Introduction to Free Software - SELF | Sharing Knowledge about ...
Introduction to Free Software - SELF | Sharing Knowledge about ...
Introduction to Free Software - SELF | Sharing Knowledge about ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
© FUOC • P07/M2101/02709 45 <strong>Free</strong> <strong>Software</strong><br />
3.1.4. Registered trademarks and logos<br />
Trademarks and logos are names and symbols that represent an established<br />
quality (or a massive investment in publicity). They are not very important<br />
in the world of free software, possibly because registering them has a cost.<br />
Therefore, just a few important names such as Open Source (by the Open<br />
Source Foundation), Debian (by <strong>Software</strong> in the Public Interest), GNOME<br />
(by the GNOME Foundation), GNU (by the <strong>Free</strong> <strong>Software</strong> Foundation) or<br />
OpenOffice.org (by SUN Microsystems) are registered, and only in a few coun-<br />
tries. However, not registering the names has caused problems. For example,<br />
in the US (1996) and in Korea (1997) people have registered the name Linux<br />
and demanded payment for its use. Resolving these disputes entails legal costs<br />
and the need <strong>to</strong> prove the use of the name prior <strong>to</strong> the date of registration.<br />
3.2. <strong>Free</strong> software licences<br />
Legally speaking, the situation of free programs in relation <strong>to</strong> private ones is<br />
not very different: they are both distributed under a licence. The difference<br />
lies in what the licence allows. In the case of free program licences, which do<br />
not restrict particularly their use, redistribution and modification, what can be<br />
imposed are conditions that need <strong>to</strong> be met precisely in the case of wanting <strong>to</strong><br />
redistribute the program. For example, it is possible <strong>to</strong> demand observation of<br />
authorship indications or <strong>to</strong> include the source code if wanting <strong>to</strong> redistribute<br />
the program ready <strong>to</strong> run.<br />
Although essentially free software and private software differ in terms of the<br />
licence under which the authors publish their programs, it is important <strong>to</strong><br />
emphasise that this distinction is reflected in completely different conditions<br />
of use and redistribution. As we have seen in the last few years, this has not<br />
only given rise <strong>to</strong> <strong>to</strong>tally different methods of development, but also <strong>to</strong> prac-<br />
tically opposite ways (in many aspects) of understanding IT.<br />
The laws on intellectual property ensure that in the absence of explicit per-<br />
mission virtually nothing can be done with a work (in our case, a program) re-<br />
ceived or purchased. Only the author (or the holder of the rights <strong>to</strong> the work)<br />
can grant us that permission. In any case, ownership of the work does not<br />
change by granting a licence, since this does not entail transfer of ownership,<br />
but rather just the right of use, and in some cases (obliga<strong>to</strong>ry with free softwa-<br />
re), of distribution and modification. <strong>Free</strong> software licences are different from<br />
private software licences precisely in that instead of carefully restricting what<br />
is allowed, it makes certain explicit allowances. When somebody receives a<br />
free program they may redistribute it or not, but if they do redistribute it, they<br />
can only do so because the licence allows it. But <strong>to</strong> do so the licence must be<br />
observed. Indeed, the licence contains the rules of use that users, distribu<strong>to</strong>rs,<br />
integra<strong>to</strong>rs and all other parties involved in the world of IT must observe.