Clarification: The following article states, "Open source licenses, particularly the GPL from the Free Software Foundation, reverse the established doctrine of copyright. They give away the right to use code...." At the recent World Science Fiction convention in Denver, Laura Majerus was a member of the "Privacy, Free Speech, and Copy Protection" panel in which she mentioned that "the reason Open Source works is because the original author retains all copyright. That's why Open Source [licencing] works. Others are allowed to use the code as part of that copyright." No rights are "given away"...

Laura Majerus, In-house counsel at Google. Formerly a partner in the intellectual property group of Fenwick & West. Expertise Laura Majerus' practice concentrates on intellectual property protection and patent counseling in the areas of software, electrical and computer systems. She also counsels clients on Open Source licensing issues. Ms. Majerus is currently serving as the pro bono Director of Legal Affairs for the Open Source Initiative. She obtained her J.D. from the University of Iowa, with distinction, in 1987. She was awarded an MS, also from the University of Iowa in 1987 jointly with her law degree. She also has a B.S. in computer science form the same school. She is admitted to practice in California, Iowa and the District of Columbia.

= - = - = - = - = - = - =

...from: http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/open_source/showArticle.jhtml?a...

Open Source Code On Firmer Ground [in USA] After Jacobsen Ruling Before the decision, it wasn't clear whether a court of law would regard an open source license as being capable of imposing enforceable copyright restrictions on the use of computer code.

By Charles Babcock InformationWeek August 14, 2008 07:00 PM A U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision has upheld the binding provisions of open source licenses, saying to fail to abide by their terms makes the user an infringer of their inherent copyright protections. Until the decision in Jacobsen vs. Katzer was issued Wednesday, it wasn't clear whether a court of law would regard an open source license as being capable of imposing enforceable copyright restrictions on the use of computer code.

The Circuit Court of Appeals cited Stanford professor Lawrence Lessig's Creative Commons license and as well as Jacobsen's use of the Artistic License in saying that their provisions constitute a form of copyright. "It's a fantastic win. Bob Jacobsen and I are very pleased with this result," declared Victoria Hall in an e-mail toInformationWeek. Hall represented Jacobsen in the case. "For non-geeks, this won't seem important. But trust me, this is huge," wrote Lessig on his blog Wednesday.

Open source licenses, particularly the GPL from the Free Software Foundation, reverse the established doctrine of copyright. They give away the right to use code, provided you abide by their provisions to make any changes available to other users. The opposite case, where you do not have the right to use material without paying for it, has a rich body of copyright case law. The open source licenses do not, and it has not been clear how the courts would decide the issue once it came before them.

The first decision in U.S. District Court for Northern California last Aug. 17 went against open source advocates. Jacobsen, a creator of open source model railroad control software, had been billed by Matthew Katzer, a commercial seller of similar code, for each free download that Jacobsen's project had allowed. The bill came to $203,000. Jacobsen, sued for a declaratory judgment that his open source code did not infringe Katzer's company's code.

The lower court ruled that the provisions of the Artistic License didn't protect Jacobsen. It was a stunning setback for all open source licenses and opened other projects to potential challenge. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision Wednesday and sent it back to the district court.