After the overwhelmingly positive response to our 10th Anniversary Conference last October, we've decided to make the SFLC Conference at Columbia Law School an annual affair. We would therefore like cordially to invite you to attend Software Freedom Law Center's Fall Conference, "FOSS and Global Entrepreneurialism," to be held at the law school on Friday, October 30, 2015.
Independent media powerhouse Newslaundry in New Delhi interviews Eben Moglen and Mishi Choudhary on issues of network neutrality, privacy, and Internet freedom.
Watch the interview here.
The Software Freedom Law Center is currently seeking legal interns.
Mishi Choudhary, Executive Director of SFLC.in and Legal Director of SFLC, has been named by Asia Society part of the Class of 2015 Asia 21 Young Leaders, the preeminent network of young leaders from across the Asia Pacific, representing the private, public, and nonprofit sectors.
The Software Freedom Law Center is happy to announce that Mark Webbink has been elected the new Chairman of SFLC's Board of Directors, after having served on the Board since 2007. Mark was before that the General Counsel at Red Hat. He replaces SFLC's founder, Professor Eben Moglen of Columbia Law School, as Chairman. Professor Moglen remains a member of the Board, and continues his roles as President and Executive Director of SFLC.
Today the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC )and the Free Software Foundation filed a brief with the United States Supreme Court, which is considering whether to grant certiorari in the case of Google v. Oracle, No. 14-410, decision below 750 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2014). SFLC and FSF take the position that the decision below is wrong, but that certiorari should not be granted for three reasons: (1) the decision of the Federal Circuit merely mispredicts what the Ninth Circuit would do if it had been the Court resolving Oracle's appeal from the District Court's finding that the application program interface declarations at issue are non-copyrightable; (2) the decision rests on narrow factual grounds; and (3) there is no public interest in continuing to adjudicate this dispute because Google can now and could have used all material at issue under the terms of the GNU GPL v2.