Bradley M. Kuhn

Copyleft is a tool to help give everyone the right to modify and fix the software they use. It has proven effective in many situations, giving us projects like OpenWrt, and growing various FOSS communities like Linux immensely. However, copyleft is not the thing that software freedom advocates ultimately want - rather, it is one way of achieving it, and works to varying degrees depending on the copyright and other laws of the country you happen to reside in. Early writing on software freedom tended to focus on copyleft as the solution but, as we enter what many call a post-copyright age, fueled by AI startups and other dubious businesses, we need new tools to ensure that people's right to modify and fix the software they use is protected for current and future generations. This talk will explore some of the foundations of software freedom and how we can re-think the ways that these foundations are upheld through law and social norms.

Join us for an in-depth discussion about Red Hat's recent announcements concerning Red Hat Enterprise Linux led by Bradley M. Kuhn with of a panel consisting of benny Vasquez of Alma, Jeremy Allison of CIQ/Rocky, Jim Wright of Oracle.

Other people: benny Vasquez James (Jim) Wright Jeremy Allison

A panel discussion on different aspects of SBOMs.

Audience participation is expected and encouraged!

Other people: Alexios Zavras Anthony Harrison Julian Coccia Paul Novarese

The organizers of the Legal and Policy DevRoom discuss together the issues they've seen over the last year in FOSS, and consider what we can learn from the presentations on the track this year, and look forward together about the future of FOSS policy.

Other people: Tom Marble Karen Sandler Alexander Sander

After thirty years of FOSS advocacy, issue and problems in approach have begun to emerge. Strategic mistakes in approach to new technologies has often led to large areas of software endeavor to remain proprietary. While for-profit companies have been rewarded with great efficiency benefits and other perks from their adoption of FOSS, rarely do these benefits trickle down to consumers and end-users in their daily computing lives. This talk examines our past mistakes in advocacy and activism, and considers what to do next.

Since its advent in the late 1980s, the Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) community now has more than thirty years of experience in strategies for advocacy and encouraging adoption of FOSS. Results have, unfortunately, been mixed. While corporate adoption by for-profit companies has led to a boon and integration of FOSS into most corporate practices, the true promise of software rights and freedoms — the ability of individual hobbyist and consumers to participate on equal footing with the largest software producers in the world — mostly eludes our community.

This talk examines the wins, losses and challenges that FOSS advocacy has faced in the last thirty years. We'll explore how failures to foresee both web application deployment and the advent of advertising-based app-oriented software deployment led to serious strategic errors in advocacy and focus of attention. Many of these problems remain difficult to address, and only frank discussion among activists will reveal new approaches to continue a vibrant FOSS community into the next generation.

Introduction and Welcome to the Legal and Policy Issues Devroom

Other people: Tom Marble Matthias Kirschner Karen Sandler Alexander Sander

The organizers of the Legal and Policy DevRoom for FOSDEM 2022 discuss together the issues they've seen over the last year in FOSS, and consider what we can learn from the presentations on the track this year, and look forward together about the future of FOSS policy.

The organizers of the Legal and Policy DevRoom for FOSDEM 2022 discuss together the issues they've seen over the last year in FOSS, and consider what we can learn from the presentations on the track this year, and look forward together about the future of FOSS policy.

Other people: Karen Sandler Max Mehl Alexander Sander

The organizers of the Legal and Policy DevRoom for FOSDEM 2021 discuss together the issues they've seen over the last year in FOSS, and consider what we can learn from the presentations on the track this year, and look forward together about the future of FOSS policy.

The organizers of the Legal and Policy DevRoom for FOSDEM 2021 discuss together the issues they've seen over the last year in FOSS, and consider what we can learn from the presentations on the track this year, and look forward together about the future of FOSS policy.

Other people: Karen Sandler Richard Fontana Max Mehl Alexander Sander

Compliance with Open Source and Free Software licenses remains a perennial topic of discussion among policy makers in our community. However, little attention is paid to the motivations why these licenses have specific requirements. Specifically, at least for copyleft licenses, the licenses seek to bestow specific rights and freedoms to the users who receive the software integrated into the devices they use. This panel, containing a group of industry experts, consultants, and license enforcement experts, discusses the challenges and importance of assuring downstream can actually utilize the compliance artifacts they receive with products as intended by the license.

Compliance with Open Source and Free Software licenses remains a perennial topic of discussion among policy makers in our community. However, little attention is paid to the motivations why these licenses have specific requirements. Specifically, at least for copyleft licenses, the licenses seek to bestow specific rights and freedoms to the users who receive the software integrated into the devices they use. This panel, containing a group of industry experts, consultants, and license enforcement experts, discusses the challenges and importance of assuring downstream can actually utilize the compliance artifacts they receive with products as intended by the license.

Other people: John Sullivan Miriam Ballhausen Davide Ricci Eilís Ní Fhlannagáin

Innersource is a growing phenomenon that is widely viewed as improvement over existing regimes of proprietary silos within for-profit corporate walls. The bargain it strikes is compelling but curious: developers yield benefits that please them regarding software sharing & improvement, while companies succeed in keeping their software crown jewels locked up & locked down. How will that impact software freedom? Will it increase or decrease upstream contribution? Will developers use Innersource as a jumping ground to FLOSS contribution, or will silos stay siloed? What can Open Source Program Offices do to mitigate downsides to Innersource in an effort to increase FOSS-curious employee retention and interest? This talk explores these issues.

Innersource is a growing phenomenon that is widely viewed as improvement over existing regimes of proprietary silos within for-profit corporate walls. The bargain it strikes is compelling but curious: developers yield benefits that please them regarding software sharing & improvement, while companies succeed in keeping their software crown jewels locked up & locked down. How will that impact software freedom? Will it increase or decrease upstream contribution? Will developers use Innersource as a jumping ground to FLOSS contribution, or will silos stay siloed? What can Open Source Program Offices do to mitigate downsides to Innersource in an effort to increase FOSS-curious employee retention and interest? This talk explores these issues.

Karen and Bradley, building on the substantial feedback from last year's keynote, follow up their 2019 FOSDEM keynote with real-world suggestions, ideas, and discussion about how we, as software freedom activists, can live in a world with so much proprietary software. Software freedom is hard to find, but we can find it together, and we can support each other when we must face the proprietary software world and make hard decisions. Let's figure it out together and support each other!

History never unfolds as we would expect. It's surprising and jarring that we've achieved both so much and so little. Every day, there is more Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) in the world than ever in history, but it's also a little bit harder each day to live a life that avoids proprietary software. Today's world of software technology is a ridiculous paradox.

Most software that we depend on every day is under someone's else control. Whether it's the cloud service run by a big company, the medical devices that keep us alive, or the Javascript application for everything from our banking to our social media, the code that handles our most sensitive data and life-essential computing tasks is usually proprietary. Even Linux-based devices, which are ubiquitous, rarely comply with the GPL and therefore are more-or-less almost as proprietary as any other device. Linux is everywhere, yet early FOSS adopters have never had less software freedom than we do today.

Once upon a time, it was viable for someone living in the industrialized world to function in daily society in pure software freedom. In those days, being a software freedom activist was akin to being a vegan or vegetarian: activists could (relatively conveniently) live a lifestyle that reflected our values and proved our sociopolitical point in mundane, daily terms.

Leading by example is not so easy anymore. The strongest supporters of software freedom among us, if they chose to remain living in the industrialized world, make compromises. Our political opponents tell us that our cause is misguided since these compromises "aren't so bad". Meanwhile, our would-be political allies question our commitment to the cause because we carry devices with some proprietary firmwares. Navigating this complex climate may well be the hardest challenge we face.

Cooptation is a commonplace for social justice movements, and the cooption process can be ongoing for decades. The software freedom movement is a few years into this cooption: this is precisely why we see major leaders stand up and shout "Open Source is the default; Open Source has won!" while presenting slides from a Macbook. The most difficult days don't lie behind us; they lie ahead.

This talk is about surviving the personal struggle of software freedom activism in this current climate. Many of us want a world with only FOSS and no proprietary software, but we won't get there in our lifetimes. How do we live our lives to maximal effect to carry forward the torch of software freedom both in this generation and onto the next? How do we weather the inevitable failures and seemingly insurmountable challenges as we watch what was once FOSS slowly become proprietary again, or see new technologies exist only as proprietary, or, even worse, exist as a warped version of FOSS that "seems open" but fails to give most software freedoms to most users? Let's learn and explore together how to survive as activists now that the going got tough.

Please note that this replaces the talk originally scheduled to be given by Amanda Brock on "United Nations Technology and Innovation Labs".

Other people: Karen Sandler

The Legal & Policy Issues DevRoom Organizers gather to reflect on our DevRoom talks and FOSS issues of the day

Other people: Tom Marble Karen Sandler Richard Fontana

Projects today often have thousands of FOSS dependencies. Since risk flows downstream in the supply chain; projects inherit and pass on the risks of all their dependencies. In response, licensing bill of materials tools often seek to push well-formed licensing inventory data upstream in an effort to ease downstream compliance challenges. At the same time, there has been a stark increase in license violations, especially, though not exclusively, on copyleft licenses. Is this approach to improving compliance working?

Affirmative position: Compliance at scale through tool-driven assembly of bills of materials is essential for FOSS

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

Other people: Carol Smith Jeff McAffer

The organizers of the Legal & Policy Issues DevRoom will reflect on recent developments in software freedom policy and law, and will discuss some of the topics and issues raised in this year's and past year's DevRooms.

Other people: Tom Marble Karen Sandler Richard Fontana

License Compliance has become big business. Many proprietary tools exist, but fortunately in recent years FLOSS tools to aid understanding the licenses of codebases have been created. This panel includes developers of many of these freely available tools. We'll discuss what these tools do, if they can actually address compliance problems in the wild yet, and the general challenges of developing freely available tools in a heavily proprietarized industry.

Other people: Michael Jaeger Philippe Ombredanne Valerio Cosentino Max Sills Thomas Steenbergen

The FOSS community suffers deeply from a fundamental paradox: every day, there are more lines of freely licensed code than ever in history, but, every day, it also becomes slightly more difficult to operate productively using only Open Source and Free Software.

In one sense, we live in the paramount of success of FOSS: developers can easily find jobs writing mostly freely licensed software. Companies, charities, trade associations, and individual actors collaborate together on the same code bases in (relative) harmony. The entire Internet would cease to function without FOSS. Yet, the "last mile" of the most critical software that we rely on in our daily lives is usually proprietary.

We, the presenters of this talk, live as the canaries in the coalmine of proprietary software. We have spent our lives seeking to actively avoid proprietary software but both personally and professionally, we find ourselves making compromises. In this talk, we will report the results of our diligent efforts to use only FOSS in our daily work.

Ideally, it would be possible to live a software freedom lifestyle in the way a vegetarian lives a vegetarian lifestyle: minor inconveniences at some restaurants and stores, but generally most industrialized societies provide opportunity and resources to support that moral choice. Not so with proprietary software: often, the compromise is between "spend hours or days for a task that would take mere minutes with proprietary software". In other cases, important opportunities are simply not offered to those who chose software freedom.

The advent of network services, which mix server-side secret software, and proprietary Javascript or "Apps", are central to the decline in the ability to live a productive, convenient life in software freedom. However, few in our community focus on the implications of this and related problems, and few now even try to resist. We have tried to resist, and while we have succeeded occasionally, we have failed overall to live life in software freedom.

In this talk, we will report on where the resistance fails the most and why. Finally, we will make suggestions of where volunteer developers can most strategically focus their efforts to build a world where all can live in software freedom.

Other people: Karen Sandler

The license-importance divide seems almost generational: the older generation cares about licenses, and the younger generation does not. Yet, the historical focus on licensing in FLOSS, while occasionally prone to pedantry to a degree only developers can love, stemmed from serious governance considerations regarding how community members interact.

Copyleft was invented to solve the many problems of project governance, assuring the rights of users and creating equal footing for all contributors. The licensing infrastructure today also has increased in complexity, with proprietary relicensing business models, excessive use of CLAs, and tricky clauses on top of existing licenses.

Given this climate, how do we understand if copyleft is succeeding? This talk explores historical motivations and modern reactions to these licensing matters, and digs into understanding how policies have impacted Free Software communities for both good and ill.

The organizers of the Legal & Policy Issues DevRoom will reflect on recent developments in software freedom policy and law, and will discuss some of the topics and issues raised in this year's and past year's DevRooms.

Other people: Tom Marble Karen Sandler Richard Fontana

The [first GPL compliance action was done by Richard Stallman against NeXT Computers in 1989](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.en.html), regarding Objective C support in GCC. For 25 years, GPL compliance has remained a regular but rarely mainstream activity in Open Source and Free Software projects. Very few projects enforce their [copyleft](https://copyleft.org/) licenses; most live with regular violations and merely ignore them, or simply beg violators to comply. Even under the now-published and publicly discussed [Community Principles of GPL Enforcement](https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.html), co-drafted by Software Freedom Conservancy and the Free Software Foundation, GPL compliance is regularly criticized and questioned. Those of us who enforce the GPL get wildly inconsistent feedback from the community: some copyright holders recruit organizations like Conservancy and FSF to enforce as much as possible, others often complaining that we simply don't enforce enough, and still others call for a complete moratorium on GPL compliance. Meanwhile, not all enforcement abides by community principles. For-profit enforcers, who have existed for decades, use copyleft licenses in a manner not intended by the license drafters: to captiously convince "customers" that they must buy proprietary licenses, or otherwise pay, to incorporate Open Source and Free Software into their products. This complex landscape has become almost impenetrable for the average FLOSS developers who merely wish their code to remain forever free and libre. This talk will provide the basic history and background information about the state of copyleft in our community, and set the stage for all developers to give informed feedback to organizations that stand up for copyleft.

The fundamental mechanism defending software freedom is copyleft, embodied in GPL. GPL, however, functions only through upholding it--via GPL enforcement. For some, enforcement has been a regular activity for 30 years, but most projects don't enforce: they live with regular violations. Today, even under the Community Principles of GPL Enforcement, GPL enforcement is regularly criticized and questioned. The complex landscape is now impenetrable for developers who wish their code to remain forever free. This talk provides basic history and background information on the topic.

After 25 years of copyleft enforcement and compliance work, is copyleft succeeding as a strategy to defend software freedom? This talk explores the history of enforcement of the GPL and other copyleft licenses, and considers this question carefully. Attendees who have hitherto not followed the current and past debates about copyleft licenses and their enforcement can attend this talk and learn the background, and can expect to learn enough to provide salient and informed feedback of their own opinions about the processes behind upholding copyleft.

The first GPL enforcement action was done by Richard Stallman against NeXT Computers in 1989, regarding Objective C support in GCC. For 25 years, GPL enforcement has remained a regular but rarely mainstream activity in Open Source and Free Software projects. Very few projects enforce their copyleft licenses; most live with regular violations and merely ignore them, or simply beg violators to comply.

Even under the now-published and publicly discussed Community Principles of GPL Enforcement, co-drafted by Software Freedom Conservancy and the Free Software Foundation, GPL enforcement is regularly criticized and questioned. Those of us who enforce the GPL get wildly inconsistent feedback from the community: some copyright holders recruit organizations like Conservancy and FSF to enforce as much as possible, others often complaining that we simply don't enforce enough, and still others call for a complete moratorium on GPL enforcement.

Meanwhile, not all enforcement abides by community principles. For-profit enforcers, who have existed for decades, use copyleft licenses in a manner not intended by the license drafters: to captiously convince "customers" that they must buy proprietary licenses, or otherwise pay, to incorporate Open Source and Free Software into their products.

This complex landscape has become almost impenetrable for the average FLOSS developers who merely wish their code to remain forever free and libre. This talk will provide the basic history and background information about the state of copyleft in our community, and set the stage for all developers to give informed feedback to organizations that stand up for copyleft.

There is no Free Software project in the world with Debian's commitment to representative governance. Debian has a Constitution, recall and referendum ballot initiatives, and accountable, elected bodies. However, any representative system, no matter how well structured, has its gaps that can be exploited politically. In this talk, I will first confess how I once used such a gap in the licensing approval process as part of package uploads to successfully reach political aims outside of Debian. I will explain how and why I did it, and why it was possible. While at the time, I was glad the system could be slightly "gamed", in hindsight, I'd like to draw the Debian's community attention this gap open for political opportunists and discuss changes in the political structure to prevent similar political exploitation in future. Ultimately, Debian ftp-masters fully control, absent a specific General Resolution, interpretation of the DFSG. While, technically speaking, no specific package upload refusal nor approval sets any overarching Debian policy on a particular license, the ftp-masters' decisions do become a de-facto precedence-based system, much like a common-law Court system, since overturning such decisions would typically require a General Resolution in practice. This talk will explore the socio-political ramifications of the current system of licensing decision-making in Debian, pontificate on ways it can be improved (and why it should be), and seek audience participation on whether the analysis presented is accurate and/or if the outcome of that analysis warrants changes in the existing system.

At my invited talk at DebConf15, I announced Software Freedom Conservancy's Debian Services agreement with the Debian project. Under the agreement, Conservancy provides some essential services to the Debian project. Most notably, Conservancy accepts copyright assignments and enforcement agreements from Debian contributors, and enforces those copyrights when copyleft licenses are violated. Additionally, Conservancy provides its expertise on licensing issues, project governance, and the like, in an advisory role to the Debian project. This talk will cover what Conservancy accomplished for Debian under this services agreement, how the agreement is working so far, and what how Conservancy and Debian can work together in the coming year to make even better use of the services provided under the agreement. Ideally, attendees will come to suggest ideas for what they'd like to see, and after a short presentation, the remaining time will be used for Q&A and discussion.

Copyleft has faced serious challenges in the last five years. It's not over: many more threats are on the way. Not by coincidence these attacks on copyleft come when "open source" reaches new heights of success. For example, hordes of software developers are funded full time to churn out new free software, as long as it's not copylefted. Some such code is specifically designed to replace existing, widely used, copylefted programs.

Meanwhile, programs under copyleft licenses (most notably the kernel named Linux) face a decades long, ongoing myriad of license violations. Such violations include nefarious attempts by major companies to shirk their responsibilities under copyleft. The situation is undoubtedly bleak.

Those of us who care about software freedom need a plan. Copyleft once assured an equal playing field, but big companies work daily to tilt the playing field in their favor and against the interests of most developers, hobbyists, users, and enthusiasts.

Most embedded computing products run Linux. However, obtaining the complete, corresponding source code (CCS), which Linux's license (GPL) requires, can prove difficult. The license dictates technical requirements;verification of a source code release for license compliance therefore requires technical analysis. After 15 years of reviewing such CCS relases, the speaker discovered (finally!) an excellent example,which not only meets GPL's requirements, but also encourages users to take advantage of their rights to modify and install new versions of the software. This talk explains the aspects of the source release that made it particularly outstanding, and proposes methods to achieve similar compliance successes. Attendees will learn procedures to increase the "tinkerer" userbase,and receive valuable insight into the compliance engineering analysis that occurs during GPL enforcement work.

Copyleft has faced serious challenges in the last five years. It's not over: many more threats are on the way. Not by coincidence these attacks on copyleft come when "Open Source" reaches new heights of success. For example, hordes of software developers are funded full time to churn out new Free Software, as long as it's not copylefted. Some such code is specifically designed to replace existing, widely used, copylefted programs. Meanwhile, programs under copyleft licenses (most notably the kernel named Linux) face a decades long, ongoing myriad of license violations. Such violations include nefarious attempts by major companies to shirk their responsibilities under copyleft. The situation is undoubtedly bleak. Those of us who care about software freedom need a plan. Copyleft once assured an equal playing field, but big companies work daily to tilt the playing field in their favor and against the interests of most developers, hobbyists, users, and enthusiasts.

Copyleft, and the GNU General Public License (GPL) in particular, have faced serious challenges in the last five years. It's not over: many more threats are on the way. Not by coincidence these attacks on copyleft come when "Open Source" seems to reach new heights of success. For example, hordes of software developers are funded full time to churn out wonderful new Free Software, but their employers make one key requirement: develop Free Software only under non-copyleft licenses. Some of this new code is specifically designed to replace existing, widely used, copylefted programs and packages. Meanwhile, those programs that remain under copyleft licenses (most notably the kernel named Linux) face a decades long, ongoing myriad of license violations. Such violations, most frighteningly, include nefarious attempts by major companies to shirk their responsibilities under copyleft. The situation is undoubtedly bleak. Those of us who care about software freedom need a plan. Up until now, copyleft assured an equal playing field, but big companies work daily to tilt the playing field in their favor -- directly against the interests of most developers, hobbyists, users, and enthusiasts. This talk will present the political challenges that copyleft continues to face, and offer real actions that individuals can do to assure software freedom for everyone.

We will provide an overview of the advanced topics presented in the Legal and Policy Issues Devroom

Introduction to the Legal and Policy Issues Devroom

Other people: Tom Marble Richard Fontana

Typically, GPL enforcement activity involves copyright infringement actions which compel license violators to correct errors in their GPL compliance, defending the policy goals of the GPL: the rights of developers and users to copy, share, modify and redistribute.

While traditional enforcement is often undeniably necessary for embedded electronics products, novel approaches to GPL violations are often possible and even superior for more traditional software distributions.

Recently, Software Freedom Conservancy engaged in an enforcement action whereby, rather than fight the violator in court, we instead provided resources and assistance to a vetted GPL-compliant fork of a violating codebase.

This talk discusses which scenarios make this remedy optimal and the lessons learned. The talk includes some licensing and technical content about vetting the licensing information of codebases.

Typically, GPL enforcement activity involves copyright infringement actions which compel license violators to correct errors in their GPL compliance,thus yielding the policy goals of the GPL: the rights of developers and users to copy, share, modify and redistribute.

While traditional enforcement is often undeniably necessary for embedded electronics products, novel approaches to GPL violations are often possible and even recommended for more traditional software distributions.

Recently, Conservancy engaged in an enforcement action whereby,rather than fight the violator in court, Conservancy instead fostered and provide resources and assistance to a vetted GPL-compliant fork of a violating codebase.

This talk discusses which scenarios make this remedy optimal and lessons learned. The talk includes some licensing and technical content about vetting licensing information of codebases.

Now in its fourth year, the FOSDEM Legal and Policy Issues DevRoom covers topics of licensing, legal, governance issues, and more as it relates to Open Source and Free Software projects.

Attendees are welcome to come and engage in lively debate with our excellent speakers. Please come with your questions, comments or concerns. The DevRoom talks are carefully chosen to avoid merely being introductory: we believe that FOSDEM attendees are well informed on these issues, and we welcome participation for all. Our goal in organizing this DevRoom is to bring the previously secretive and non-public discussion on these sorts of issues to a public forum.

Other people: Tom Marble Karen Sandler Richard Fontana

Copyleft licenses, particularly the GPL and LGPL, are widely used throughout the free software community. Over the last few years, recent debates have led many to various conclusions about the popularity of copyleft. This talk will discuss where copyleft stands today, how it interacts with the modern free software world, and how copyleft advocates may need to adapt to th future of Free Software licensing.

Copyleft licenses, particularly the GPL and LGPL, are widely used throughout the Free Software community. Over the last few years, recent debates have led many to various conclusions about the popularity of copyleft. This talk will discuss where copyleft stands today, how it interacts with the modern Free Software world, and how copyleft advocates may need to adapt to the future of Free Software licensing.

Copyleft licenses, particularly the GPL and LGPL, are widely used throughout the Free Software community. However, recent for-profit corporate interest in Free Software development has led to a renewed preference toward non-copyleft licensing by for-profit entities. Meanwhile, many for-profit entities that do use copyleft for their own software now do so in a manner that most copyleft aficionados find, at best, distasteful and at worst, abusive.

A long-standing truce exists in our community between fans of non-copyleft licensing and copyleft. No one in the copyleft communities disputes that non-copylefted Free Software is an important part of our community. However, copyleft faces new challenges that make past debates about the appropriateness of copyleft seem quite minor by comparison.

This talk will discuss all aspects of the complicated situation facing copyleft, including younger developers apparent preference for non-copyleft licensing (as expressed, in part, in the "post-open source" debates), the widespread and common failures for companies to comply with GPL's relatively easy requirements, and how licensing choices are today, unlike in the past, rarely in the hands of individual developers, but instead their corporate employers.

Now in its third year, the FOSDEM Legal and Policy Issues DevRoom covers topics of licensing, legal, governance issues, and more as it relates to Open Source and Free Software projects.

Attendees are welcome to come and engage in lively debate with our excellent speakers. Please come with your questions, comments or concerns. The DevRoom talks are carefully chosen to avoid merely being introductory: we believe that FOSDEM attendees are well informed on these issues, and we welcome participation for all. Our goal in organizing this DevRoom is to bring the previously secretive and non-public discussion on these sorts of issues to a public forum.

Other people: Tom Marble Karen Sandler Richard Fontana

This panel will discuss the GNU Affero General Public License, version 3 (AGPLv3), a copyleft license which includes a clause designed to ensure that users of network-deployed applications receive complete corresponding source code for the deployed application.

AGPLv3 has roots in the early 2000s, when some free software advocates called attention to what some described as an “Application Service Provider loophole” in GPLv2. One response was AGPLv1, a modification of GPLv2 published by Affero, Inc. and drafted with Free Software Foundation (FSF)'s help. AGPLv1 and contemporary licenses addressing this policy issue saw limited adoption..

Many expected, and some strongly advocated for, FSF to incorporate the Affero clause into GPLv3. Instead, in 2007 the FSF drafted a separate license, AGPLv3, containing an additional requirement that modified versions of a program offer access to corresponding source to all users interacting with AGPLv3'd programs through a network.

AGPLv3 has seen little adoption by individual free software developers and community projects for various reasons. Yet notable exceptions exist, such as GNU MediaGoblin. Currently, AGPLv3's most common use is by businesses as a means of promoting purchases of proprietary software licenses, a practice often criticized by some framers of AGPLv3. Meanwhile, some corporate open source users have investigated the issue of AGPLv3 compliance. Awareness of AGPLv3 has steadily increased with the growing focus on “Cloud Computing”.

This panel, comprised of a few of the world's foremost experts on AGPLv3, seeks to discuss and explain all issues surrounding AGPLv3 and contemplate the future of AGPLv3 as a viable copyleft license.

Panelists:

• Moderator: Richard Fontana, IP Counsel at Red Hat. Richard is responsible for open source legal matters at Red Hat, and in his prior role at the Software Freedom Law Center he was co-drafter of GPLv3 and AGPLv3. He is an active public speaker on FLOSS legal and policy issues.
• Eileen Evans, Vice President & Associate General Counsel, Cloud & Open Source, Hewlett-Packard Company. Eileen has spoken on complex open source issues at many open source conferences in the U.S. and in Europe and with governmental bodies, such as the European Commission and Members of the European Parliament.
• Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director, Software Freedom Conservancy and Member of FSF's Board of Directors. Kuhn invented the original Affero clause, and helped draft AGPLv1 and AGPLv3. Kuhn is also widely known for his work in Free Software licensing compliance and Free Software non-profit management.
• Christopher Allan Webber, Lead Developer, GNU MediaGoblin (free software image, audio, video publishing platform). Activist and developer for free software and network services freedom. Previously worked at Creative Commons as software engineer (and occasionally involved in licensing as well). Presently works fulltime on GNU MediaGoblin via money raised in a crowdfunding campaign in conjunction with the Free Software Foundation.

Other people: Richard Fontana Christopher Webber Eileen Evans

Compliance Panel

Other people: Karen Sandler Harald Welte Alexios Zavras Richard Sands Stefanie Pors

Brief Welcome to the Legal Policy and Issues DevRoom

Other people: Tom Marble Karen Sandler Richard Fontana

So-called "app stores" are becoming a popular means of distributing software, particularly for mobile devices. However, the rise of app stores has been accompanied by tensions with free software/open source legal norms. Companies controlling official app distribution channels for their platforms typically place restrictive terms on both users and developers in ways that may be difficult or impossible to harmonize with requirements and expectations around FLOSS licensing. Moreover, there is a perception that noncompliance with FLOSS licenses is prevalent in app store distribution. This panel will explore some of the problems arising out of the intersection between app stores and FLOSS, under EU as well as US law, and will discuss possible solutions.

Other people: Giovanni Battista Gallus Hugo Roy Richard Fontana

Brief Welcome to the new Legal Issues DevRoom

Other people: Karen Sandler Richard Fontana Tom Marble