and what governments should consider when choosing a license.

My talk will briefly review the major open data licenses including the differences between them and their interaction with free software licenses. Particular emphasis will be placed on thier application to databases.

There are only a few popular open data licenses with a focus on open database licensing, but there is very little guidance on the differences between them. This talk will explain the differences between them, why they exist, and when you might prefer one over the other. I will also discuss sui generis database right, why it exists and how is it different than the traditional copyrights.

This talk will be a whirlwind introduction to the common open data licenses that exist.

I will outline the the major open data licenses including: * Creative Commons Zero Public Domain Dedication (CC0) * Open Data Commons Public Domain Dedication and Licence (PDDL) * Open Data Commons Attribution License (ODC-By) * Open Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL) * Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) * Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA)

Will also review some lesser known open data licenses including the recently released licenses created by the Linux foundation. We will look at what uses the authors may have had in mind that motivated them to create the licenses. * Community Data License Agreement – Permissive, Version 1.0 * Community Data License Agreement – Sharing, Version 1.0 * United Kingdom's Open Government License * Canadian Open Government License.

We will discuss why do open data licenses exist and how are they different then free software licenses. We will look at the structure of the licenses to see the legal differences the licenses grant and how they operate. For example will discuss which of these are public domain dedications, licenses, or agreements. We will also talk about when or if that even matters.

After looking at the structure of the licenses we will turn to looking whats differences between the licenses matter for content creators and ask does it matter which license you use.

We will also delve into special considerations of database licensing like the protection and use of personal data, and how the "thin" copyright protection provided to databases impacts the design of open data licenses.

Finally we will ask do you need to use an open data license in your free software project?

The last year has seen significant changes to European Privacy. Last April the EU approved the GDPR, a comprehensive replacement for the European Privacy regime. The GDPR is a technology neutral regulation that has wide spread impacts on how individuals and business will use computers and the Internet worldwide. Free Software has an opportunity to help achieve the goal of the GDPR by baking in privacy and compliance into free software. This presentation will talk about key elements of the GDPR that free software is positioned to take advantage of to increase adoption of free software and promote privacy.

This presentation will discuss what the General Data Protection Regulation is, the scope of its impact, and how FOSS developers can align their efforts with the GDPR to promote individual's privacy and on-line autonomy.

Topics covered will include: what the GDPR is; who it applies to; and important legal rights such as the right to be forgotten, data portability, privacy by design and auditing requirements. By becoming aware of the demands the GDPR will be placing on organizations using FOSS, developers can invest in improvements to their projects that help organizations comply in a way that benefits individuals.