Law Society of Upper Canada (“LSUC”) promotes non-FLOSS software?

A BLOG article from copyright lawyer Howard Knopf describes a document called the GUIDELINES ON ETHICS AND THE NEW TECHNOLOGY. This document contains some of the same biased "software manufacturing" propaganda that one would normally only expect in a BSA or CAAST press release. They have taken no consideration for the way that FLOSS is legally created and distributed, instead promoting some of the harmful misconceptions that lead people to invalidly believe that that sharing FLOSS is illegal.

They list four types of non-FLOSS licensing under "Are Software Licensing Policies Standardized", giving the impression that those listed are the only legitimate licensing options. By lines of distributed code I am certain that FLOSS licensing outnumbers the non-FLOSS, with the GNU General Public License said to be the most popular of these -- and none of the common FLOSS licensing options were listed.

I wish some of these lawyers would read Lessig's book "Code and other laws of cyberspace". Maybe they would realize that it isn't any more logical to think of software as "manufactured" than it is to think about laws as "manufactured". They might also realize they know more about the production of software than they think, and that what the legacy vendors have been telling them doesn't make sense.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

There guidelines are not bad, they appedix needs work.

They have some good guidelines that would be a good idea for any orgainization who is useing any software they are getting (on any terms) from a third party:

• Appoint a software manager
• Create and implement a software policy and code of ethics
• Establish software policies and procedures
• Conduct internal controls analysis
• Conduct periodic software audits
• Establish and maintain a software log of licenses and registration materials
• Teach software compliance

But the appendix while accurate for the closed source world, simply omits the Information about the open source world.

They need to add a fifth type, sofware where the user is PERMITED to make copies under certain conditions. (Microsoft, who privided the information it seems is not famailar with this type of software)

There are a few other minor mods required for example they have "exclusive right to produce,
reproduce or publish the work or any substantial part thereof."

This needs something like "exclusive right to produce,
Authorise reproductione or publish the work or any substantial part thereof."

I can see about 3 or four places where such a change would make the documnet more informative to its audience, But I am not a Lawyer, I can't give legal advice, and I certianly can't tell a Lawyer about the law :)