The World Wide Web is an interactive community filled with millions and millions of users. The World Web Wide sponsors an environment where people can collaborate with each other by sharing ideas, and new innovations. So that is where sequential innovation comes in. I was reading the article and I was filled with tons of questions. I questioned the use of strict intellectual property laws and the purpose of taking legal action against a competitive company. The traditional intellectual property hinders the production of new ideas and the sharing of information. Was it necessary for EMI to take legal action against OLGA? I don't think so. I agree with the authors of the article. EMI could have learned from OLGA's reinterpretation of the guitar tablature site. Was OLGA a creative imitation of EMI? Is all of the legal action driven by greed, selfishness, and fear? An idea has to start somewhere but it takes a team to help an idea flourish and develop. I understand the author and artist fury with the murkiness of blurred laws and imitation rights but everyone can benefit from weaker intellectual property protection. The goal and purpose of these laws should be to learn from each other not sue X because they are using my special code to help youth upload games and interact with each other.
From reading this article, I was also able to understand the true benefit of free and open source software. Everyone can access the software, add to the software, and enjoy the use of the software stress-free. Open Source software offers numerous benefits to the community of World Wide Web users. They can become proud inventors by taking a existing program and developing the program further. So I went on a quest to find the definition of Open Source software. I desired to know what was permissible and what was unlawful with the use of the software. So here goes:
Introduction Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
Rationale: By constraining the license to require free redistribution, we eliminate the temptation to throw away many long-term gains in order to make a few short-term sales dollars. If we didn't do this, there would be lots of pressure for cooperators to defect.
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.
Rationale: We require access to un-obfuscated source code because you can't evolve programs without modifying them. Since our purpose is to make evolution easy, we require that modification be made easy.
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
Rationale: The mere ability to read source isn't enough to support independent peer review and rapid evolutionary selection. For rapid evolution to happen, people need to be able to experiment with and redistribute modifications.
The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.
Rationale: Encouraging lots of improvement is a good thing, but users have a right to know who is responsible for the software they are using. Authors and maintainers have reciprocal right to know what they're being asked to support and protect their reputations.
Accordingly, an open-source license must guarantee that source be readily available, but may require that it be distributed as pristine base sources plus patches. In this way, "unofficial" changes can be made available but readily distinguished from the base source.
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
Rationale: In order to get the maximum benefit from the process, the maximum diversity of persons and groups should be equally eligible to contribute to open sources. Therefore we forbid any open-source license from locking anybody out of the process.
Some countries, including the United States, have export restrictions for certain types of software. An OSD-conformant license may warn licensees of applicable restrictions and remind them that they are obliged to obey the law; however, it may not incorporate such restrictions itself.
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
Rationale: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it.
The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.
Rationale: This clause is intended to forbid closing up software by indirect means such as requiring a non-disclosure agreement.
The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution.
Rationale: This clause forecloses yet another class of license traps.
The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.
Rationale: Distributors of open-source software have the right to make their own choices about their own software.
Yes, the GPL is conformant with this requirement. Software linked with GPLed libraries only inherits the GPL if it forms a single work, not any software with which they are merely distributed.
No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.
Rationale: This provision is aimed specifically at licenses which require an explicit gesture of assent in order to establish a contract between licensor and licensee. Provisions mandating so-called "click-wrap" may conflict with important methods of software distribution such as FTP download, CD-ROM anthologies, and web mirroring; such provisions may also hinder code re-use. Conformant licenses must allow for the possibility that (a) redistribution of the software will take place over non-Web channels that do not support click-wrapping of the download, and that (b) the covered code (or re-used portions of covered code) may run in a non-GUI environment that cannot support popup dialogues.
The World Wide Web is an interactive community filled with millions and millions of users. The World Web Wide sponsors an environment where people can collaborate with each other by sharing ideas, and new innovations. So that is where sequential innovation comes in. I was reading the article and I was filled with tons of questions. I questioned the use of strict intellectual property laws and the purpose of taking legal action against a competitive company. The traditional intellectual property hinders the production of new ideas and the sharing of information. Was it necessary for EMI to take legal action against OLGA? I don't think so. I agree with the authors of the article. EMI could have learned from OLGA's reinterpretation of the guitar tablature site. Was OLGA a creative imitation of EMI? Is all of the legal action driven by greed, selfishness, and fear? An idea has to start somewhere but it takes a team to help an idea flourish and develop. I understand the author and artist fury with the murkiness of blurred laws and imitation rights but everyone can benefit from weaker intellectual property protection. The goal and purpose of these laws should be to learn from each other not sue X because they are using my special code to help youth upload games and interact with each other.
1 comment:
Cool...I like it...the picture of Salvador Dali was interesting because I just learned about some of his work awhile ago. I see you put a lot of hard work and insight into what you were doing.
--Chante'l
Post a Comment