隨著自由軟體運動的興起及開放源碼社群之成熟，近年來開放源碼軟體已逐漸成為企業經營者開發的基礎。雖然開放源碼軟體的授權契約種類繁多、內容各異，其中仍有許多採用「著佐權 (copyleft)」的機制，要求被授權人散布其作品時須依相同之授權條件再授權給他人，並應提供源碼，以確保所有後續之衍生軟體均保持自由、開放之特性。換言之，倘企業使用了開放源碼軟體為軟體開發之基礎，其智慧財產授權契約之選擇自由即可能受到限制。有了這樣的體認，軟體開發者除了在一開始時應慎重審酌是否採用開放源碼軟體外，一旦為之尚須於實施有別於傳統模式之智權管理策略。
本文將先就開放源碼軟體授權之性質及各類授權條款之特性及效果談起，以Jacobsen v. Katzer一案為例，探討其授權之定性以及在我國民法上適用之問題，復針對商業應用之情境，以廠商利用保密協定及終端使用者授權協議作為避免開放源碼之作法為例，採討商業實務上廠商利用開放源碼軟體之風險及困境，對之進而提出合適之智權管理模式、可行之開放源碼軟體應用暨授權策略以及相關法制革新之芻議。

Given the rise of free software movement and a burgeoning open source community in recent years, Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) has gained a firm foothold in commercial software development. While there are many different kinds of FOSS licenses, a significant number of them employ the “copyleft” mechanism, which in essence requires the licensee to distribute modified source code in accordance with the original license, including making available the complete source code. It is a strategy designed to maintain the freedom and openness of software, along with all derivatives, covered by the license for the benefits of all subsequent licensees. “Copyleft” mechanism would, however, be a significant restriction to licensees’ freedom to choose the intellectual property license they prefer. With this understanding, a company has to consider carefully whether to incorporate copylefted FOSS in the first place. Once it does, it should also make appropriate adjustment in intellectual property management and licensing to avoid potential copyleft violation.
This note will first introduce the main characteristics of FOSS, with special emphasis on the various FOSS licenses and their legal implications. Taking the case Jacobsen v. Katzer for example, the author would discuss some relative questions of its application to Taiwanese civil law system. The author would then analyze a relatively recent practice by software developers of dodging FOSS license obligations through non-disclosure agreements and end user license agreements, and offer some feasible advices to companies entertaining the idea of FOSS-based software development. Finally, the author tries to propose some potential suggestions on modifying intellectual property law to solve the problems which companies have faced.

中文文獻
一、中文書籍
王澤鑑（2001），民法物權（一）：物權‧所有權，三民書局。
王澤鑑（2000），民法總則，三民書局。
王澤鑑（1999），債法原理（一）基本理論、債之發生，三民書局。
周延鵬（2010），智慧財產全球行銷獲利聖經，天下雜誌出版。
陸義淋（2007），智慧財產管理實務及策略，經濟部智慧財產局。
黃立（1999），民法總則，元照出版。
楊崇森（2007），專利法理論與應用，三民書局。
賴文智、王文君（2007），數位著作權法，翰蘆圖書。
謝銘洋（2001），智慧財產權之基礎理論，翰蘆圖書。
羅明通（2009），著作權法論Ｉ，台英商務法律出版。
Peter Wayner（2000），蔡憶懷譯，開放原始碼，年8月出版，商周出版，頁256-72。
二、中文博碩士論文
王珮儀（2008），創用CC授權之法律理論與實務分析，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所研士論文。
巫昆霖（2009），由著作權到著佐權－從著作權法及競爭法交錯之角度分析電腦程式著作授權契約，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。
林誠夏（2007），自由軟體產業推動之反思－以加拿大資訊產業發展政策為比較觀點。
張憶嬋（2006），開放原始碼軟體商業模式及相關法律問題之探討。
三、中文期刊論文
陳人傑（2002），開放原始碼授權條款之法律分析－以通用公共授權為中心（下），科技法律透析，頁48-58。
楊千、廖先志、陳鍾誠（2006），從我國法制論GPL授權契約—兼論第3版草案之適用，臺灣科技法律與政策論叢，第3卷第3期，年，頁121-150。
楊智傑、李憲隆（2003），開放原始碼授權契約之法律與策略分析，智慧財產權月刊58期，年10月，頁6-31。
盧文祥（2006），著作財產權創新授權模式法律問題之研析，法令月刊第57卷第7期，頁83-93。
賴文智（2007），自由軟體之著作權問題研究，智慧財產權月刊第99期，2007年3月，頁63-88。
四、中文論文集
葛冬梅 (2006)，探索科技法律未知的境界──科技法律中心十週年紀念文集，GPL2的感染性與德國案例介紹，資訊工業策進會，頁93-117。
五、中文網站
林誠夏，立足台灣、放眼天下－自由軟體爭議與台灣，自由軟體鑄造場電子報第81期，http://www.openfoundry.org/tw/legal-article-/1429-2010-07-13-15-46-02 (visited Jul. 15, 2010)。
林珈宏，Common Public License 1.0 (CPL) 與 Eclipse Public License 1.0 (EPL)，自由軟體鑄造場，http://www.openfoundry.org/tw/licenses/2062 (visited Jul. 15, 2010)。
葛冬梅，Android的區隔GPL感染機制，自由軟體鑄造場電子報第114期，http://www.openfoundry.org/tw/legal-article-/1788-android--gpl- (visited Jul. 15)。
葛冬梅，GPL的另類利用方式：「分開散布．責任轉嫁」，自由軟體鑄造場電子報第110期，http://www.openfoundry.org/tw/legal-article-/1711-gpl (visited Jul. 15)。
葛冬梅，從BusyBox案談起：台灣業者侵權利用自由軟體所面對的法律風險，自由軟體鑄造場電子報第146期，http://www.openfoundry.org/tw/legal-article-/2277--busybox- (visited Jul. 15, 2010)。
參見，葛冬梅，開放源碼的十項定義，自由軟體鑄造場電子報第42期，http://www.openfoundry.org/tw/legal-article-/520-2010-07-15-10-49-56 (visited Jul. 15, 2010)。
自由軟體鑄造場 (Open Source Software Foundry, OSSF)，http://www.citi.sinica.edu.tw/open_source.htm (visited Jun. 3, 2010)。
外文文獻
一、外文書籍
Chris Anderson (2009), Free: the future of a radical price, Hyperion.
Eric S. Raymond (2001), The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary, O’Reilly
Lawrence E. Rosen (2004), Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law 55-56.
Martin Fink (2003), The Business and Economics of Linux and Open Source.
Richard M. Stallman, Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman, 47-51 (2002)
Sam Williams (2002), Free as in Freedom.
Van Lindberg (2008), Intellectual Property and Open Source.
二、外文期刊論文
Andres Guadamuz-Gonzalez (2009), The License/Contract Dichotomy in Open Licenses: A Comparative Analysis, 30 U. LA VERNE L. REV. 296, 2.
Mark Henley (2009), Jacobsen v Katzer and Kamind Associates – and English legal perspective, IFOSS L. REV., 1(1).
Robert W. Gomulkiewicz (2009), Conditions and Covenants in License Contracts: Tales From A Test of the Artistic License, 17 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 335.
Robert W. Gomulkiewicz (2002), De-bugging Open Source Software Licensing, 64 U. PITT. L. REV. 75.
Jason B. Wacha (2005), Taking the Case: Is the GPL Enforceable?, 21 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 451
Yochi Benkler (2002), Coase''s Penguin, or Linux and the Nature of the Firm, 112 YALE L.J. 369.
三、外文網站
Andrew Nusca, Best Buy, Samsung, Westinghouse, 11 more named in GPL lawsuit, ZDNET.COM, Dec. 14, 2009, at http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=28460&tag=trunk;content (visited Jan. 3, 2010).
Android Developers, What is Android? - Android Architecture, http://developer.android.com/intl/zh-TW/guide/basics/what-is-android.html (visited Mar. 23, 2010).
Angus Kidman, 75% of Linux code now written by paid developers, Jan. 10, 2010; at http://apcmag.com/linux-now-75-corporate.htm (visited Jun. 6, 2010).
Apache.org, Apache License Version 2.0, http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html (visited Jan. 2, 2010).
Apple App Store Terms and Conditions, http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/appstore/us/terms.html (visited Jul. 15,2010).
Artistic License v1.0, http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-1.0.php (visited Jun. 25, 2010).
BlackDuck company page, http://www.blackducksoftware.com/ (visited Mar. 22, 2010).
Bret Smith, GPL Enforcement in Apple''s App Store, http://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance/ (visited Jul. 15,2010).
Bret Smith, More about the App Store GPL Enforcement, http://www.fsf.org/news/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement (visited Jul. 15,2010).
Eclipse Foundation, Eclipse Public License v1.0, http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html (visited Jan. 2, 2010).
FOSSology project page, http://www.fossology.org/ (visited Mar. 22, 2010).
Free Software Foundation, Does the GPL allow me to distribute copies under a nondisclosure agreement? http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowNDA (visited Jan. 2, 2010)。
Free Software Foundation, The Free Software Definition, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html (visited Dec. 31 2009).
Jeremy Allison, GPL''s cloudy future, ZDNET, Apr. 7, 2009, http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=15855 (visited Jan. 4, 2010).
Mary Duan, Palamida provides software ''insurance'', Business Journal, Nov. 17, 2006, at http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2006/11/20/focus22.html (visited Mar. 22, 2010).
Mary Jo Foley, Behind the IDC data: Windows still No. 1 in server operating systems, ZDNET, Feb 26, 2010; http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/behind-the-idc-data-windows-still-no-1-in-server-operating-systems/5408 (visited Jun. 6, 2010).
Matt Asay, GPL is the new BSD in Web 2.0, and why this matters, CNET, Aug. 20, 2007, http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9763068-16.html (visited Jan. 4, 2010)
Mozilla Foundation, Mozilla Foundation License Policy Version 2.0.1; http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/license-policy.html (visited Jun. 10, 2010).
Mozilla Foundation, Mozilla Public License v1.1, http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html (visited Jan. 2, 2010).
Netbeans, Legal, http://netbeans.org/about/legal/license.html (visited Jun. 17, 2010).
NPD Press, Android Shakes Up U.S. Smartphone Market, http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_100510.html (visited Jun. 6, 2010).
Open Solaris, Licensing, http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Main/licensing (visited Jun. 17, 2010).
Open Source Initiative, BSD License, http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php (visited Jan. 2, 2010).
Open Source Initiative, Licenses by Name, http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical (visited Jul. 15, 2010).
Open Source Initiative, MIT License, http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html (visited Jan. 2, 2010).
Open Source Initiative, The Open Source Definition, http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd (visited Dec 31, 2009).
Palamida company page, http://www.palamida.com/ (visited Mar. 22, 2010).
Pamela Jones, The GPL Is a License, not a Contract, Linux Weekly News (Dec. 3, 2003), http://lwn.net/Articles/61292/ (visited Jan. 2, 2010).
Raymond Nimmer, Licensing in the absence of intellectual property rights, http://www.ipinfoblog.com/archives/licensing-law-issues-licensing-in-the-absence-of-intellectual-property-rights.html (visited Jan. 2, 2010).
Richard M. Stallman, The GNU Manifesto, http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html (visited Jun. 15, 2010).
Richard M. Stallman, Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html (visited Jun. 15, 2010).
Stephen Shankland, ''Don''t-be-evil'' Google spurns no-evil software, CNET, Dec. 28, 2009 at http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-10422338-264.html (visited Jan. 3, 2010).
Sun Microsystems, Common Development and Distribution License v1.0, http://www.sun.com/cddl/cddl.html (visited Jan. 2, 2010).
Trevan McGee, Of the 500 Fastest Supercomputers, 455 Run on Linux, LINUX-MAGAZINE.COM, Jun. 3, 2010; http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/News/Of-the-500-Fastest-Supercomputers-455-Run-on-Linux (visited Jun. 7, 2010).