{
  "id": "RL32268",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL32268",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 104277,
      "date": "2004-03-11",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-08T14:25:16.200936",
      "title": "Intellectual Property, Computer Software and the Open Source Movement",
      "summary": "The term \"open source\" refers to a computer program that is distributed along with a license, or\ncontract, that requires users of the program to comply with specified conditions. Among these\nstipulations are that the source code be distributed along with the software, and that others be\nallowed to modify the source code as they desire. In contrast, the source code of \"closed source\"\nsoftware is proprietary, not publicly distributed and subject to alteration only by the software\nmanufacturer. \n  Some concerns have arisen concerning the relationship between open source software and\nintellectual property rights, including copyrights, patents and trade secrets. Although a particular\ncomputer program may be designated as open source, it remains possible that an owner of\nintellectual property may enforce its rights against open source software developers and users. Some\ncommentators have also expressed concern that open source licenses may overreach, converting\nproprietary programs into open source software even if only a portion of that program was derived\nfrom an open source original. Others have suggested that open source licenses may not be legally\nenforceable, which would allow users to obtain and assert intellectual property rights pertaining to\nsoftware that was initially distributed as open source.\n  Striking a balance between promoting innovation, on one hand, and accommodating the\ndemands of software developers and users, on the other, forms an important component of\ncontemporary software policy. The possibility of intellectual property rights, and their attendant\nlicense fees and royalties, may provide a significant incentive for firms to innovate and to distribute\nsoftware. However, some proponents of open source software believe that these incentives are\nunnecessary, and further hope to maintain a non-proprietary environment of software distribution\nand development.\n  Should Congress have an interest in this area, several options present themselves. No action\nneed be taken if the current relationship between open source software and intellectual property is\ndeemed satisfactory, particularly as software publishers become increasingly aware of intellectual\nproperty and as judicial precedents may make the legal situation clearer. Congress might also assist\nindividuals in identifying intellectual property that pertains to software that has been identified as\nopen source; speak to the enforceability of open source licenses; and, as a possible more far-reaching\nlegal reform, allow proprietary software publishers a grace period for removing portions of program\ncode that derived from an open source original.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL32268",
          "sha1": "94a6c027b4d264e14299b4b8b903f70d43cc8c67",
          "filename": "files/20040311_RL32268_94a6c027b4d264e14299b4b8b903f70d43cc8c67.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL32268",
          "sha1": "008e60a60f8ec1b474b922dd632ead202e9d3fd7",
          "filename": "files/20040311_RL32268_008e60a60f8ec1b474b922dd632ead202e9d3fd7.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law",
    "Economic Policy"
  ]
}