Software Licenses in Context: The Challenge of Heterogeneously-Licensed Systems

The prevailing approach to free/open source software and licenses has been that each system is developed, distributed, and used under the terms of a single license. But it is increasingly common for information systems and other software to be composed with components from a variety of sources, and with a diversity of licenses. This may result in possible license conflicts and organizational liability for failure to fulfill license obligations. Research and practice to date have not kept up with this sea-change in software licensing arising from free/open source software development. System consumers and users consequently rely on ad hoc heuristics (or costly legal advice) to determine which license rights and obligations are in effect, often with less than optimal results; consulting services are offered to identify unknowing unauthorized use of licensed software in information systems; and researchers have shown how the choice of a (single) specific license for a product affects project success and system adoption. Legal scholars have examined how pairs of software licenses conflict but only in simple contexts. We present an approach for understanding and modeling software licenses, as well as for analyzing conflicts among groups of licenses in realistic system contexts, and for guiding the acquisition, integration, or development of systems with free/open source components in such an environment. This work is based on an empirical analysis of representative software licenses and of heterogeneously-licensed systems. Our approach provides guidance for achieving a “best-of-breed” component strategy while obtaining desired license rights in exchange for acceptable obligations.

[1]  N. Isaacs,et al.  Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning: And Other Legal Essays , 2010 .

[2]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches , 2010 .

[3]  A. Strauss,et al.  The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research aldine de gruyter , 1968 .

[4]  Wendy J. Gordon,et al.  An Inquiry into the Merits of Copyright: The Challenges of Consistency, Consent and Encouragement Theory , 1989 .

[5]  J. Balkin The Promise of Legal Semiotics , 1991 .

[6]  H. D. Rombach,et al.  The Goal Question Metric Approach , 1994 .

[7]  Matthew B. Miles,et al.  Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook , 1994 .

[8]  Mary Shaw,et al.  Abstractions for Software Architecture and Tools to Support Them , 1995, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[9]  Layman E. Allen,et al.  Better language, better thought, better communication: the A-Hohfeld language for legal analysis , 1995, ICAIL '95.

[10]  N. Hoffart Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory , 2000 .

[11]  Peyman Oreizy,et al.  Open architecture software: a flexible approach to decentralized software evolution , 2000 .

[12]  B. Craig Meyers,et al.  Managing Software Acquisition: Open Systems and COTS Products , 2001 .

[13]  P.K. Janert Managing Software Acquisition: Open Systems and COTS Products [Book Review] , 2002, IEEE Software.

[14]  Pankaj K. Garg,et al.  Progressive open source , 2002, ICSE '02.

[15]  Grady Booch,et al.  Reusing Open-Source Software and Practices: The Impact of Open-Source on Commercial Vendors , 2002, ICSR.

[16]  Walt Scacchi,et al.  Free software developers as an occupational community: resolving conflicts and fostering collaboration , 2003, GROUP.

[17]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  Design Science in Information Systems Research , 2004, MIS Q..

[18]  Lawrence Rosen,et al.  Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law , 2004 .

[19]  Andrew M. St. Laurent Understanding Open Source and Free Software Licensing , 2004 .

[20]  L. THORNE MCCARTY Ownership: A case study in the representation of legal concepts , 2004, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[21]  Lothar Determann Dangerous Liaisons — Software Combinations as Derivative Works? Distribution, Installation, and Execution of Linked Programs Under Copyright Law, Commercial Licenses, and the GPL , 2006 .

[22]  Sandra Slaughter,et al.  Understanding the Motivations, Participation, and Performance of Open Source Software Developers: A Longitudinal Study of the Apache Projects , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[23]  Martin Bichler,et al.  Design science in information systems research , 2006, Wirtschaftsinf..

[24]  Likoebe M. Maruping,et al.  Impacts of License Choice and Organizational Sponsorship on User Interest and Development Activity in Open Source Software Projects , 2006, Inf. Syst. Res..

[25]  Elizabeth F. Churchill,et al.  Repurposing: Techniques for reuse and integration of interactive systems , 2006, 2006 IEEE International Conference on Information Reuse & Integration.

[26]  Kenneth Feldt Programming Firefox: Building Rich Internet Applications with Xul , 2007 .

[27]  Paul B. de Laat,et al.  Governance of open source software: state of the art , 2007 .

[28]  Ravi Sen,et al.  A Strategic Analysis of Competition Between Open Source and Proprietary Software , 2007, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[29]  John Mylopoulos,et al.  From Laws to Requirements , 2008, 2008 Requirements Engineering and Law.

[30]  Bradley M. Kuhn,et al.  A Legal Issues Primer for Open Source and Free Software Projects , 2008 .

[31]  Jon Doyle,et al.  Semantic parameterization: A process for modeling domain descriptions , 2008, TSEM.

[32]  Walt Scacchi,et al.  Emerging Issues in the Acquisition of Open Source Software within the US Department of Defense , 2008 .

[33]  Kris Ven,et al.  Challenges and strategies in the use of Open Source Software by Independent Software Vendors , 2008, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[34]  Marek J. Sergot,et al.  The representation of legal contracts , 2008, AI & SOCIETY.

[35]  Robert Gobeille,et al.  The FOSSology project , 2008, MSR '08.

[36]  Walt Scacchi,et al.  Mobilization of software developers: the free software movement , 2008, Inf. Technol. People.

[37]  M. Hart,et al.  SOME FUNDAMENTAL LEGAL CONCEPTIONS AS APPLIED IN JUDICIAL REASONING , 2008 .

[38]  A. Guadamuz The License/Contract Dichotomy in Open Licenses: A Comparative Analysis , 2009 .

[39]  Maureen A. O'Rourke,et al.  Rethinking Consideration in the Electronic Age , 2009 .

[40]  Tommi Kärkkäinen,et al.  Automated software license analysis , 2009, Automated Software Engineering.

[41]  Walt Scacchi,et al.  The Role of Software Licenses in Open Architecture Ecosystems , 2009, IWSECO@ICSR.

[42]  Chandrasekar Subramaniam,et al.  Determinants of the Choice of Open Source Software License , 2008, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[43]  D. O. Humphris-Norman Justice, rights, and jural relations: a philosophy of justice and its relationships , 2009 .

[44]  Richard Kemp Current developments in Open Source Software , 2009, Comput. Law Secur. Rev..

[45]  Walt Scacchi,et al.  Intellectual Property Rights Requirements for Heterogeneously-Licensed Systems , 2009, 2009 17th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference.

[46]  Andrés Guadamuz-González The license/contract dichotomy in open licenses: a comparative analysis , 2009 .

[47]  Daniel M. Germán,et al.  License integration patterns: Addressing license mismatches in component-based development , 2009, 2009 IEEE 31st International Conference on Software Engineering.

[48]  Chandrasekar Subramaniam,et al.  Determinants of open source software project success: A longitudinal study , 2009, Decis. Support Syst..

[49]  Daniel M. Germán,et al.  An exploratory study of the evolution of software licensing , 2010, 2010 ACM/IEEE 32nd International Conference on Software Engineering.