"Crash Course" on Open Source Silicon Flatirons Center (2012)

Copyright 2011 Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP
“Crash Course” on Open Source
Jason D. Haislmaier
jason.haislmaier@hro.com
@haislmaier

Open Source Software
This presentation is intended for general informational purposes only and should not
be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances,
nor is it intended to address specific legal compliance issues that may arise in
particular circumstances. Please consult counsel concerning your own situation
and any specific legal questions you may have.
The thoughts and opinions expressed in this presentation are those of the individual
presenters and do not necessarily reflect the official or unofficial thoughts or
opinions of their employers.
For further information regarding this presentation, please contact the presenter(s)
listed in the presentation.
Unless otherwise noted, all original content in this presentation is licensed under the
Creative Commons Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States
License available at: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us.
Disclaimer and Rights

Who’s using open source?
not

“We can no longer [practically] develop
[commercial] software without the use of open
source software. . . In fact, if we could find a way
to do so, we would patent it!”
[Name withheld]
CIO
Large mobile software developer
(and major patent holder)

Commercial Open Source

New trends
Evolution
Open Source Software
The Evolution of

A brief and (very) unofficial history. . .

“Free” Software
Evolution of Open Source

• 1970s - Free software movement begins
– Started largely by academics and corporate researchers
– Working in collaboration to develop software
– Source code (human-readable software code) was freely distributed among users
– Users shared bug fixes, new functionality, etc. among the community
• 1983 - Richard Stallman launches the GNU project
– Response to frustration with the advent of “closed” software
– Announced the development of a complete operating system “free” from constraints on
source code
– The “GNU” operating system
• 1984 - Work on the GNU operating system begins
• 1985 - Stallman founds the Free Software Foundation (FSF) to
promote the free software ideology
• 1986 - Stallman authors the Free Software Definition defining the
principles of “free” software
The “Free” Software Ideology

“The word "free" does not refer to price; it refers to
freedom. The freedom to copy a program and redistribute
it to your neighbors so that they can use it as well as you.
The freedom to change a program, so that you can control
it instead of it controlling you; for this, the source code
must be made available to you.”
Richard Stallman
Founder, Free Software Foundation

Richard Stallman
Founder, Free Software Foundation
“You should think of ‘free’ as in ‘free speech,’
not ‘free’ as in ‘free beer’.”

• Free Software “Definition” embodied in 4 basic freedoms
0 - Run the program, for any purpose
1 - Study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
2 - Redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
3 - Improve the program, and release your improvements to the
public, so that the whole community benefits
• Free software becomes synonymous with software that
– Can be used, studied, and modified without restriction
– Can be redistributed in modified or unmodified form without restriction
(or with minimal restrictions)
But, only if other recipients can do the same things
The Free Software Definition

“Open Source” Software

• 1989 - Version 1 of the GNU General Public License (GPL) is
published by the FSF
• 1991 - Version 2 of the GPL is published
• 1991 - Linux operating system initially released
– Originally not released under a free software license
– Migrated to the GPL in February 1992 (version 0.12)
• 1997 - Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) published
– Authored by Bruce Parens as part of the official policy for the
Debian open source software project
– Based on the Free Software Definition
– Defines the principles under which Debian will be made available
as “free” software
The Rise of Open Source Software

• Early 1998 - Netscape releases the Netscape Communicator as free software
– Bring the benefits of free software to the commercial software industry
– Emphasize the business potential of the sharing of source code
– Without many of the ideological overtones of free software
• Late 1998 - Open Source Initiative (OSI) formed
– Formed by Eric Raymond (with help from Bruce Parens and others)
– Response to the overly activist/ideological stance of free software
– Seeks to bring the benefits of free software to the
commercial software industry by advocating the
use of “open source” software
– Perens adapts and repurposes the DFSG and FSD
to form the Open Source Definition (OSD) to define
the principles of “open source” software
The Rise of Open Source

“FOSS”
Free and Open Source Software

• The “Open Source Definition” (OSD) articulates the principles a
license must meet to be “open source”
– Availability of source code
– Free redistribution
– Availability of “derived works”
– Integrity of the author’s source code
– No discrimination against persons or groups
– No discrimination against fields of endeavor
– License must travel with the software
– License not dependent on particular software distribution
– License does not restrict other software
– License technology neutral
• Used by the OSI to define licenses as “open source”
The Open Source Definition
Open Source Licenses

Approved Open Source Licenses
• The OSI maintains a certification program to approve licenses as
compliant with the OSD
• Over 70 licenses approved as “open source” by the OSI
– All implement the OSD, each with its own specific terms
– One definition, many different types of licenses
• Many unapproved “open source” licenses exist
– Never formally approved by the OSI
– Still refer to themselves (and referred to by others) as “open source”
• Many other licenses are referred to as “open source”
– Based in some part on OSI-approved licenses
– No guarantee of compliance with the OSD

CopyleftAcademic
Very
Permissive
• Berkley Software
Distribution License
(BSD)
• MIT License
• W3C
Less
Permissive
• Apache Software
License
• Eclipse Public License
• Artistic License
Less
Restrictive
• Mozilla Public License
(MPL)
• Common
Development and
Distribution License
(CDDL)
• Common Public
License (CPL)
• IBM Public License
More
Restrictive
• GNU GPL v2
• GNU GPL v3
• GNU LGPL v2.1
• GNU LGPL v3
• Affero GPL v2
• Affero GPL v3
Single Definition – Many Licenses

“Copyleft”
All Rights Reversed
Copyright
All Rights Reserved

Open source software is
licensed software
Open source licenses
make the software “open source”

Understand the similarities
Understand the differences
Understand why they matter

• License flows with code
– Unilateral set of permissions
– No negotiation
– No affirmative assent needed
• Use “Permissions” (with boundaries)
– Source and object code forms
– Copy, modify, and distribute
– May allow other end users to do
the same
• Limited or No Licensor Obligations
– No warranties
– No updates/upgrades
– No support obligations
– No infringement indemnification
• Legally enforceable (and enforced)
Open Source
• “Arms-length” agreement
– “Meeting of the minds”
– Often negotiated
– Affirmative assent (sign, click, etc.)
• Use “Restrictions”
– Object code only
– Limited copying and use
– No reverse engineering
– No distribution
• Robust Licensor Obligations
– Warranties
– Updates/upgrades
– Support and maintenance
– Infringement indemnification
• Legally enforceable (and enforced)
Proprietary

• Permissive
• Minimal requirements
• Notice
– Copyright ownership
– License applicability
• Attribution
– Authors of original code
– Contributions to the original code
• Application only to the original code
– Derivatives and modifications not covered
– Non-“viral”
• License flows with the code, but. . .
– High level of compatibility with other
licenses
– Relicensing permitted under other licenses
Academic
• Restrictive
• Extensive requirements
• Notice and attribution
• Availability of source code
• Application beyond the original code
– Covers derivative works (and perhaps
other modifications)
– “Viral”
• License must flow with the code
– Potential license incompatibilities
– Limited or no release under other licenses
• Often include patent licenses
– Express or implied
– Covering licensed code and contributions
• Other requirements. . .
Copyleft

Is Copyleft anti-Copyright?
Copyleft and Copyright

• Open source software licensing has arisen
(at least in part) as a response to copyright law
• Open source licensing relies on the ability of a copyright owner to
choose how to enforce (or not enforce) their copyright
• Each open source license is intended to act as a set of
permissions (and restrictions) granted by a copyright owner under
their copyright
• Like most licenses (or contracts), open source licenses have limits
• Unlike proprietary licenses, these limits generally allow for more
“open” or “free” use of the software
• Each open source license implements the Open Source Definition
• Some more differently than others. . .
Open Source Licenses Depend on Copyright

Just how differently?

“We’re ‘ok.’ We don’t distribute software. ”
Cloud

Cloud

Example: BSD License
• BSD License is triggered by “Redistribution and use”
• Express restrictions only apply to “redistributions”
• Does it matter given the permissive nature of the BSD?
Open Source in the Cloud

Example: GPLv2
• GPLv2 is triggered by distribution
• Merely running the program is not covered by the license

Example: GPLv3
• GPLv3 is triggered by a “conveyance”
• Specifically does not include use over a network

Example: AGPLv3
• The Affero GPLv3 expressly covers use over a network
• Treats use over a network as a distribution or conveyance is treated
under the GPL

“So doesn’t this mean that the GPL
is the new BSD license. . . and that
Google is the new Microsoft ?”
Bradley Kuhn
Former executive director of the FSF

What constitutes a “distribution”
of software under the GPL?

What is the consequence of a
“distribution” of software under the GPL?

• GPLv2 covers the program licensed under GPLv2 and
“works based on the program”
• Requires works in whole or in part “derived from the Program” to be
licensed under the terms of the GPL
Example: GPLv2
License Interpretation

• GPLv2 definitions refer to a “derivative work” under applicable
copyright law as a guide
• But, also provide their own interpretation of what would be included as a
“work based on the program”
Example: GPLv2

Who decides how to interpret
open source licenses?

• GPLv2 sets multiple boundaries
– Triggered by a “distribution”
– Allows modification to form a “work based on the Program”
– Requires a work that “in whole or in part contains or is derived from the
Program” to be subject to the GPL
• Does not fully define these terms
• Refers to applicable copyright law for aide in defining key terms
• Copyright law is not well-defined as it relates to these areas
– The U.S. Copyright Act grants copyright owners the exclusive right to “distribute”
the works, but does not define “distribute”
– Similar uncertainty around a “derivative work” of software
Example: GPLv2

• Multiple interpretations and understandings have emerged
– Free Software Foundation and other open source groups
– Open source legal community
– Very limited court decisions regarding open source
– Court decisions in other areas of copyright law
• Relatively little dispute at either end of the spectrum
• Uncertainty exists in the many emerging variations in-between
• Even the accepted interpretations are highly fact-dependant
Example: GPLv2

• Copyright law gives the copyright owner power to enforce their copyright
• Issuing licenses is part of this power
• The copyright owner decides
– Whether to apply GPLv2 to their software
– How to interpret GPLv2 as applied to their software
– When and how to enforce GPLv2
• Court decisions apply (if they are available)
• Accepted interpretations and practices can carry weight
• Where the law is unclear and multiple reasonable interpretations exist, the
copyright owner has the power to decide which interpretation to adopt
Example: GPLv2

What happens when a difference in
interpretation occurs?

Google essentially copied hundreds of files of Linux code
that were never meant to be used as is by application
developers, "cleaned" those files using a non-standard and
questionable technical process, and then declared that the
code was no longer subject to the GPLv2, so that
developers could use it without becoming subject to the
copyleft effect that would normally apply to GPLv2-licensed
code taken from the Linux kernel.
Source: http://www.brownrudnick.com/nr/pdf/alerts/Brown%20Rudnick%20Advisory%20The%20
Bionic%20Library-Did%20Google%20Work%20Around%20The%20GPL.pdf
Attacks on Android

• Android consists of:
– An underlying Linux kernel – Licensed under GPLv2
– A C-library known as “Bionic” – Licensed under BSD
• Allegations claim that the Bionic library is a derivative work of the Linux kernel
due to the amount and type of code included in Bionic from the Linux kernel
• GPLv2 requires that all derivative works of software licensed under GPLv2 must
themselves be licensed under GPLv2
• Therefore, by implication
– Bionic must be licensed under GPLv2; AND
– Applications running on Android must also be licensed under GPLv2
• Thus, Android developers are under “significant” business and legal risk
Attacks on Android

• Google incorporated Linux kernel header files (and derivative works of those
files) into Bionic
• Think of the header files as essentially acting as interfaces to the Linux kernel
• Used the header files to allow applications and other programs to use and
invoke the functions of the Linux kernel
• The question: Does this matter?
Allegations Against Bionic
Attacks on Android

• Copyrightability of header files is open to debate
– Interface declarations are analogous to "facts" regarding the operation of a software program
– Facts (of any kind) are not copyrightable (along with systems, processes, or methods of
operation)
• Copying of interfaces to create compatible (independent) software has also
been viewed as fair use.
– If available, fair use provides an unlicensed user with a defense to copyright
infringement
– See, e.g., Sony Computer Entertainment v. Connectix Corp., 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir.
2000)
• GPLv2 is a copyright license, so without a valid copyright (or a fair use claim),
there is nothing for the license to provide or protect.
Status of Header Files Under Copyright Law
Attacks on Android

• Questions about the treatment of header files under the GPL are nothing new
• Even the FSF has questioned whether the use of header files will always result
in a derivative work of the Linux kernel
• General acceptance that not all portions of header files are copyrightable
• Uncertainty as to which portion of header files are copyrightable
• Highly fact-based analysis
Status of Header Files Under the GPL
Attacks on Android
Someone recently made the claim that including a header file
always makes a derivative work.
That's not the FSF's view. Our view is that just using structure
definitions, typedefs, enumeration constants, macros with simple
bodies, etc., is NOT enough to make a derivative work.
It would take a substantial amount of code (coming from inline
functions or macros with substantial bodies) to do that.
Source: 2003 Email from Richard Stallman quoted at: http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0301.1/0362.html

• The version of GPLv2 used by the Linux kernel includes an additional exception:
• Permits applications and other programs to link to the functionality of the Linux
kernel without creating a derivative work
• Applications running on Linux are thus not required to be licensed under GPLv2
• Bionic is not the first Linux library to operate in this manner
– Example: glibc (GNU C library)
Created using the same basic methodology used to create Bionic
Not licensed under the GPL (licensed under the LGPL)
– Other examples exist as well
• Why are glibc and other similarly-developed libraries not also derivative works?
Attacks on Android
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that
use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely
considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall
under the heading of a “derived work”. Also note that the
GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation,
but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux kernel) is
copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
Source: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING
Status of Header Files Under the GPL

• Even with other examples of non-infringing Linux libraries that are not licensed
under the GPL, it is possible that:
– Bionic includes copyrighted code from the Linux kernel (e.g., coming from inline
functions or macros with substantial bodies)
– Bionic makes more than “normal system calls” to the Linux kernel
– The code used by Bionic is not subject to a fair use argument
• The only way to know for sure is to review the files comprising the Bionic library
Risk to Android?
Attacks on Android

• Even if Bionic is subject to GPLv2, are applications running on Android also
subject to GPLv2?
• Solid legal arguments exist that this is not the case
Risk to Android Applications?
Attacks on Android
If the Bionic header files remain subject to GPLv2, there is a
considerable risk that applications using them become subject to GPLv2
as well.
Source: http://www.brownrudnick.com/nr/pdf/alerts/Brown%20Rudnick%20Advisory%20The%20
Bionic%20Library-Did%20Google%20Work%20Around%20The%20GPL.pdf
If GPLv2 applies to Android applications, developers’ ability to
differentiate on the Android platform would be seriously impaired,
because they would be required to release the source code of their
applications [under GPLv2] and would be precluded from limiting how
anyone, including competitors, uses that code.

• Strong legal argument that merely linking one independent program to another
does not create a derivative work
• Also well-settled that running an application on a GPL-licensed OS does not
create a derivative work and cause the application to come under the GPL
Attacks on Android
Source: "The Unreasonable Fear of Infection", Lawrence Rosen
Simply combining a copyrighted work with another work does not
create a derivative work. The original copyrighted work must be
modified in some way. The resulting derivative work must itself
“represent an original work of authorship.” So if the licensee doesn’t
modify the original GPL-licensed program, but merely runs it, he is
not creating a derivative work.
Consider the scenario where the Linux operating system, a GPL-
licensed program, loads and executes a proprietary program. The
Linux program is not modified; it is merely used for the purpose for
which it was designed. The proprietary program does not “contain”
nor is it “derived from” Linux. Linux does not infect the proprietary
program, and the proprietary program does not become subject to
the GPL.
Source: "The Unreasonable Fear of Infection", Lawrence Rosen

• GPLv2 applies to the licensed program and “any work based on the Program”
• GPLv2 defines this as “any derivative work under copyright law”
• Copyright law defines a “Derivative Work” as:
– A work based upon one or more preexisting works
– In which the underlying work is recast, transformed, or adapted
– Where the modifications, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship
• Bringing together two independent and separate works does not alone constitute
a derivative work
• May create a compilation or collective work
• Collective works or compilations are collections of separate and independently
copyrighted works
Attacks on Android

• Linus Torvalds has stated in the past that applications and other programs
running on Linux do not become subject to the GPL
• His comments regarding these allegations reiterate this point
• As the owner of the copyright in significant portions of the Linux kernel, Torvalds
is the one with legal standing to bring a claim for violation of the Linux copyright
What Does The Community Have to Say?
Attacks on Android
“It seems totally bogus, we’ve always made it very clear that the
kernel system call interfaces do not in any way result in a derived
work as per the GPL.”
Source: Linus Torvalds, as quoted in LKML, http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/3/228
“User programs are _clearly_ not derived works of the kernel, and
as such whatever the kernel license is just doesn’t matter.”
Source: Linus Torvalds, as quoted in Network World - http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/72428

Patents
Patent “Aggression”
Nothing New to Open Source

Nothing New to Open Source
• 2004 study by Open Source Risk Management
• Revealed at least 283 patents implicated by Linux
• At least 27 of those patents held by Microsoft
Patent Aggression

• First patent infringement suit targeting an open source project
• Firestar sued Red Hat on June 28, 2006
• Eastern District of Texas
• Alleged that the JBoss Hibernate 3.0 technology infringed
several patents, notably:
– 5,522,077 - Object oriented network system for allocating ranges of globally unique object identifiers
from a server process to client processes which release unused identifiers
– 5,937,402 - System for enabling access to a relational database from an object oriented program
– 6,101,502 - Method of interfacing an object oriented software application with a relational database
• Settlement reached before much activity took place
v.
The Firestar Case
Firestar Software, Inc v. Red Hat, Inc et al
(Case No.: 2:06cv258)
Patent Aggression

• Settlement terms are public:
http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/blog/patent_settlement_agreement.pdf
• Very broad:
– All software licensed under the Red Hat brand
(whether developed by Red Hat or third parties)
– Derivative works of Red Hat branded products and combinations of software
including Red Hat branded products
– Upstream developers as well as predecessor products of Red Hat branded products
– Distributors, customers, and everyone
– All patents owned by DataTern and Amphion
• Model for open source patent infringement settlements?
The Firestar Settlement
Patent Aggression

• The patents named in the Firestar complaint are still at work
• U.S. Patent No. 6,101,502 and 5,937,402
• Now assigned to patent holding company DataTern (and its parent company
Amphion Innovations PLC)
• Asserted against a host of companies
• Microsoft entered the suit with a declaratory judgment action on April 8, 2011
– Filed in the Southern District of New York
– Alleges the suits have referenced Microsoft software
– Defendants have asked Microsoft for indemnification
– Seeks to declare the patents invalid or that no Microsoft products are infringing
The Firestar Follow-On
Patent Aggression

• February 2009, Microsoft files suit against GPS device maker TomTom
alleging infringement of eight patents
• Among them, patent numbers 5,579,517 and 5,758,352 for techniques for
implementing a “common name space for long and short filenames”
• Covering Microsoft's FAT32 file system
• Microsoft claims the suit is not a direct attack on Linux
Microsoft v. TomTom
Patent Aggression

• March 2009, TomTom countersues Microsoft
• Alleging infringement of four TomTom patents related to TomTom’s
Streets and Trips program
Patent Aggression
Microsoft v. TomTom

• As part of its defense strategy, TomTom also joins the
Open Innovation Network (OIN)
Patent Aggression
Microsoft v. TomTom

• March 30, 2009 – Microsoft and TomTom settle all issues
• Specific financial terms not disclosed
• TomTom to pay Microsoft an undisclosed amount for coverage under
eight Microsoft patents for car-navigation and file-management systems
• Microsoft to receive coverage under four TomTom patents (no payment
required by Microsoft)
Patent Aggression
Microsoft v. TomTom

• Five-year term
• Covers both past and future U.S. sales of the relevant products
• Purports to be open source compliant:
The agreement includes patent coverage for Microsoft’s three file management
systems patents provided in a manner that is fully compliant with TomTom’s
obligations under the General Public License Version 2 (GPLv2).
• TomTom will drop FAT-patented parts of its products:
TomTom will remove from its products the functionality related to two file
management system patents (the ‘FAT LFN patents’), which enables efficient
naming, organizing, storing and accessing of file data. TomTom will remove this
functionality within two years, and the agreement provides for coverage directly
to TomTom’s end customers under these patents during that time.
• Microsoft is passing patent protection to TomTom’s ‘end customers’
• Similar to the scheme of prior Microsoft patent license agreements
Patent Aggression
Microsoft v. TomTom

• Microsoft has also built an increasingly broad patent licensing program
– Over 1000 licenses in the last decade
– Many rumored to cover Linux and other open source projects
Patent Aggression
Microsoft Patent Licensing

Microsoft Patent Licensing
Patent Aggression
Source: Microsoft Corporation
• Microsoft has also built an increasingly broad patent licensing program
– Over 1000 licenses in the last decade
– Many rumored to cover Linux and other open source projects
– 10 (and counting) are known to be Android-related

Android Patent Aggression
Patent Aggression

How are companies
defending against this threat?
Patent Aggression

Patent Aggression
Patent Purchases
• November 22, 2010 – Novell announces sale to Attachmate Corporation
• Deal includes the sale of “certain IP assets” to CPTN Holdings
• CPTN is a Microsoft-led consortium including Apple, EMC, and Oracle
• Purchased IP assets include 882 patents
• Many relating to Linux and other major open source projects

Patent Aggression
Patent Purchases
• U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) intervened
• Requires CPTN to alter the terms of purchase
– Microsoft will not directly own any of the Novell patents (will receive a license)
– EMC (which owns VMWare) will not acquire 33 patents and applications
identified as related to virtualization software
– All Novell patents will be acquired subject to GPLv2 and the
Open Invention Network (OIN) License
– CPTN may not limit which patents are available under the OIN License
“As originally proposed, the deal would jeopardize the ability of open
source software, such as Linux, to continue to innovate and
compete in the development and distribution of server, desktop, and
mobile operating systems, middleware, and virtualization products.”
“Although the department will allow the transaction to proceed, it will
continue investigating the distribution of the Novell patents to the
CPTN owners.”

Patent Aggression
Patent Purchases
• July 2011 – Nortel Networks announces $4.5 billion sale of patent assets
to an Apple and Microsoft-led alliance (including Research in Motion,
Sony, Ericsson, and EMC)
• Over 6,000 patents and patent applications
• Covering wireless and networking technology and semiconductors
• Beat out Google, Intel, and others for the sale

Patent Aggression
Patent Purchases
• August 2011 – Google announces $12.5 billion purchase of handset
manufacturer and patent holder Motorola Mobility
• Over 17,000 patents
• Covering a wide range of mobile communications technology
• Google also announced dual purchases of 1000 patents each from IBM

• Patent-sharing coalition
• Formed in 2008 by IBM, Philips, Novell, Red Hat, Sony, and NEC
• Members now include Google, Oracle, and over 250 others
• http://www.openinventionnetwork.com
Patent Aggression
Patent Pooling

• OIN acquires rights to patents and makes them available royalty-free to members
• OIN also obtains licenses from members not to assert their patents against other
members
• Licenses apply within the “Linux System”
• Analogous to patent non-assertion pools established around technical standards
Patent Aggression
Patent Pooling

• OIN has led to initiatives to assist in stemming the issuance of poor quality patents
through cultivating prior art against patent applications
• Other patent cooperative organizations exist as well under similar models
Patent Aggression
Patent Pooling

Patent Aggression
Source: Linux Today - http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2010050100535NWSWLL
Patent Pooling
• Rumors of pools being assembled against open source projects as well. . .

Conclusion
Where Do Things Stand?
• Legally, open source is all about the licenses
• License interpretation (and compliance) depends on multiple factors
– Applicable license
– Owner/licensor interpretation
– Facts and circumstances
• Open source is very much dependent on copyright and other IP rights
• Ownership is always a central question
• Patent infringement issues continue to be a concern
• Despite this, the overall risks associated with using open source are
increasingly comparable to proprietary software
• Primary issue is one of diligence
• Develop a plan (and stick to it)
• Be prepared to explain (and document) your open source usage

Thank You.
Jason Haislmaier
jason.haislmaier@hro.com
@haislmaier

"Crash Course" on Open Source Silicon Flatirons Center (2012)

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (8)

Destacado

Destacado (17)

Similar a "Crash Course" on Open Source Silicon Flatirons Center (2012)

Similar a "Crash Course" on Open Source Silicon Flatirons Center (2012) (20)

Más de Jason Haislmaier

Más de Jason Haislmaier (17)

Último

Último (20)

"Crash Course" on Open Source Silicon Flatirons Center (2012)

Notas del editor