[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/doc bibliography.html
|
From: |
Yavor Doganov |
|
Subject: |
www/doc bibliography.html |
|
Date: |
Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:54:21 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Yavor Doganov <yavor> 09/01/15 15:54:21
Modified files:
doc : bibliography.html
Log message:
Templated.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/doc/bibliography.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.7&r2=1.8
Patches:
Index: bibliography.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/doc/bibliography.html,v
retrieving revision 1.7
retrieving revision 1.8
diff -u -b -r1.7 -r1.8
--- bibliography.html 1 May 2006 10:04:13 -0000 1.7
+++ bibliography.html 15 Jan 2009 15:54:16 -0000 1.8
@@ -1,185 +1,308 @@
-<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN">
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<title>Documentation of the GNU project - Bibliography of Legal Writings on
the GPL</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Bibliography of Legal Writings on the GPL</h2>
+
+<h3>CASE LAW</h3>
+
+<p>
+PLANETARY MOTION, INC. v. TECHSPLOSION, INC., 261 F.3d 1188 (11th
+Cir. 2001) (“Software distributed pursuant to [the GNU General
+Public License] is not necessarily ceded to the public domain and the
+licensor purports to retain ownership rights, which may or may not
+include rights to a mark”).
+</p>
+
+<h3>LAW REVIEW ARTICLES</h3>
+
+<p>
+Patrick K. Bobko, LINUX AND GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSES: CAN COPYRIGHT
+KEEP “OPEN SOURCE” SOFTWARE FREE?, 28 AIPLA Q.J. 81 (2000)
+(“Using Linux as the subject of analysis, this article discusses
+the enforceability of the licenses that protect non-proprietary
+software and keep it ‘open-source.’ The analysis involves
+two primary issues: whether the improvements made to Linux are
+derivative works or are themselves copyrightable, and whether the GPL
+is an enforceable non-exclusive license.”).
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Patrick K. Bobko, OPEN-SOURCE SOFTWARE AND THE DEMISE OF COPYRIGHT, 1
+Rutgers Computer & Tech. L.J. 51 (2001) (“With the emergence
+of open-source software (‘OSS’), some of the debate over
+copyright protection has taken a new focus. Although OSS depends upon
+copyright protection for its continued existence, the economic
+incentives of OSS are not the traditional economic incentives assumed
+by copyright law because they do not arise out of a monopoly of the
+copyrighted material. As a result, copyright law plays a diminished
+role in OSS. Part I of this article examines the economic foundation
+of the commercial software industry and its reliance upon copyright
+law, highlighting the current debate concerning the appropriate level
+of software protection for a program's non-literal elements. Part II
+examines OSS and its impact on the information industries with
+particular emphasis on its freedom from market pressures and technical
+superiority over its proprietary counterparts. This article concludes
+that although some copyright protection is required to perpetuate the
+open-source movement, OSS' emergence has substantially mooted the
+current debate over the appropriate level of protection for a
+program's non-literal elements.”).
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Robert W. Gomulkiewicz, HOW COPYLEFT USES LICENSE RIGHTS TO SUCCEED IN
+THE OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE REVOLUTION AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR ARTICLE
+2B, 36 Hous. L. Rev. 179 (1999) (“This Article examines the
+origins and continuing momentum of the open source revolution. It then
+discusses the principles of open source licensing and why licensing is
+central to the open source revolution. The Article concludes by
+discussing the implications that copyleft licensing principles have
+for proposed Article 2B of the Uniform Commercial Code
+(‘UCC’), a provision that would govern software licenses.
+The Article points out that in order to foster innovative developments
+such as the open source revolution, Article 2B needs to, among other
+things, validate the enforceability of standard-form mass-market
+licenses, preserve the ability of software developers to freely
+allocate risk, and provide sensible contract default rules.”).
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Teresa Hill, NOTE: FRAGMENTING THE COPYLEFT MOVEMENT: THE PUBLIC WILL
+NOT PREVAIL, 1999 Utah L. Rev. 797 (1999) (“This Note analyzes
+the copyleft movement from the traditional sociological perspectives
+of social movement theory. Specifically, this Note investigates
+whether the copyleft movement will effectuate any change in
+intellectual property considering the fragmentation of the movement by
+emerging market changes. In Part II, this Note examines the
+historical development of copyright and its application to computer
+software, specifically focusing on courts' inconsistent application of
+copyright law to new technology. Part III next examines what the
+copyleft movement is, how the copyleft movement developed, and how the
+general criticisms of traditional notions of copyright as applied to
+computer software are incorporated into the copyleft movement. Part
+IV analyzes the copyleft movement and its fragmentation, arguing that
+to the public's detriment, copyleft will not be the force that drives
+the nail in the coffin of copyright. In conclusion, this Note argues
+that the fragmentation of the copyleft movement will ultimately render
+it unable to affect radical legal changes in intellectual
+property.”).
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Natasha T. Horne, OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE LICENSING: USING COPYRIGHT LAW
+TO ENCOURAGE FREE USE, 17 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 863 (2001) (“Part I
+of this Note reviews the history and philosophies of the open source
+movement. Part II discusses the roles copyright and software
+licensing play in open source software development. Part III examines
+the licensing terms of several popular open source licenses used
+today. Part IV provides a few pointers for selecting a license.
+Finally, Part V suggests that the open source movement may be
+disproving the need for financial incentives under copyright
+law.”).
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Nigel Howard, Dan Ravicher, Ken Johnson, HOW TO USE PATENT LAW TO THE
+ADVANTAGE OF OPEN-SOURCE SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS, 7 NO. 7
+Intell. Prop. Strategist 1 (May 2001) (“At first glance, patent
+law appears to impede those engaged in the free distribution of
+software: Software patents give their owners the right to prevent
+others from practicing the claimed software. However, patent law may
+in fact be a potential friend to those engaging in open-source/free
+software development. But the picture is not all rosy. To evaluate
+how best to take advantage of patent law to achieve an open-source
+software developer's business objectives, you need to be aware of both
+the potential benefits and pitfalls that patent law poses to
+open-source development.”).
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Dennis M. Kennedy, A PRIMER ON OPEN SOURCE LICENSING LEGAL ISSUES:
+COPYRIGHT, COPYLEFT AND COPYFUTURE, 20 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 345
+(2001) (“This article … discuss[es] the Open Source
+history and the role of the Open Source Definition, describe[s] the
+general categories of Open Source licenses, survey[s] generally some
+of the legal issues raised in the Open Source approach and with the
+Open Source licenses, and draw[s] some tentative conclusions about the
+likely impact of Open Source on traditional copyright and licensing
+law as it becomes a more significant component of the Internet and
+computer systems, as well as a part of our way of thinking about
+intellectual property and licensing in a rapidly changing
+world.”).
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Marcus Maher, OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE: THE SUCCESS OF AN ALTERNATIVE
+INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INCENTIVE PARADIGM, 10 Fordham
+Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 619 (2000) (”This paper
+… provid[es] a factual introduction into the details of the
+open source development process. Next, a background introduction to
+complexity theory [is] provided. The features of open source
+development [are] then … analyzed, uncovering the complex
+nature of open source development. While the complex nature of open
+source software provides an explanation as to its technical success,
+it also provides insight into a number of problems that are facing the
+open source community. The threats to the complex nature of open
+source development [are] considered and means of circumventing these
+problems suggested. Finally, the potential for complexity to solve
+some anticipated open source problems [is] discussed.”).
+</p>
+
+<p>
+David McGowan, LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF OPEN-SOURCE SOFTWARE, 2001
+U. Ill. L. Rev. 241 (2001) (“Using the GNU/Linux operating
+system as a case study, [Professor McGowan] probes the organization of
+the open-source community and the philosophies of its leading members
+in order to understand how traditional firm models, intellectual
+property, and contract law might apply. Professor McGowan concludes
+by reviewing recent attempts by courts to impose traditional
+principles in computer software transaction disputes. Ultimately, it
+appears that the open-source community cannot be neatly categorized.
+Although many traditional firm theories—such as the formation of
+a hierarchy—and legal principles—such as
+copyright—do apply to the open-source model, these theories and
+principles are employed in creative ways not previously
+envisioned.”).
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Stephen M. McJohn, THE PARADOXES OF FREE SOFTWARE, 9 Geo. Mason
+L. Rev. 25 (2000) (“For many software producers, the fact that
+their customer receives only the executable code is important. The
+producer attempts to maintain control over the code in two ways. She
+can deliver only the executable code, so the licensee can run the
+program but little else. She can also deliver the code subject to a
+license that restricts further copying and distribution, so the
+licensee does not turn around and sell or give copies to other
+potential customers. Open source software producers, by contrast,
+grant much freer access, both practically and legally, by delivering
+source code along with the executable code, and by freely granting
+permission to modify and further distribute the software. As
+discussed in the [article], open source software both challenges the
+theoretical underpinnings of intellectual property law and promises to
+affect the development of intellectual property law.”).
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Shawn W. Potter, OPENING UP TO OPEN SOURCE, 6 Rich. J.L. &
+Tech. 24 (2000) (“This paper is structured to address several
+purposes in its discussion of the open source movement. First, Part
+III … discuss[es] on a broad level how society benefits from a
+software development process like open source, and how open source
+affects copyright and traditional notions of software piracy and
+reuse. Part III … also reviews[s] solutions that open source
+offers and outline the problems that may occur as the open source
+model continues to unfold. Part IV … considers the
+contemporary objections to open source products, and …
+demonstrate[s] that copyright, licensing, and warranties—the
+legal issues in software—basically make purchasers no worse off
+under an open source environment than a proprietary paradigm. As
+such, businesses and consumers should not shy away from open source
+products. Part V crystalizes the underlying issue in this paper: open
+source has many beneficial aspects, but still, the market has been
+slow to accept it. The article concludes with possible solutions to
+the problem of slow acceptance, as the author asserts that both the
+market and government can take steps to foster the growth of open
+source. In the end, the reader will recognize that the traditional
+objections to open source software are fairly minimal. While open
+source may not reach revolutionary status, it opens the door to
+positive changes regarding intellectual property rights and
+licensing.”).
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Daniel B. Ravicher, FACILITATING COLLABORATIVE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT:
+THE ENFORCEABILITY OF MASS-MARKET PUBLIC SOFTWARE LICENSES, 5
+Va. J.L. & Tech. 11 (2000) (“Although numerous claims of
+infringement and threats to seek legal resolution of software
+copyright issues have been made, no court ha[d] yet ruled on the
+enforceability of public software licenses. As a result, companies
+desiring to follow the open model of software development must bear
+the cost of this legal uncertainty, which, in turn, reduces the
+ability of these companies to compete in markets occupied by closed
+model firms. [The article] addresses every conceivable argument
+against the enforceability of public software licenses [and concludes
+that] [b]ased on current relevant doctrine and prevailing public
+policy interests, public software licenses that adhere to distinct
+procedural requirements are enforceable.”).
+</p>
+
+<h3>ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS</h3>
+
+<p>
+AN OVERVIEW OF “OPEN SOURCE” SOFTWARE LICENSES: A REPORT
+OF THE SOFTWARE LICENSING COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION'S
+“INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY” SECTION, available at
+http://www.abanet.org/intelprop/opensource.html (last modified
+November 6, 2001) (“This paper's purpose is to flag some of the
+legal issues in an effort to provide a resource for software licensing
+lawyers who are requested to counsel their clients on the positive and
+negative aspects of [open source] licenses. Despite the many
+advantages of open source software licenses, there are reasons why
+lawyers must be cautious about recommending open source to their
+clients for inclusion in commercial software products.”).
+</p>
+
+</div>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
-<html>
-
-<head>
-<title>Documentation of the GNU project --Bibliography of Legal Writings on
the GPL</title>
-<link rev="made" href="mailto:address@hidden";>
-</head>
-
-<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" link="#1F00FF" alink="#FF0000"
vlink="#9900DD">
-<h3>Bibliography of Legal Writings on the GPL</h3>
-
-<p>
-
-<a href="/graphics/agnuhead.html"><img src="/graphics/gnu-head-sm.jpg"
- alt=" [image of the Head of a GNU] " width="129" height="122"></a>
-
-[ <!-- Please keep this list alphabetical -->
-<a href="/doc/bibliography.html">English</a>
-]
-
-<br>
-<P>
-<HR>
-<br>
-
-<table style="margin-right: 10px; float: left" frame="box" bgcolor="f2f2f9"
cellspacing="5">
-
-<tr><td><a href="http://www.gnupress.org";>GNU Press Home Page</a></td></tr>
-
-<tr><td><a
href="http://www.gnupress.org/gnupresspub.html#Anchor-BOOK-61299";>Books In
Print</a></td></tr>
-
-<tr><td><a
href="http://www.gnupress.org/gnupresspub.html#Anchor-Software";>Software on
CD</a></td></tr>
-
-<tr><td><a href="http://www.gnupress.org/isbn.html";>ISBN List</a></td></tr>
-
-<tr><td><a href="http://www.gnu.org/gear/gear.html";>GNU Gear Page</a></td></tr>
-
-<tr><td><a
href="http://www.gnu.org/gear/gear.html#Anchor-Clothing";>Clothing</a></td></tr>
-
-<tr><td><a href="http://www.gnu.org/gear/gear.html#Anchor-Wall-Art";>Wall
Art</a></td></tr>
-
-<tr><td><a
href="http://www.gnu.org/gear/gear.html#Anchor-Other-Fan-Gear";>Other Fan
Gear</a></td></tr>
-
-<tr><td><a href="http://order.fsf.org/";>Order Form</a></td></tr>
-
-<tr><td><a href="http://www.gnupress.org/potentialauthors.html";>For
Authors</a></td></tr>
-
-<tr><td><a href="http://www.gnupress.org/resellers.html";>For
Resellers</a></td></tr>
-
-<tr><td><a href="http://www.gnupress.org/teachingprofessionals.html";>For
Teachers</a></td></tr>
-
-<tr><td><a href="http://www.gnupress.org/doc/contact.html";>Contact
Us</a></td></tr>
-
-<tr><td><a href="http://www.fsf.org";>FSF Home Page</a></td></tr>
-
-<tr><td><a href="http://www.gnu.org";>GNU Project Home</a></td></tr>
-
-</table>
-
-<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" width="500">
-
-<tr>
-
-<td>
-<b>CASE LAW</b>
-
-<p>
-
-</td>
-
-</tr>
-
-<tr>
-
-<td>
-PLANETARY MOTION, INC. v. TECHSPLOSION, INC., 261 F.3d 1188 (11th Cir. 2001)
(“Software distributed pursuant to [the GNU General Public License] is not
necessarily ceded to the public domain and the licensor purports to retain
ownership rights, which may or may not include rights to a mark”).
<p>
-</td>
-</tr>
-
-<tr>
-<td>
-<b>LAW REVIEW ARTICLES</b>
-<P>
-</td>
-</tr>
-
-<tr>
-<td>
-Patrick K. Bobko, LINUX AND GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSES: CAN COPYRIGHT KEEP
“OPEN SOURCE” SOFTWARE FREE?, 28 AIPLA Q.J. 81 (2000) (“Using
Linux as the subject of analysis, this article discusses the enforceability of
the licenses that protect non-proprietary software and keep it
"open-source." The analysis involves two primary issues: whether the
improvements made to Linux are derivative works or are themselves
copyrightable, and whether the GPL is an enforceable non-exclusive
license.”).
-
-<p>
-
-Patrick K. Bobko, OPEN-SOURCE SOFTWARE AND THE DEMISE OF COPYRIGHT, 1 Rutgers
Computer & Tech. L.J. 51 (2001) (“With the emergence of open-source
software ("OSS"), some of the debate over copyright protection has
taken a new focus. Although OSS depends upon copyright protection for its
continued existence, the economic incentives of OSS are not the traditional
economic incentives assumed by copyright law because they do not arise out of a
monopoly of the copyrighted material. As a result, copyright law plays a
diminished role in OSS. Part I of this article examines the economic foundation
of the commercial software industry and its reliance upon copyright law,
highlighting the current debate concerning the appropriate level of software
protection for a program's non-literal elements. Part II examines OSS and its
impact on the information industries with particular emphasis on its freedom
from market pressures and technical superiority over its proprietary
counterparts. This article concludes that although some copyright protection is
required to perpetuate the open- source movement, OSS' emergence has
substantially mooted the current debate over the appropriate level of
protection for a program's non-literal elements.”).
-
-<p>
-
-Robert W. Gomulkiewicz, HOW COPYLEFT USES LICENSE RIGHTS TO SUCCEED IN THE
OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE REVOLUTION AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR ARTICLE 2B, 36 Hous.
L. Rev. 179 (1999) (“This Article examines the origins and continuing
momentum of the open source revolution. It then discusses the principles of
open source licensing and why licensing is central to the open source
revolution. The Article concludes by discussing the implications that copyleft
licensing principles have for proposed Article 2B of the Uniform Commercial
Code ("UCC"), a provision that would govern software licenses. The
Article points out that in order to foster innovative developments such as the
open source revolution, Article 2B needs to, among other things, validate the
enforceability of standard-form mass-market licenses, preserve the ability of
software developers to freely allocate risk, and provide sensible contract
default rules.”).
-
-<p>
-
-Teresa Hill, NOTE: FRAGMENTING THE COPYLEFT MOVEMENT: THE PUBLIC WILL NOT
PREVAIL, 1999 Utah L. Rev. 797 (1999) (“This Note analyzes the copyleft
movement from the traditional sociological perspectives of social movement
theory. Specifically, this Note investigates whether the copyleft movement will
effectuate any change in intellectual property considering the fragmentation of
the movement by emerging market changes. In Part II, this Note examines the
historical development of copyright and its application to computer software,
specifically focusing on courts' inconsistent application of copyright law to
new technology. Part III next examines what the copyleft movement is, how the
copyleft movement developed, and how the general criticisms of traditional
notions of copyright as applied to computer software are incorporated into the
copyleft movement. Part IV analyzes the copyleft movement and its
fragmentation, arguing that to the public's detriment, copyleft will not be the
force that drives the nail in the coffin of copyright. In conclusion, this Note
argues that the fragmentation of the copyleft movement will ultimately render
it unable to affect radical legal changes in intellectual property.”).
-
-<p>
-
-Natasha T. Horne, OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE LICENSING: USING COPYRIGHT LAW TO
ENCOURAGE FREE USE, 17 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 863 (2001) (“Part I of this Note
reviews the history and philosophies of the open source movement. Part II
discusses the roles copyright and software licensing play in open source
software development. Part III examines the licensing terms of several popular
open source licenses used today. Part IV provides a few pointers for selecting
a license. Finally, Part V suggests that the open source movement may be
disproving the need for financial incentives under copyright law.”).
-
-<p>
-
-Nigel Howard, Dan Ravicher, Ken Johnson, HOW TO USE PATENT LAW TO THE
ADVANTAGE OF OPEN-SOURCE SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS, 7 NO. 7 Intell. Prop. Strategist
1 (May 2001) (“At first glance, patent law appears to impede those engaged
in the free distribution of software: Software patents give their owners the
right to prevent others from practicing the claimed software. However, patent
law may in fact be a potential friend to those engaging in open-source/free
software development. But the picture is not all rosy. To evaluate how best to
take advantage of patent law to achieve an open-source software developer's
business objectives, you need to be aware of both the potential benefits and
pitfalls that patent law poses to open-source development.”).
-
-<p>
-
-Dennis M. Kennedy, A PRIMER ON OPEN SOURCE LICENSING LEGAL ISSUES: COPYRIGHT,
COPYLEFT AND COPYFUTURE, 20 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 345 (2001) (“This
article … discuss[es] the Open Source history and the role of the Open
Source Definition, describe[s] the general categories of Open Source licenses,
survey[s] generally some of the legal issues raised in the Open Source approach
and with the Open Source licenses, and draw[s] some tentative conclusions about
the likely impact of Open Source on traditional copyright and licensing law as
it becomes a more significant component of the Internet and computer systems,
as well as a part of our way of thinking about intellectual property and
licensing in a rapidly changing world.”).
-
-<p>
-
-Marcus Maher, OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE: THE SUCCESS OF AN ALTERNATIVE INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY INCENTIVE PARADIGM, 10 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 619
(2000) (“This paper … provid[es] a factual introduction into the
details of the open source development process. Next, a background introduction
to complexity theory [is] provided. The features of open source development
[are] then … analyzed, uncovering the complex nature of open source
development. While the complex nature of open source software provides an
explanation as to its technical success, it also provides insight into a number
of problems that are facing the open source community. The threats to the
complex nature of open source development [are] considered and means of
circumventing these problems suggested. Finally, the potential for complexity
to solve some anticipated open source problems [is] discussed.”).
-
-<p>
-
-David McGowan, LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF OPEN-SOURCE SOFTWARE, 2001 U. Ill. L.
Rev. 241 (2001) (“Using the GNU/Linux operating system as a case study,
[Professor McGowan] probes the organization of the open-source community and
the philosophies of its leading members in order to understand how traditional
firm models, intellectual property, and contract law might apply. Professor
McGowan concludes by reviewing recent attempts by courts to impose traditional
principles in computer software transaction disputes. Ultimately, it appears
that the open-source community cannot be neatly categorized. Although many
traditional firm theories--such as the formation of a hierarchy--and legal
principles--such as copyright--do apply to the open-source model, these
theories and principles are employed in creative ways not previously
envisioned.”).
-
-<p>
-
-Stephen M. McJohn, THE PARADOXES OF FREE SOFTWARE, 9 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 25
(2000) (“For many software producers, the fact that their customer
receives only the executable code is important. The producer attempts to
maintain control over the code in two ways. She can deliver only the executable
code, so the licensee can run the program but little else. She can also deliver
the code subject to a license that restricts further copying and distribution,
so the licensee does not turn around and sell or give copies to other potential
customers. Open source software producers, by contrast, grant much freer
access, both practically and legally, by delivering source code along with the
executable code, and by freely granting permission to modify and further
distribute the software. As discussed in the [article], open source software
both challenges the theoretical underpinnings of intellectual property law and
promises to affect the development of intellectual property law.”).
-
-<p>
-
-Shawn W. Potter, OPENING UP TO OPEN SOURCE, 6 Rich. J.L. & Tech. 24 (2000)
(“This paper is structured to address several purposes in its discussion
of the open source movement. First, Part III … discuss[es] on a broad
level how society benefits from a software development process like open
source, and how open source affects copyright and traditional notions of
software piracy and reuse. Part III … also reviews[s] solutions that open
source offers and outline the problems that may occur as the open source model
continues to unfold. Part IV … considers the contemporary objections to
open source products, and … demonstrate[s] that copyright, licensing, and
warranties - the legal issues in software - basically make purchasers no worse
off under an open source environment than a proprietary paradigm. As such,
businesses and consumers should not shy away from open source products. Part V
crystalizes the underlying issue in this paper: open source has many beneficial
aspects, but still, the market has been slow to accept it. The article
concludes with possible solutions to the problem of slow acceptance, as the
author asserts that both the market and government can take steps to foster the
growth of open source. In the end, the reader will recognize that the
traditional objections to open source software are fairly minimal. While open
source may not reach revolutionary status, it opens the door to positive
changes regarding intellectual property rights and licensing.”).
-
-<p>
-
-Daniel B. Ravicher, FACILITATING COLLABORATIVE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT: THE
ENFORCEABILITY OF MASS-MARKET PUBLIC SOFTWARE LICENSES, 5 Va. J.L. & Tech.
11 (2000) (“Although numerous claims of infringement and threats to seek
legal resolution of software copyright issues have been made, no court ha[d]
yet ruled on the enforceability of public software licenses. As a result,
companies desiring to follow the open model of software development must bear
the cost of this legal uncertainty, which, in turn, reduces the ability of
these companies to compete in markets occupied by closed model firms. [The
article] addresses every conceivable argument against the enforceability of
public software licenses [and concludes that] [b]ased on current relevant
doctrine and prevailing public policy interests, public software licenses that
adhere to distinct procedural requirements are enforceable.”).
-
-<p>
-
-</td>
-
-</tr>
-
-<tr>
-
-<td>
-<b>ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS</b>
-
-<p>
-
-</td>
-
-</tr>
-
-<tr>
-
-<td>
-AN OVERVIEW OF "OPEN SOURCE" SOFTWARE LICENSES: A REPORT OF THE
SOFTWARE LICENSING COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION’S
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECTION, available at http://www.abanet.org/intelprop/
opensource.html (last modified November 6, 2001) (“This paper’s
purpose is to flag some of the legal issues in an effort to provide a resource
for software licensing lawyers who are requested to counsel their clients on
the positive and negative aspects of [open source] licenses. Despite the many
advantages of open source software licenses, there are reasons why lawyers must
be cautious about recommending open source to their clients for inclusion in
commercial software products.”).
-</td>
-</tr>
-</table>
+Please send FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF.
+<br />
+Please send broken links and other corrections or suggestions to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
+</p>
<p>
-<hr>
+Please see the
+<a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting
+translations of this article.
+</p>
-<p>
-Please send comments on these web pages to <a href="mailto:address@hidden";>
-<em>address@hidden</em></a>, send other questions to
-<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
<p>
-Copyright © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006
-Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA
02110-1301, USA
-
+Copyright © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2009 Free
+Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
<p>
-Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any
medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted
+in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+</p>
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2006/05/01 10:04:13 $ $Author: ramprasadb $
+$Date: 2009/01/15 15:54:16 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
-<hr>
+</p>
+</div>
+
+<div id="translations">
+<h4>Translations of this page</h4>
+
+<!-- Please keep this list alphabetical by language code. -->
+<!-- Comment what the language is for each type, i.e. de is German. -->
+<!-- Write the language name in its own language (Deutsch) in the text. -->
+<!-- If you add a new language here, please -->
+<!-- advise address@hidden and add it to -->
+<!-- - /home/www/html/server/standards/README.translations.html -->
+<!-- - one of the lists under the section "Translations Underway" -->
+<!-- - if there is a translation team, you also have to add an alias -->
+<!-- to mail.gnu.org:/com/mailer/aliases -->
+<!-- Please also check you have the language code right; see: -->
+<!-- http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_list.php -->
+<!-- If the 2-letter ISO 639-1 code is not available, -->
+<!-- use the 3-letter ISO 639-2. -->
+<!-- Please use W3C normative character entities. -->
+
+<ul class="translations-list">
+<!-- English -->
+<li><a href="/doc/bibliography.html">English</a> [en]</li>
+</ul>
+</div>
+</div>
</body>
</html>
-
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/doc bibliography.html,
Yavor Doganov <=