Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Microsoft blows smoke at open source
As I mentioned in my previous blog, there are certain practical, legal and ethical considerations which must be taken into account when one is deciding whether to use open source (OS), as opposed to proprietary software.
On the practical side, one is likely to consider first what is cheaper and what is more trustworthy. Due to the very murky legal and ethical issues surrounding OS, many people feel safer going with the products of the software giants (Microsoft and gang).
How ethical is it to use OS?
OS software has come under fire for apparent copyright infringements. Microsoft recently took a stab at Linux by claiming that the OS hub had violated no less than 230 of its patents. This means possible negative consequences for businesses running OS software, as rumours spread that penalties would have to be paid if Microsoft pursued the case.
In light of the questionable legality of OS it may seem like the more sound option to run proprietary software, but one must remember that OS has huge benefits too: it empowers users by allowing access to the source code, which promotes innovation and freedom.
It has also been argued that OS forces big business to focus more on the customer’s needs. As OS programmers build upon, manipulate etc. software to suit their own needs, they are driving a new trend – the needs of the user shape the evolution of the software.
Brad Silverberg of Cnet perspectives says that
“Open source is forcing entrepreneurs and investors to think in new ways about a new set of problems. While it has taken away some of the low-hanging fruit, it's my belief that open source will help drive a focus on improved solutions for customers--particularly in underserved markets--and that unique intellectual property will play a critical role in fuelling this new engine for innovation”.
In fact, it has also been argued that the very companies which openly oppose OS, also benefit from it. “Piracy” of intellectual property often results in innovation and a more dynamic, vibrant industry.
In short, we need to strike a balance between open source and proprietary software. As TalkBack discusses in a recent article, intellecual property and open source can complement eachother.
On the practical side, one is likely to consider first what is cheaper and what is more trustworthy. Due to the very murky legal and ethical issues surrounding OS, many people feel safer going with the products of the software giants (Microsoft and gang).
How ethical is it to use OS?
OS software has come under fire for apparent copyright infringements. Microsoft recently took a stab at Linux by claiming that the OS hub had violated no less than 230 of its patents. This means possible negative consequences for businesses running OS software, as rumours spread that penalties would have to be paid if Microsoft pursued the case.
In light of the questionable legality of OS it may seem like the more sound option to run proprietary software, but one must remember that OS has huge benefits too: it empowers users by allowing access to the source code, which promotes innovation and freedom.
It has also been argued that OS forces big business to focus more on the customer’s needs. As OS programmers build upon, manipulate etc. software to suit their own needs, they are driving a new trend – the needs of the user shape the evolution of the software.
Brad Silverberg of Cnet perspectives says that
“Open source is forcing entrepreneurs and investors to think in new ways about a new set of problems. While it has taken away some of the low-hanging fruit, it's my belief that open source will help drive a focus on improved solutions for customers--particularly in underserved markets--and that unique intellectual property will play a critical role in fuelling this new engine for innovation”.
In fact, it has also been argued that the very companies which openly oppose OS, also benefit from it. “Piracy” of intellectual property often results in innovation and a more dynamic, vibrant industry.
In short, we need to strike a balance between open source and proprietary software. As TalkBack discusses in a recent article, intellecual property and open source can complement eachother.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Open source - all doors open?
In light of the current patents scandal between Microsoft and leading open source vendors, I’ve decided to focus this week’s blog on open source: what it is, what it promises, and what the legal and ethical issues are. According to the open source wiki, open source refers to “the source code of software that is made available to the general public with relaxed or non-existent intellectual property restrictions. This allows users to create user-generated software content through incremental individual effort or through collaboration.”
The Open Source Definition points out that in order for software to be categorised as open source, it must comply with the following criteria:
- Free Redistribution: open source is about altruism and the evolution of software, not about making fast cash.
- Source Code: the program must include source code in the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program, or there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code.
- Derived Works are allowed, but the license may insist on the integrity of the author's source code.
- No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups.
- No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor – eg: commercial, or genetic research.
- License Must Not Restrict Other Software.
- License Must Be Technology-Neutral: no provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.
The open source wiki discusses how the open source model also extends into the decision making processes: input from various agenda’s is encouraged, which contrasts with centralized models of development which dominate commercial companies.
For online journalists, open source can be an invaluable tool, both on a material, technical level, and as an inspiration towards more altruistic, “open” journalism (of the citizen journalism style perhaps).
Amongst its major accomplishments are its role in helping to free the human genome, its thwarting of Netscape’s monopoly on the net, and its ability to help people in countries with restricted access (such as China) to get around censorship.
However, in light of the current debates going on about open source and patent violation, there are certain difficult questions pertaining to intellectual property rights and ownership. As a journalist it's important to keep track of any legal and ethical issues related to our media production, so I’ll discuss these issues in depth in next week's blog.
The Open Source Definition points out that in order for software to be categorised as open source, it must comply with the following criteria:
- Free Redistribution: open source is about altruism and the evolution of software, not about making fast cash.
- Source Code: the program must include source code in the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program, or there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code.
- Derived Works are allowed, but the license may insist on the integrity of the author's source code.
- No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups.
- No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor – eg: commercial, or genetic research.
- License Must Not Restrict Other Software.
- License Must Be Technology-Neutral: no provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.
The open source wiki discusses how the open source model also extends into the decision making processes: input from various agenda’s is encouraged, which contrasts with centralized models of development which dominate commercial companies.
For online journalists, open source can be an invaluable tool, both on a material, technical level, and as an inspiration towards more altruistic, “open” journalism (of the citizen journalism style perhaps).
Amongst its major accomplishments are its role in helping to free the human genome, its thwarting of Netscape’s monopoly on the net, and its ability to help people in countries with restricted access (such as China) to get around censorship.
However, in light of the current debates going on about open source and patent violation, there are certain difficult questions pertaining to intellectual property rights and ownership. As a journalist it's important to keep track of any legal and ethical issues related to our media production, so I’ll discuss these issues in depth in next week's blog.
Hey there :)
How do we measure media freedom on the internet? How do we assert our digital rights? And most importantly, how do we find the golden mean between what we want to do, and what we are legally and ethically obliged to do?
Depending on which view you take, journalists first and foremost have an obligation to defend freedom of expression. In order to do this, we need to understand our own rights, and the rights of others. There are various mechanisms in place to enforce freedom in traditional media, but what about online media? The protection of online rights and freedom of expression on the net is grossly overlooked. As more and more newspapers, magazines etc. moving online, we need to seriously consider the various ways in which our online freedom is curtailed. With various laws being put in place to police the virtual landscape and keep online journos in their place, we need to learn to make negotiations. We need to find new ways to still get our stuff out there, without breaking new laws or crossing ethical boundaries.
With all this in mind, this blog aims to explore the ethical and legal considerations that journalists need to take into account when producing for online. Please feel free to comment after any of the posts – it would be great to generate some discussion around these important issues.
Depending on which view you take, journalists first and foremost have an obligation to defend freedom of expression. In order to do this, we need to understand our own rights, and the rights of others. There are various mechanisms in place to enforce freedom in traditional media, but what about online media? The protection of online rights and freedom of expression on the net is grossly overlooked. As more and more newspapers, magazines etc. moving online, we need to seriously consider the various ways in which our online freedom is curtailed. With various laws being put in place to police the virtual landscape and keep online journos in their place, we need to learn to make negotiations. We need to find new ways to still get our stuff out there, without breaking new laws or crossing ethical boundaries.
With all this in mind, this blog aims to explore the ethical and legal considerations that journalists need to take into account when producing for online. Please feel free to comment after any of the posts – it would be great to generate some discussion around these important issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
