Open Source and the EUPL on software IP - Joinup.eu · 2017-10-03 · Open Source and the EUPL on...
Transcript of Open Source and the EUPL on software IP - Joinup.eu · 2017-10-03 · Open Source and the EUPL on...
Page 1
Impacts ofOpen Source
and the EUPL
onsoftware IP
Intellectual Property Summit, Brussels IP-2010
Steam 6 Industry Challenges
C) Software patents,
open source,
business methods
Patrice-EmmanuelSchmitzLegal expertwww.osor.eu
Page 2
What is this presentation about
Intellectual Property Summit, Brussels IP-2010
The production (not the use) of
free/ open source software* by governments
* F/OSS or OSS, or Free Software, OSS/FS, FLOSS, or FOSS
Government expectations from adopting
the F/OSS model
IP requirements and EU actions:
The European Union Public Licence(EUPL) and its impact
Page 3
Software production in Europe…
Intellectual Property Summit, Brussels IP-2010
• ICT economy is 10% of GDP in developed countries…
but may represent 50% of economic growth!
• Software production is a €200 billion market in 2010.
20% of total spending on ICT…but accounting for 54% of ICT employment (high skill jobs)*
• Public sector is a prominent “entrepreneur” in software production.
* BSA - Business Software Alliance Feb 2010
e-Government
Health
Education
Taxes / Custom
Environment
GIS
Mobility
Content
SecurityJusticeStatistics
Page 4
Free / Open Source Software?
Intellectual Property Summit, Brussels IP-2010
Based on 4 freedoms / 10 principles *
• Run the program, for any purpose,
• Study how the program works,
• Change/improve it according to needs,
• Redistribute to anyone.
� http://www.gnu.org/philisophy/free-sw.html
� http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd
F/OSS has an irreversible economic impact:
• Everyone uses it, somewhere…
• 50 billion $ for the sole Linux market.
• Speeds-up innovation and development.
freedoms
Page 5
2010: confirming F/OSS growth *
Intellectual Property Summit, Brussels IP-2010
• 38% organisations expect to migrate mission-critical software to F/OSS in the next
12 months.
• OSS = 20% of all software developments in 2009,
23% in 2010,
27% by 2013…
• Challenge is around training (developers, lawyers) and
senior management support (culture of sharing / licensing).
• Public Sector is the most sceptical about potential cost
savings (10% over the software lifetime, vs more than 40%
in financial sector), but is the most open to sharing.
* accenture survey – august 2010
Page 6
Knowing that free software is not for free…
Our project should
deliver final results in 3
months. What about
that software we need?
Don’t worry, I already
talked to procurement
people. They will use
the fast procedure.
Great!
How long will it take ? Only six months!
Cost savings is not the main driver, say more than 90% of
public sector stakeholders. *(F/OSS business model is
service based).
Uptake is driven by:
Intellectual Property Summit, Brussels IP-2010
• Quality
• Reliability
• Speed
* accenture survey – august 2010
Page 7
Public sector challenges (2010):
Intellectual Property Summit, Brussels IP-2010
• Doing more (and doing better) with less money.
• Not reinventing the wheel, while legal framework is (widely)
global & European, but implementations are local.
• Sharing (= benchmarking, harmonising, re-using,
localising) software, know-how and best practices.
• Common interoperability standards, between fragmented
technical implementations.
Is this not sounding like the Open Source
model ?
Page 8
Classical and preliminary IP question *
Intellectual Property Summit, Brussels IP-2010
• Software owned by governments = public sector assets (intellectual property).
• Open source licenses give/transfer rights to any third party (no discrimination) for any use (even commercial) and it
authorises re-/sub-licensing !
• According to the principles of public accounting, can
governments give goods to (private) third parties?
* i.e. Consip – Italy 2008
Carlo Vaccari - The experience of
introducing the EUPL at Istat (27.09.2010)
Page 9
Classical answers *
Intellectual Property Summit, Brussels IP-2010
• The benefits of open source developments have
been acknowledged by the political authority.
• There is no “cession” of public IP, because there is no
deprivation.
• The Open Source model fits with the general criteria of
efficiency, good performance and economy, since it allows, at least potentially:
– cost savings on software development;
– support from a community (corrective maintenance);
– improvements (quality, speed, evolutive maintenance).
* Culture Commission (Chamber of Deputies - Roma)
Carlo Vaccari - The experience of introducing the EUPL at
Istat (27.09.2010)
Page 10
At EU level…
Intellectual Property Summit, Brussels IP-2010
EU Ministers acknowledge the need for sharing technologies and solutions:
EU Ministerial Declaration
approved unanimously on
24 November 2005, Manchester, United Kingdom
EU Ministerial Declaration on
eGovernment approved unanimously
on 18 November 2009 in Malmö,
Sweden,
How?
• The Open Source model could be promoted for use in eGovernment projects.
• Member States will promote the adoption of open standards in public administrations and share experiences…
• Member States will share technologies, where appropriate developcommon solutions and work towards interface harmonisation of existing solutions (in the field of eProcurement).
Page 11
Licence requirements
Intellectual Property Summit, Brussels IP-2010
First question: To be or not to be “copyleft”?
Copyleft licences: software may
be re-distributed only under the
SAME licence
(and is therefore protected against
appropriation)
Permissive licences:
software may be re-distributed
under any licence
No protection against appropriation
(BSD, MIT, Apache)
Moderated: no impact on combined works
(LGPL, MPL)
Strong: invasive to all combined works
(GPL)
Choice: Be “copyleft” (refusal of the risk to pay royalties for a combined work based on software originally licensed), but be interoperable!
EUPL
Interoperable: when needed, derivative / combined works can be distributed under another (listed) copyleft licence
Page 12
Other requirements for the EUPL
Intellectual Property Summit, Brussels IP-2010
• Must exist in all official EU languages
• Any linguistic version is valid (no need for sworn translator)
• Conformity with European copyright law checked
• Uses European copyright law and terminology
• Covers “communication to the public” (including SaaS)
• Defines applicable law (MS of the Licensor) and venue
• Realistic approach of warranty and liability
• Detailed… but comprehensive: based on legal principles,
not on technology and business practices
• Realistic approach of IPR and patents
Page 13
Implementing patented standards? FRAND licensing?
Intellectual Property Summit, Brussels IP-2010
Contrary to the new GPLv3, the EUPL (like most other copyleft licenses) is not “incompatible-by-design” with patented standards
& FRAND licensing,
However:
• Freedom in (re-)distribution / sub-licensing
is inherent to open source.
• Royalties cannot be managed (EUPL says
that distribution is « royalty-free »).
Need to invent standard licensing terms that are compatible with
F/OSS activity, i.e. FRAND % of licensor sales during a limited
period of time…
?
Page 14
Impact of the EUPL
Intellectual Property Summit, Brussels IP-2010
• Community recognition:
– OSI approved (March 2009)
– FSF (EUPL is a “free software license”)
• Initial objective reached (allowing EU institutions to licence
their own software).
• Bringing Member States to adopt the F/OSS model: The EUPL
is used by 30% of the projects from the European Commission
“Software Forge” (www.OSOR.eu). Proportion is growing.
• EUPL used by other public and private licensors (other forges).
• Commission VP Neelie Kroes (digital agenda) refers to the
EUPL for easy licensing under the EU legal framework. *
* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok100U4Fo3Y&NR=1
Page 15
Examples in Member States:
Intellectual Property Summit, Brussels IP-2010
• Estonia – Interoperability Framework / 2009
I.F. requires that software developments commissionedby the public sector should be freely used on the basisof the EUPL licence.
• Spain - Royal Decree 4/2010
“EUPL will be procured, without prejudice of other licences that can guarantee the same rights…”
• Malta - Government policy GMICT P 0097 (1 June 2010)
“Government shall seek to facilitate distribution of OSS Government solutions under the EUPL. ”
• The Netherlands – NOiV licence wizard
Recommends the EUPL for software owned by government.
Page 16
Conclusions
Intellectual Property Summit, Brussels IP-2010
• Still a long way for implementing the Malmödeclaration, but practice runs faster than “the law”…
• Commission Directorates and EU agencies use the EUPL, even if the licence is still quite “virtual” in the draft EIF v2.0 and Digital Agenda.
• The EUPL – supported by other EC actions like www.osor.eu is not a “legal curiosity” anymore.
“The increasingly well developed legal infrastructure around
Open Source Software, also thanks to initiatives such as the EUPL, provides a solid and reliable foundation for public
and commercial activity, with clearly established ground
rules.”** “PLAYING TO WIN IN THE NEW SOFTWARE MARKET”
REPORT OF AN INDUSTRY EXPERT GROUP ON A EUROPEAN SOFTWARE STRATEGY, June 2009
ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/ict/docs/ssai/European_Software_Strategy.pdf
Unisys Corporation Page 17
Thank you.
Patrice-Emmanuel SchmitzLegal expertwww.osor.eu
This presentation reflects the author personal opinions and does not commit Unisys, the European Commission or any other stakeholder