Distributions of free software involve sharing of computer program, which is mostly governed by copyright law. Other legal rights, involving trademark, patent, trade dress protection, protection against unfair competition, and other legal doctrines are potentially involved as well. When hundreds or thousands of programs and associated files containing documentation or configuration data combined into “packages” are then aggregated into “distributions” such as Debian, Fedora, RHEL or Ubuntu, the significance of these related rights increases, and the complexity of their interaction does as well.

Our practice at SFLC involves advising clients on the interaction of these rights and the difficulties that arise from their overlapping nature especially as they travel between non-commercial and commercial parties.

We publish this document explaining the interaction of these peripheral rights for the benefit of the larger community in furtherance of our mission of spreading awareness about Free and Open Source Software.

This document explains licensing issues as they relate to the Linux Kernel and CDDL-licensed code.

本文档解释了如何阅读、理解、并遵循GNU GPL 自由软件法律，包括有关法律授权 的监管和对拥有版权者提供咨询和实用的建议。

This is the official Chinese translation of SFLC’s Guide to GPL Compliance, 2nd Edition.

How to read, understand, and comply with the provisions of the GNU GPL family of free software licenses, including a discussion of the relation of governance to compliance, and practical advice about responding to inquiries or compliance complaints from copyright holders.

This document explains the purpose of license and copyright notices, the legal requirements behind them, and the current best practices for maintaining this information in a free software projects source distribution.

This document, produced jointly by SFLC and members of the U.S. Navy involved in software acquisitions, discusses how the GPL can be successfully used within DFARS software acquisitions

This document presents information about patents and patent liability useful for developers working on community distributions of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS).

The potentially fatal risk of source code defects in implantable medical devices and why patients, doctors, and the public should insist that free and open source software be the standard approach.

How to comply effectively with the GNU General Public License (GPL) and related licenses.

The Software Freedom Law Center publishes a primer for free, libre, and open source software developers seeking to understand the legal implications of community development and distribution of software.

How and when commercial redistribution of FOSS violates common FOSS licenses, and development techniques to make enforcement easier.

Ensuring compliance and enabling code-sharing when incorporating permissive-licensed code into a GPL codebase.

New rules tentatively encourage the use of FOSS by SDR manufacturers.

Sarbanes-Oxley does not increase risk for developers of GPL’d software.

SFLC’s comments to the Federal Communications Commission regarding proposed revisions to FCC device authorization procedures.

This document explains the procedure for public drafting and discussion that surrounded the GPLv3 revision process in 2006-07.

Eben Moglen’s request to appear before the European Commission regarding Oracle’s acquisition of Sun.

Eben Moglen’s opinion to the European Commission on the competitive effects of the Oracle’s acquisition of Sun.

It is unsafe to rely upon the OSP for any free software implementation, whether under the GPL or another free software license.

A discussion of the requirements for software to be considered within the scope of copyright under U.S. and E.U law.

SFLC’s conclusions regading the copyright status of the ath5k driver code.

The hidden patent tax built into the license fees for Microsoft Windows.

The OASIS ODF standard is free of legal encumbrances that would prevent its use in free and open source software.

Background material and links regarding the Supreme Court case Alice v. Kappos

Background material and links regarding the Supreme Court case Bilski v. Kappos

SFLC’s amicus brief before the Supreme Court in Samsung Electronics v. Apple Inc. arguing that design patents are unconstitutional and that the total profits damages rule is therefore constitutionally infirm.

SFLC’s amicus brief before the Supreme Court in Google, Inc. v. Oracle America. SFLC and FSF take the position that the decision below is wrong, but that certiorari should not be granted for three reasons: (1) the decision of the Federal Circuit merely mispredicts what the Ninth Circuit would do if it had been the Court resolving Oracle’s appeal from the District Court’s finding that the application program interface declarations at issue are non-copyrightable; (2) the decision rests on narrow factual grounds; and (3) there is no public interest in continuing to adjudicate this dispute because Google can now and could have used all material at issue under the terms of the GNU GPL v2.

SFLC’s amicus brief before the Supreme Court in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank arguing that the “machine or transformation” inquiry employed by the Court in Bilski v. Kappos is the correct, and exclusive, bright line test for patent eligibility of computer-implemented inventions.

SFLC’s amicus brief before the Supreme Court arguing against the Federal Circuit’s expansion of secondary liability for patent infringement.

SFLC’s amicus brief before the Supreme Court arguing against extending patent coverage to abstract ideas embedded in software.

SFLC’s amicus brief before the Federal Circuit arguing that FOSS developers should be able to enjoin infringing distributions of their software.

SFLC’s amicus brief before the Supreme Court arguing that software can not be a component of a patented invention because software is not patentable subject matter.