Thursday, February 5, 2009

Open Source’s Future and Copyleft

The concept of open source software really boggled my mind when I was first introduced to the concept of it, years ago in secondary school. Firstly, I was surprised that there even existed operating systems besides Windows and Mac, but I was mostly surprised by of the lack of standardisation. It was so odd to have so many different versions of a single programme required to do one thing, like word processing.

Despite open source’s admirable resilience all these years, it made me wonder why it still hasn’t appealed to the masses in the way it was meant to be revolutionary and groundbreaking. Besides the reasons listed in the text, I suppose it is also because the dynamism of open source is a double-edged sword. While it opens a lot of room for creativity, but also leaves the user spoilt for choice, due to the wide variety of software available to them. How do you choose which is best? Also, without standardisation, tech support would be a headache. 

So while open source may be a good experimental platform for software, I would say that lamenters of the doom that open source may bring to the licensing and distribution of software need not worry about open source taking over the market (at least any time in the near future).

On the topic of intellectual property rights, I feel that creative commons comes about in the spirit of open source software, hoping to make intellectual property available to the masses, while still acknowledging the effort of the original owners. Creative commons is said to head the ‘copyleft’ movement (there’s an extensive article about copyleft on Wikipedia. Go check it out!), changing perspectives on intellectual property rights. 

Corporations that champion creative commons would include sites like DeviantArt. Even with creative commons licensing on sites like these, however, there are still many reported cases of ‘art theft’, where a contributor claims that art ‘stolen’ from another artist is actually his or hers. Why are there still cases of this when creative commons already allows for so much flexibility? Do creative commons really help foster the creativity it intends to? 

17 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Unless ownership of artistic expression is completely eliminated, there will still be cases of ‘art theft’. The flexibility that creative commons offers still involves regulations which some don’t want to abide by. People may want to use art without following the regulations determined by the creator. If there is a benefit for the individual to use the work under her or her own terms rather than those determined by the creator, then he or she may do so. It just depends on wether the individual sees more benefit to claiming the art as his or her own and using it however he or she pleases while possibly dealing with the consequences, or not using the piece at all. The creativity of work still takes that, creativity, derivative work or not, and not every person is equal in their ability to create. Due to this inequality, others will want to use the expressions of others. Without the complete freedom to do so, some individuals will do so on his or her own terms. I think that creative commons still promotes creativity however, because it does offers such flexibility. A person’s having the ability to share his or her work under his or her own chosen regulations, while still receiving credit for the expression, promotes creativity. Even though art theft still exists under this regulation system, as long as the majority follows the regulations determined by creators, then I don’t think the want of an individual to express and share will be affected.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Open source may still not appeal to the masses simply because of lack of knowledge on the concept. All the terms we learned this week concerning intellectual property were new to me… sad as that sounds I really had never heard the differences between such things as patents and copyrights. As for creative commons it seems to be a concept that if universalized would take a lot of confusion out of intellectual property rights. Near the end of this week’s reading Quinn mentions the possibility of having a search engine for all copyrighted material. Such a resource would make the process of legally obtaining copyrighted information so much easier, and the lack of confusion may in turn promote legal use of intellectual property.

    ReplyDelete
  4. On the future of open source software, I am in agreement with most of the thoughts you have opened up in your post. For one, open source software will probably never take over the market (basically for the reasons you give), and the underlying fact that the majority of people with computers feel more safe purchasing a well-known software program instead of using something that 50 programmers have "collaborated" on. Everyone knows that when MS releases a new OS there will be problems, bugs, etc. But imagine the problems that would come through an open source release of the same type of OS.

    Open-source users (I'm sure) enjoy taking a piece of software and tweaking it here and there to be more beneficial to their ultimate needs, but the population of PC users who actually know how to change a program are far and few between. I just don't think open source has appealed to the masses because issues of trust and reliability (as you mentioned), but for real programmers it is an exciting opportunity for them practice their skills and try to be beneficial to the users of the software of interest.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I actually have never heard of open source before until we discussed it in class last week. I didn't even know such a type of company, like Red Hat, existed. I think that it is a really neat concept that, you would think, would take off in a big way but obviously that isn't the case. I think that the software on open source sites is very bare bones and it makes it hard for a programmer to make something out of it. Plus, like we discussed in class, there is no incentive so the top programmers are probably not going to want anything to do with it.

    Open source is good for programmers who are just testing their skill. I don't think people really put their heart and soul into it because there isn't anything to gain. I look at it as training for people who want to be successful programmers. It is good in the sense that the person to fully maximize their creativity and that is where a lot of the learning occurs. Maybe in time it will get more popular but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I heard about the open source software Linux in high school, but never really understood what the programs actually did or the purpose of the system. I just knew that most of the programs were for people that were highly skilled with computers or programmers. I had no idea what was actually meant by open source or even how to use it. I think that’s one of the reasons people haven’t been using it. People stick with what they know how to use, especially people that are not tech savvy. Another factor would be, like Gen Chan stated, the lack of tech support especially if a problem with the system arose. Because if these barriers for users, I agree that software creators should not fear about taking over the market, unless an open source software is created that is easy to use with tech support available.

    ReplyDelete
  7. As much potential as open source should have, people will still be upset when their work is used without getting credit for it. I think open source doesn't really rewards the creative genius who make the big innovations so much as it rewards the entrepreneur who makes it user friendly (i.e. the average PC and Mac user).

    I don't know much about Creative Commons and the "copyleft" movement, but it seems to pursue shades of gray between copyright and common source, which, as a couple other comments have already voiced, isn't really more viable than one or the other. It ultimately inherits the problems of both systems; legal bickering from copyright and low incentive from common source. To be fair, both problems are ameliorated to some degree and advantages are also inherited from each side.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Much like KDuboy, I've also never heard of open source before we talked about it in class and read it in the book. It is a very interesting concept, one that has sort of transcended the internet world into awesome websites like Wikipedia and YouTube. So much of our world today on the internet revolves around the idea of open user input that open source really opened that up.

    Open source really permeates our society too as we are constantly seeking approval of our peers and the people we most admire. For example, right in the Pit we have the Free Expression boards that almost anyone can paint or draw on to try raise awareness for the this or promote that. We are all about some open interpretation of a wide variety of things, always seeking to change it up a bit and make it a little bit better. Look at Wikipedia and the success it has--- I mean lets be serious, we all use it almost everyday. That thing is awesome and only gets better with time as more and more people fix things and make articles better and people more knowledgeable. Unfortunately for open sourcing though, people do tend to get complacent and lazy with their suggestions because no one is getting paid for it and people have really stopped caring. That is a great look at our America society as a whole though...if there isn't any money in it, forget it. I mean look at NC State's basketball program?

    ReplyDelete
  9. It strikes me that most of the members of this blog are unfamiliar with Linux. It has become a very popular choice for servers taking over 20% of the market, even companies like Microsoft have divisions dedicated to monitoring advances in the OS. On top of that 30% of all net-books ship with Linux based operating systems. For IT departments Linux is a versatile piece of software because the code is open source and because the cost of implementing it is little to none it makes a lot of sense.

    Now not only are companies embracing the software for use, but some have opened paid positions for those who seek to improve this open source software. Some of the major contributors are IBM, Novell and Red Hat. I have even dared to load Unbutu (A linux based os) and open office on my desktop as an attempt to utilize the open source software.

    ReplyDelete
  10. As open-source software makers polish the GUI of their software, it is becoming more and more accessible to those with little to know computer knowledge. My brother is a computer science major, and I figured that the Linux program he uses would be impossible for me to understand. However, when I tried using the software (it's called "Ubuntu"), it was very intuitive and just as easy to use as Windows. Similarly, nobody has any issues figuring out how to use Firefox. The effort being put forth to make open-source software accessible and usable for all is likely to make it more popular into the future.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Gen, your comment that critics of the issue at hand, “need not worry about open source taking over the market (at least any time in the near future)”, I relate to very much and if any substantial portion of people are like me this statement will hold true. Firstly, as one commenter observed, many in this class are unfamiliar with programs such as Linux. I can count myself in that category, and I really don’t see a change anytime soon. Terms such as “code” and “programming” have such a foreign and distant ring to me that I hesitate to even explore such options. This stinks because I feel as though I’m sounding like my grandparents who seem scared at technologies such as cell phones and overwhelmed at learning the intricacies and features of their own phones. While I’d like to know a little bit more about such open source programs, I feel like I don’t have the time to dedicate learning this material and I don’t really have the motivation to do so either. Even though I might give a program such as Ubuntu a chance, only time and the perceived popularity/common use of it will determine whether or not I venture into this segment of IT.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I know for one thing, I am kind of not for open sourcing. Although I think that there should be free programs for listening to music and maybe other software, I think that it is unfair for a creative mind not to get the full credit they deserve. I also think that open source programs are way more time consuming in a society where everyone seems to want everything right then and there. Although it appears to appealing, it not as ideal as the people make it seem. I think that is has some reworking before it becomes more popular

    ReplyDelete
  13. Open source software usually falls in second place mostly because of lack of any sort of marketing or official technical support. This is not true for all open source endeavors, however. For instance, ask any student on UNC's campus if they know what Firefox is, and they're sure to say yes. Other programs, like Audacity or OpenOffice.org, are somewhat less widespread, but are still somewhat prevalent, even among those unfamiliar with open source software.

    Of course, corporate software will always have a distinct advantage over open source software for this reason. In the corporate world, IT departments are unlikely to deploy software that has no paid-for technical support. Consumers are also less likely to have heard of open source alternatives, or are similarly uneasy about relying on software that has little or no official support.

    ReplyDelete
  14. As Ben pointed out, many people probably use open-source and aren't even aware of it. I bet many of you use Firefox for web browsing or Thunderbird for email. Lime Wire, which has been mentioned in the "Crime Without Punishment" thread on file downloading, is open source. OpenAFS, which many students use to get to their H: Drive, is open-source. Wikipedia recently switched from one open-source OS to another; Red Hat to Ubuntu. Dell has been selling servers with Red Hat for awhile, and recently started selling servers with Ubunutu. MySQL, the worlds most popular open source database (a database is basically a way of storing, searching and accessing a whole bunch of data), is used by lots of companies like eBay, Google, Flickr, NASA and LiveJournal. As Tessa pointed out in class last week, there is money to be made on the support side of open-source.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I for one was very surprised in the concept of open sourcing as I had actually never heard of the availablity of software in that manner. However, I could see the problems in sites such as Red Hat in having low customer support services, as there was never really a purchase made thus little incentive to provide service. However, an idea such as open-source could provide jobs in the support field following the success of sights such as facebook, as far as advertising on the site is concerned.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I would agree that open source software has a long way to go before it becomes common place. You raised many of the issues that prevent it from spreading quickly. I do believe that there needs to be a distinction drawn between open source operating systems and general software. Open source OS have a huge set of limitations. They are incredibly difficult for average users to begin using because of the way in which an operating system interacts with hardware in a computer. This can leave users without sound, video, keyboard, or mouse functionality if the system is not setup exactly right. This shortcoming limits open source OS to only advanced computer users. The only feasible solution for this is for manufacturers to begin pre-installing open source operating systems. This would eliminate the hardware problems by taking the issue out of the users hands.

    Open source software suites that run within traditional operating system are much for feasible. Installing this software works exactly like other software that users install, meaning that most users would be able to easily get it working, an incredibly important factor. The only shortcoming is in regards to interoperability. Users of open source software, such as OpenOffice, often find that their documents are only partially compatible with traditional software such as Microsoft Word. Documents created in OpenOffice, often do not have the same formatting when they are opened in MS Word. This makes sharing documents very difficult, a huge hurdle to get over, as this is dependent on Microsoft working with someone that could at some point be a huge competitor.

    The bottom line regarding Creative Commons is that people will always steal digital content regardless of how it is licensed. While Creative Commons does help content creators feel more secure in posting their work online, my feeling is that these people would do so without the protection of Creative Commons.

    ReplyDelete
  17. For many, open source software, including open source operating systems, have been gifts from the heavens. The concept of piece of software that is constantly evolving and improving due to its being openly-editable is ideal, and functions as good as it sounds for many. However, to those who are slightly less technologically savvy, open source software can be difficult to navigate, as the software typically caters to techies, and lacks user friendliness.

    To me, open source software is an excellent tool for those who are more familiar with the technologies, and serves as a resource to test ideas that could ultimately be produced in non-open source formats. Open source software, though, will never be popular among all computer users.

    ReplyDelete