This post is about Creative Commons commercial licenses. After describing each license, it discusses when you might want to use each license.
Creative Commons provides a summary of its various licenses at (more…).
This post is adapted from my answer to a Quora question from a prospective patent licensee. Q. How do I propose a licensing agreement with a patent holder?
A. In my experience, the most important thing that a prospective patent licensee needs to bring to the table is a successful track record.
Software developers may have decided to provide open source software, but they may not know which open source license to use. This post describes three resources developers can consult to help make that decision.
First, Open Source Initiative maintains a comprehensive list of open source software licenses. Licenses are grouped into categories, starting with the most popular licenses. However, the OSI site does not provide any tools to help decide which open source license to use.
Intellectual property license agreements often include a provision by which the licensor is paid a royalty that is calculated as a percentage of the revenue received by the licensee from licensed products. Given that licensees have a financial incentive to reduce the amount of revenue that is reported*, the prudent licensor includes an audit provision in the license agreement.
The audit provision typically:
- Specifies the frequency and nature of audits that may be conducted;
- Provides that the licensee will pay any underpayment amount that is discovered plus interest; and
- Obligates the licensor to pay for the audit unless the underpayment exceeds X% of the royalty that was due, in which case the licensee must reimburse the licensor for the cost of the audit.
Erik Anderson developed certain software that he contributed to BusyBox, a compact set of embedded Linux utilities licensed under the GNU General Public License, Version 2 (the “GPL”). In October 2008, Anderson registered a copyright on the code that he contributed.
On September 2, 2009, Anderson’s counsel notified Westinghouse that it was infringing Anderson’s copyright because it was distributing BusyBox – both integrated into Westinghouse televisions and separately with other software – on terms that are more restrictive than the GPL. Westinghouse continued infringing Anderson’s copyright.
Anderson and the Software Freedom Conservancy brought suit against Westinghouse and 13 other defendants on December 14, 2009. Westinghouse initially mounted a defense, but stopped participating in the suit when it filed for bankruptcy.
A federal court of appeals held in 2008 that an open source developer case sue for copyright infringement despite the breadth of the open source license. The closely-watched case recently settled, meaning that the opinion may well be cited for many years to come.
Plaintiff Robert Jacobsen holds a copyright to certain computer programming code that he makes available for public download for free pursuant to the Artistic License, an open source license.
Defendants Matthew Katzer and Kamind Associates, Inc. develop commercial software products for the model train industry and hobbyists. Defendants copied certain materials from Jacobsen’s website and incorporated them into one of their software packages without following the terms of the Artistic License. Jacobsen sued for copyright infringement and moved for a preliminary injunction.
Almost a year ago, I wrote about why independent contractors (as contrasted to employees) own the copyrights in works that they create. As a result, a prudent customer will ensure that the contractor assigns its copyrights to the customer (Why “Work Made for Hire” is a Term Made for Confusion). This post discusses the implied copyright license that is granted in the absence of an assignment.
If there is no assignment provision, a court will determine that there is an implied license under the copyright. The rationale is that it would be unfair to deprive the customer of all rights in a work for which the customer has paid. The issue, then, will be the terms of the implied license.
The one certain characteristic of the implied license is that it will be non-exclusive rather than exclusive. The reason: Under 17 U.S.C. Section 101, an exclusive license is considered a transfer of copyright ownership. And under 17 U.S.C. Section 204(a), a transfer of copyright ownership must be in writing and must be signed.
I recently answered a LinkedIn question about whether providing Software as a Service (SaaS) is considered a “distribution” under the open-source GNU General Public License. The question and answer (no longer available on LinkedIn) are reproduced, in slightly edited form, below.
Q. Is hosting a software as a SaaS offering considered as “distribution” under GPL / LGPL open source licenses?
A. I believe that SaaS hosting is not intended to be considered distribution.
The December 2009 issue of les Nouvelles, a publication of Licensing Executives Society International, has an interesting article about the interplay between domain name disputes and trademark licensing.
“WIPO Domain Name Cases Offer Trademark Licensing Lessons,” by Hee-Eun Kim, an LLM student in Munich, Germany, starts by describing the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the role of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in resolving disputes under the UDRP. (more…)