Page 56 - Proceedings of the 2017 ITU Kaleidoscope

2017 ITU Kaleidoscope Academic Conference

1
Built on the term from Raymond and Krechmer compared constrained, especially when the document is not free of
SSO and OSS “libraries” and “bazaars” [12], respectively, charge. Distribution of modified versions as standards is
indicating that the values and bases which have evolved in strictly prohibited in SSOs, as it would be considered as a
the two contexts are quite different. threat to the stability of a standard [13].
The metaphor of “libraries” suggests the value to society of When code is included in specifications, if not specified, it
vetted and maintained knowledge that is publicly available. will be treated the same as the other part of the
It is common in ICT sectors that companies come together specifications. For instance, the IEEE bylaws are silent
and agree on a single standard, taking the form of an SSO. about software in standard specifications. However, some
The ITU, IEEE and ETSI are among formal SSOs that have SSOs have raised awareness that software contributed by
2
been recognized by some authorities . Technical standards members or third parties may be referred by standards.
developed by these bodies generally refer to “the Both the ITU and ETSI have introduced software
establishment of norms and requirements for technical guidelines (rules), according to which additional licenses
systems, specifying standard engineering criteria, are demanded from contributors for any code that has been
methodologies or processes” [13]. They are relatively stable included only for technical purpose, such as describing
and establish a common base for the norms for functionality or testing for conformance. The ITU has three
implementation. Technologies embedded in standards are detailed licensing approaches that contributors (members)
made available through IPRs licenses. can choose from, ranging from waiving the copyright to
Comparably, the metaphor of “bazaars” represents a Royalty Free (RF) license and to license with reasonable
marketplace full of new ideas, the freedom to change and monetary compensation [15]. The ETSI intellectual
evolve [12] [14]. The free software movement started in property policy requires software contribution to be subject
1983 with the launch of the GNU project maintained by to an “irrevocable, non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free,
Free Software Foundation (FSF), as a response to over sub-licensable copyright license” and to derivative works,
privatizing software via copyright protection. The OSI was subject to the limit of evaluation and implementation of the
established in 1998, and is an organization that certifies software, unless the member makes it explicit for a FRAND
OSLs, which has also certified the General Public Licenses commitment on implementation use [16]. Nevertheless,
(GPL) maintained by FSF is also included. It is worth software copyright is not on the priority agenda of SSOs
mentioning that both the OSI and FSF recognize the four policy yet.
basic freedoms: the freedom to run the software, the
freedom to study how the software works, the freedom to 2.1.2 OSS
distribute the code and any modified version. OSLs have
designed terms to guarantee these freedoms. One essential Although Richard Stallman deliberately created the notion
part is to make the source code open, which would “copyleft” when he started the free software movement, it
otherwise be kept proprietary. is now commonly recognized that open source code is
Although they have different structures, IPRs are important subject to copyright protection as other software is [17].
to both. In the following text, we will discuss how Copyright protection forms the basis for OSLs, in which
copyright and patent have been structured and made copyright is defensively reserved to ensure the freedoms
available in these two contexts. and norms valued by OSS [17].
Contributors remain as right owners, while a specific open
2.1. Copyright source license defines how other rights, such as the right to
run, to modify and to distribute will be licensed. Making
2.1.1 SSOs source code open to any recipients who agree to the OSLs
is the core difference between OSS and proprietary
A "literary work" is entitled to copyright protection when it software. Some other common norms are also mandated by
is the author's own intellectual creation. A Specification the OSI. Royalties for copyright per se are not permitted,
produced by SSOs may constitute a literal work. The same but fees are allowed for physical transactions.
with many SSOs, ITU, ETSI and IEEE have claimed in Free distribution is at the heart of open source licenses.
their bylaws that copyright ownership over specifications Distribution of derivative work is also guaranteed [18]. In
produced by their working groups. some cases, recipients might change the code and develop
Depending on the business model, some SSOs such as the something that deviates from the original and call it the
ETSI make their specifications available for free, while same name while “forking” the original. As a result, an
some such as the ITU and IEEE sell them. Arguably, SSOs open source project generally cannot reach the same
value stability over distribution. Distribution of standards is stability of a technical solution that a standard provides, nor
does it value stability over the innovation flow that it keeps,
which reflects the value difference we described before.
1 In his work “Cathedral and Bazaar”, Raymond used the However, this freedom to distribute is only ensured when
metaphor of “bazaar” to illustrate the software development model the recipient agree to other accompanied norms in the
of OSS in contrast to proprietary model. See [14].
2 ITU is the United Nations specialized agency. IEEE is one of the licenses. If recipients violate an open source license,
organizations accredited by ANSI to develop US standards. ETSI copyright infringement will be triggered.
is recognized by the European Union (EU) to produce EU
standards.

– 40 –