Click here to close now.


Microservices Expo Authors: Yeshim Deniz, Carmen Gonzalez, Elizabeth White, Pat Romanski, Liz McMillan

Related Topics: Open Source Cloud, Java IoT, Microservices Expo, Containers Expo Blog

Open Source Cloud: Article

Buying Proprietary Software?

Protect your organization from open source surprises

Open source software has probably been the biggest driver of complex software solutions in the last decade. Access to a large variety of quality, peer-reviewed software has accelerated product development, reduced product introduction intervals and lowered the costs for producers of software and for those of us who leverage third-party software in our projects.

Many of us have heard about the trouble that organizations have come across when using open source improperly... remember Cisco/Linksys, Katzer, and the BusyBox chronicles? You may think that your organization is safe because you are buying proprietary software. However, if your software supplier unknowingly incorporated open source into its product, your organization may face unexpected legal and financial consequences arising from open source licensing obligations and the resulting intellectual property infringement claims. The good news is that there are various tools available at your disposal that can assist your organization in protecting itself from such open source surprises, such as contractual measures such as representations and warranties and indemnities; and extra-contractual tools such as software audits and a structured Open Source Software Adoption Process (OSSAP).

Some Basics About Commercial Contracts Relevant to Software Purchases
Commercial contracts include various provisions that protect and allocate risk among buying and selling parties. Among the most important are representations and warranties ("reps and warranties") and indemnities. Reps and warranties are assurances made by one party that are intended to provide certainty to the other party that relies on them. For example, a hypothetical software company ("Softco Supplier") may represent and warrant that it owns all of the intellectual property rights in the software it sells. If Softco Supplier does not in fact own all of the intellectual property rights in the software, the buyer ("Softco Buyer") has a right to claim damages for Softco Supplier's misrepresentation.

However, in many instances it is impossible for contracting parties to fully guarantee the accuracy of a statement. In these cases, parties opt to provide reps and warranties that are qualified by the knowledge of the party providing them. These types of reps and warranties can be problematic from the perspective of the party that seeks to rely on them. We will return to this in the following section, which specifically deals with the application of reps and warranties, and indemnities to open source.

Indemnities provide security against losses that are triggered by the occurrence of contractually specified events. Unlike reps and warranties, recovery from indemnities is not contingent upon whether a misrepresentation was made. In our example, if Softco Supplier (the "indemnitor") indemnifies Softco Buyer (the "indemnitee") for any intellectual property infringement claims against the software being sold, then in the event that such claims arise, Softco Supplier is obligated to compensate Softco Buyer for its losses.

Reps and Warranties vs. Indemnities in an Open Source World
In the software procurement context, it's important for buyers to determine whether open source code is incorporated into the software that is being purchased. The primary reason for this is that open source license obligations are binding. Failure to comply could have a diminishing impact on software value, as some open source cannot be mixed into products that have trade secret value. In addition, if a buyer purchases software without the knowledge that it includes open source, the buyer runs the risk of commercializing the product in a manner that violates the license that covers the open source code. This can leave the buyer exposed to costly intellectual property infringement claims.

The recent focus on open source reps and warranties and indemnification is linked to the growing instances of intellectual property infringement claims involving open source software. As courts in the United States, Germany and elsewhere have acknowledged the enforceability of open source licenses, notable violators have succumbed to costly settlements, and enforcement organizations such as the Free Software Foundation have become more aggressive in launching suits.

Because of the immense financial and legal implications of intellectual property infringement suits, a software buyer will often require its supplier to represent and warrant that the software being purchased does not contain any open source code. If open source is later discovered in the software, the buyer is entitled to seek damages from the supplier for the breach of the representation. However, as mentioned earlier, it's often difficult for contracting parties to fully attest to the accuracy of a representation. This situation arises in instances in which the contracting party experiences knowledge gaps. In these cases, a contracting party will seek to limit its liability by narrowing the representation to apply to the knowledge that it possesses. Taking our earlier example, if Softco Supplier had acquired code from a third party, or engaged in outsourcing of programming, it may not be positioned to fully attest to the fact that the software it sells does not contain any open source. As a result, Softco Supplier will represent and warrant that ‘to the best of its knowledge, open source is not incorporated into the product.' In this case, Softco Buyer is only entitled to damages if it can show that Softco Supplier knew that its representation was untrue at the time that it was made. If this fact cannot be established, Softco Buyer is left without a remedy for any losses arising from Softco Supplier's misrepresentation.

Unlike reps and warranties, recovery from indemnities is not contingent upon whether a misrepresentation was made. Thus, if Softco Supplier indemnified Softco Buyer for open source infringement claims against the software, Softco Supplier would be obligated to fully cover the losses arising out of any such claims. In this case, it would be irrelevant whether Softco Supplier had knowledge of the presence of open source, as liability is triggered by the occurrence of the contractually specified event (the presence of open source) rather than the misrepresentation made by Softco Supplier.

Buyer's Duty
Another important distinction between reps and warranties and indemnities in our example is in relation to the duty imposed on Softco Buyer to mitigate its own loss. Common law imposes a requirement on parties relying on reps and warranties to take action to mitigate their own losses. In the context of open source reps and warranties, once a software buyer becomes aware that open source is embedded in the software, the buyer must take action to minimize its loss, for example by immediately replacing the code, or making the code freely available. In contrast, there is no parallel requirement for the beneficiaries of indemnities to mitigate their own losses.

Software Audit Can Minimize Exposure
Although open source reps and warranties and indemnities can provide software purchasers with remedies for losses arising from intellectual property infringement suits, they cannot shelter the buyer from being sued in the first place, or from experiencing the loss of goodwill in relation to litigation. As a result, reps and warranties and indemnities should not be regarded as due diligence replacements. Rather than taking the risk of open source surprises, software purchasers can engage resources (internal or external) that have the ability to analyze software to determine the presence of open source prior to executing the purchase.

A software audit entails code scanning aimed at detecting third-party and open source code. After the scanning stage, the purchaser is provided with an audit report detailing the identified code and associated license obligations. Performing such audits at the pre-purchase stage allows the buyer to understand whether the license obligations of the open source code are in line with the intellectual property policies of its organization, and if not, then the buyer is positioned to request the supplier to replace the code in question, or to engage an alternate supplier.

Software Audit in the Supply Chain
One of the contexts in which software audits are particularly beneficial is in the supply chain. Shortly after Cisco acquired Linksys in 2003, it was faced with an infringement suit relating to the use of GPL covered code in its router firmware. It turned out that the infringing chipset was provided to Linksys by Broadcom, which in turn outsourced the development to a third party. As a part of the settlement that was reached, Cisco was forced to make the infringing source code freely available on its website, appoint an open source compliance officer, and make a monetary contribution to the Free Software Foundation. As the Cisco case suggests, software audits can be a helpful tool at the pre-purchase stage when dealing with a supply chain context in which the immediate supplier has little control or knowledge over the code pedigree of the final product.

Review of Available Contractual Tools
Software purchasers have contractual tools (reps and warranties, and indemnities) at their disposal to protect their organizations from open source liabilities; however, it is important to remember that not all tools provide equal protection. While reps and warranties can provide the buyer with a remedy against misrepresentation, in instances where these assurances are qualified by the knowledge of the supplier, the buyer may be left without recourse. From this perspective, indemnities offer increased protection to software purchasers concerned about intellectual property infringement claims in relation to the use of open source.

Open source indemnities are also beneficial in comparison with reps and warranties, as they do not impose an obligation upon the party relying on them to take any action to minimize their own losses in the event of a breach.

Although open source reps and warranties and indemnities can provide software purchasers with means of recovery from intellectual property infringement claims, these contractual measures provide for an imperfect after-the-fact solution to a problem that lends itself well to management practices that would reduce the risk in the first place. Structured open source license management practices and software audits aimed at identifying third-party and open source code and ensuring open source compliance provide an optimal level of protection. These tools provide certainty regarding code pedigree, and enable software purchasers to avoid the negative consequences arising from intellectual property infringement suits.

More Stories By Diana Marina Cooper

Diana Marina Cooper obtained a BA in Politics and Governance and a MA in Globalization Studies. She is currently a JD Candidate (2013), and is pursuing a concentration in Law and Technology. Follow Diana @Diana_M_Cooper

Comments (0)

Share your thoughts on this story.

Add your comment
You must be signed in to add a comment. Sign-in | Register

In accordance with our Comment Policy, we encourage comments that are on topic, relevant and to-the-point. We will remove comments that include profanity, personal attacks, racial slurs, threats of violence, or other inappropriate material that violates our Terms and Conditions, and will block users who make repeated violations. We ask all readers to expect diversity of opinion and to treat one another with dignity and respect.

@MicroservicesExpo Stories
Overgrown applications have given way to modular applications, driven by the need to break larger problems into smaller problems. Similarly large monolithic development processes have been forced to be broken into smaller agile development cycles. Looking at trends in software development, microservices architectures meet the same demands. Additional benefits of microservices architectures are compartmentalization and a limited impact of service failure versus a complete software malfunction....
SYS-CON Events announced today the Containers & Microservices Bootcamp, being held November 3-4, 2015, in conjunction with 17th Cloud Expo, @ThingsExpo, and @DevOpsSummit at the Santa Clara Convention Center in Santa Clara, CA. This is your chance to get started with the latest technology in the industry. Combined with real-world scenarios and use cases, the Containers and Microservices Bootcamp, led by Janakiram MSV, a Microsoft Regional Director, will include presentations as well as hands-on...
The last decade was about virtual machines, but the next one is about containers. Containers enable a service to run on any host at any time. Traditional tools are starting to show cracks because they were not designed for this level of application portability. Now is the time to look at new ways to deploy and manage applications at scale. In his session at @DevOpsSummit, Brian “Redbeard” Harrington, a principal architect at CoreOS, will examine how CoreOS helps teams run in production. Attende...
For it to be SOA – let alone SOA done right – we need to pin down just what "SOA done wrong" might be. First-generation SOA with Web Services and ESBs, perhaps? But then there's second-generation, REST-based SOA. More lightweight and cloud-friendly, but many REST-based SOA practices predate the microservices wave. Today, microservices and containers go hand in hand – only the details of "container-oriented architecture" are largely on the drawing board – and are not likely to look much like S...
DevOps Summit, taking place at the Santa Clara Convention Center in Santa Clara, CA, and Javits Center in New York City, is co-located with 17th Cloud Expo and will feature technical sessions from a rock star conference faculty and the leading industry players in the world. The widespread success of cloud computing is driving the DevOps revolution in enterprise IT. Now as never before, development teams must communicate and collaborate in a dynamic, 24/7/365 environment. There is no time to wait...
As operational failure becomes more acceptable to discuss within the software industry, the necessity for holding constructive, actionable postmortems increases. But most of what we know about postmortems from "pop culture" isn't actually relevant for the software systems we work on and within. In his session at DevOps Summit, J. Paul Reed will look at postmortem pitfalls, techniques, and tools you'll be able to take back to your own environment so they will be able to lay the foundations for h...
SYS-CON Events announced today that Super Micro Computer, Inc., a global leader in high-performance, high-efficiency server, storage technology and green computing, will exhibit at the 17th International Cloud Expo®, which will take place on November 3–5, 2015, at the Santa Clara Convention Center in Santa Clara, CA. Supermicro (NASDAQ: SMCI), the leading innovator in high-performance, high-efficiency server technology is a premier provider of advanced server Building Block Solutions® for Data ...
With major technology companies and startups seriously embracing IoT strategies, now is the perfect time to attend @ThingsExpo in Silicon Valley. Learn what is going on, contribute to the discussions, and ensure that your enterprise is as "IoT-Ready" as it can be! Internet of @ThingsExpo, taking place Nov 3-5, 2015, at the Santa Clara Convention Center in Santa Clara, CA, is co-located with 17th Cloud Expo and will feature technical sessions from a rock star conference faculty and the leading in...
Now, with more hardware! September 21, 2015, Don MacVittie, Sr. Solutions Architect. The “continuous” trend is continuing (get it..?), and we’ll soon reach the peek of the hype cycle, with continuous everything. At the pinnacle of the hype cycle, do not be surprised to see DDOS attacks re-branded as “continuous penetration testing!” and a fee … Read More Continuous Provisioning
DevOps has often been described in terms of CAMS: Culture, Automation, Measuring, Sharing. While we’ve seen a lot of focus on the “A” and even on the “M”, there are very few examples of why the “C" is equally important in the DevOps equation. In her session at @DevOps Summit, Lori MacVittie, of F5 Networks, will explore HTTP/1 and HTTP/2 along with Microservices to illustrate why a collaborative culture between Dev, Ops, and the Network is critical to ensuring success.
Containers are all the rage among developers and web companies, but they also represent two very substantial benefits to larger organizations. First, they have the potential to dramatically accelerate the application lifecycle from software builds and testing to deployment and upgrades. Second they represent the first truly hybrid-approach to consuming infrastructure, allowing organizations to run the same workloads on any cloud, virtual machine or physical server. Together, they represent a ver...
Containers have changed the mind of IT in DevOps. They enable developers to work with dev, test, stage and production environments identically. Containers provide the right abstraction for microservices and many cloud platforms have integrated them into deployment pipelines. DevOps and Containers together help companies to achieve their business goals faster and more effectively.
Docker is hot. However, as Docker container use spreads into more mature production pipelines, there can be issues about control of Docker images to ensure they are production-ready. Is a promotion-based model appropriate to control and track the flow of Docker images from development to production? In his session at DevOps Summit, Fred Simon, Co-founder and Chief Architect of JFrog, will demonstrate how to implement a promotion model for Docker images using a binary repository, and then show h...
As we increasingly rely on technology to improve the quality and efficiency of our personal and professional lives, software has become the key business differentiator. Organizations must release software faster, as well as ensure the safety, security, and reliability of their applications. The option to make trade-offs between time and quality no longer exists—software teams must deliver quality and speed. To meet these expectations, businesses have shifted from more traditional approaches of d...
DevOps is here to stay because it works. Most businesses using this methodology are already realizing a wide range of real, measurable benefits as a result of implementing DevOps, including the breakdown of inter-departmental silos, faster delivery of new features and more stable operating environments. To take advantage of the cloud’s improved speed and flexibility, development and operations teams need to work together more closely and productively. In his session at DevOps Summit, Prashanth...
DevOps Summit at Cloud Expo 2014 Silicon Valley was a terrific event for us. The Qubell booth was crowded on all three days. We ran demos every 30 minutes with folks lining up to get a seat and usually standing around. It was great to meet and talk to over 500 people! My keynote was well received and so was Stan's joint presentation with RingCentral on Devops for BigData. I also participated in two Power Panels – ‘Women in Technology’ and ‘Why DevOps Is Even More Important than You Think,’ both ...
Any Ops team trying to support a company in today’s cloud-connected world knows that a new way of thinking is required – one just as dramatic than the shift from Ops to DevOps. The diversity of modern operations requires teams to focus their impact on breadth vs. depth. In his session at DevOps Summit, Adam Serediuk, Director of Operations at xMatters, Inc., will discuss the strategic requirements of evolving from Ops to DevOps, and why modern Operations has begun leveraging the “NoOps” approa...
As the world moves towards more DevOps and microservices, application deployment to the cloud ought to become a lot simpler. The microservices architecture, which is the basis of many new age distributed systems such as OpenStack, NetFlix and so on, is at the heart of Cloud Foundry - a complete developer-oriented Platform as a Service (PaaS) that is IaaS agnostic and supports vCloud, OpenStack and AWS. In his session at 17th Cloud Expo, Raghavan "Rags" Srinivas, an Architect/Developer Evangeli...
There’s no shortage of guides and blog posts available to provide you with best practices in architecting microservices. While all this information is helpful, what doesn’t seem to be available in such a great number are hands-on guidelines regarding how microservices can be scaled. Following a little research and sifting through lots of theoretical discussion, here is how load-balancing microservices is done in practice by the big players.
All we need to do is have our teams self-organize, and behold! Emergent design and/or architecture springs up out of the nothingness! If only it were that easy, right? I follow in the footsteps of so many people who have long wondered at the meanings of such simple words, as though they were dogma from on high. Emerge? Self-organizing? Profound, to be sure. But what do we really make of this sentence?