As illustrated above, open source licensing is becoming more and more dominant, especially as long as software is provided in a digital form. The purpose of this paper was to observe if and how the open source software licensing regime has challenged the protection granted to software under the intellectual property rights. In general, the outcome is that the distinct production and distribution model of open source licenses, while different, can be compatible with the legal framework of intellectual property rights protection and serve different purposes. However, a number of remaining uncertainties around the open source licenses leave room for improvements such as the possibility to make some adaptations to the license terms.
The analysis started in chapter two with examining the definition of software and the conditions and circumstances under which it is protected by two intellectual property rights, namely copyright and patent. In chapter three the questionable legal nature of software was reviewed and the possibilities to exploit rights in software –under licenses- were explained. Further, in chapter four, the definition of open source was introduced and major open source licenses currently in use were presented. A conclusion that came out was that the open-source licensing regimes are no longer confined to idealistic or academic programmers but have led to the creation of diverse licenses that provide for different possibilities and accordingly are more or less compatible with copyright protection. In chapter five the most important legal controversies around open source software licenses from a contractual point of view were put under scrutiny. This analysis estimated that the uncertainty around the contractual nature of ...
... middle of paper ...
...rce world.
A reasonable necessity would call for new versions of at least of the most commonly used open source licenses, which will deal with unclear and controversial situations that were discussed in this paper. For example, situations like the definitions of derivative works in the context of software, or the laws regarding contract formation when software is distributed for free, or the policies toward software patents for industry standards— should be the enunciate by courts and legislatures.
On the general level, the analysis of the relationship between open source licenses and intellectual property rights should be continued as far as the system designed for their legal protection and use is still evolving. Perhaps ideas like regulating open source and redrafting intellectual property laws should be the subject of further discussions around this issue.
Open source software is an important component of today’s higher education. It is basically a sharing of information. The advances of the arts and sciences are a result of the open sharing of ideas, theories, studies and research. Yet the software that is being use on computers at many school systems is closed and locked, making educators partners in the suppression of the foundational information of this new age (Chauhan) .
Taking a global perspective, one must keep in mind that the term “copyright” is not universally defined, accepted, or enforced. We must therefore use the term with the United State’s definition as a basis. However, absent U.S. law, we must also consider the creator’s intent as it relates to the distribution and use of his or her work. This exploration will lead us to a universal position – one that claims that the wide-scale, free exchange of Intellectual Property by means of P2P technology is unethical.
A new law will probably be introduced into state legislatures which will govern all contracts for the development, sale, licensing, and support of computer software. This law, which has been in development for about ten years, will be an amendment to the Uniform Commercial Code. The amendment is called Article 2B (Law of Licensing) and is loosely based on UCC Article 2 (Law of Sales), which governs sales of goods in all 50 states. A joint committee of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) and the American Law Institute is drafting the changes to the UCC.
Over the past decade the societal view of creative society has greatly changed due to advances in computer technology and the Internet. In 1995, aware of the beginning of this change, two authors wrote articles in Wired Magazine expressing diametrically opposed views on how this technological change would take form, and how it would affect copyright law. In the article "The Emperor's Clothes Still Fit Just Fine" Lance Rose hypothesized that the criminal nature of copyright infringement would prevent it from developing into a socially acceptable practice. Thus, he wrote, we would not need to revise copyright law to prevent copyright infringement. In another article, Entitled "Intellectual Value", Esther Dyson presented a completely different view of the copyright issue. She based many her arguments on the belief that mainstream copyright infringement would proliferate in the following years, causing a radical revision of American ideas and laws towards intellectual property. What has happened since then? Who was right? This paper analyzes the situation then and now, with the knowledge that these trends are still in a state of transformation. As new software and hardware innovations make it easier to create, copy, alter, and disseminate original digital content, this discussion will be come even more critical.
Intellectual property is an incredibly complicated facet of the law. In the United States, we have many laws in place to control and limit profiting from others intellectual property. The issue is not only profiting from others intellectual property, but not purchasing the property from the originator as well. We will discuss why it is important to protect this property as well as why it is tremendously difficult to regulate all these safe guards. “Intellectual Property has the shelf life of a banana.” Bill Gates
The term open source refers to several different things. Sometimes it means a fully functional software program, available for free. Other times it is a C library, made available free of charge. For this paper, when I say open source, I mean the following: source code, in partial or complete form, with some form of public, free-of-charge licensing. I do not mean using open source tools to write software. A good example of what I am referring to would be heading over to Sourceforge (1) and grabbing a couple hundred lines of code from the CVS repository of the Gaim Project (2) for use inside your project. Note that 99 percent of the time when you engage in this type of activity, you are required to also copy the license at the top of the code. Basically, the licensing information must always be copied with ...
In 1970s, the software was firstly subjected as intellectual property. Stallman felt if the software-based computing idea was treated as an intellectual property and controlled as proprietary, then he as a hacker[2] no longer could read the source code, find the problem, and fix the problem in the MIT lab community. It would be a major drawback to the freedom in technology from social and moral perspective. So Stallman quit the job in MIT and found Free Software Foundation[3] in 1984 as a nonprofit organization that provides various types of software such as: GCC compiler and Emacs editor. He created the General Public License (GPL)[4] as a legal document to prevent free software from being turned into proprietary. GPL is also known as copyleft[5]. To most of Stallman’s supporters and open source hackers, “non-free software is a social problem and free software is the solution.”[6]. The main theme of free software is the moral freedom – the cultural and legal freedom to ac...
Hamister, J., & Braunscheidel, M. (2013). Software piracy and intellectual property rights protection. Academy of Information & Management Sciences Journal, 16(1), 15-35. Retrieved from EBSCOhost
Source code is the lifeblood of all high tech software organizations. If it falls into the wrong hands, a company will very likely experience damagingly costly repercussions. As a result, most tech companies invest a relatively large chunk of their revenues into network security.
A Worldwide Problem Software piracy is defined as the illegal copying of software for commercial or personal gain. Software companies have tried many methods to prevent piracy, with varying degrees of success. Several agencies like the Software Publishers Association and the Business Software Alliance have been formed to combat both worldwide and domestic piracy. Software piracy is an unresolved, worldwide problem, costing millions of dollars in lost revenue. Software companies have used many different copy protection schemes. The most annoying form of copy protection is the use of a key disk. This type of copy protection requires the user to insert the original disk every time the program is run. It can be quite difficult to keep up with disks that are years old. The most common technique of copy protection requires the user to look up a word or phrase in the program's manual. This method is less annoying than other forms of copy protection, but it can be a nuisance having to locate the manual every time. Software pirates usually have no trouble "cracking" the program, which permanently removes the copy protection. After the invention of CD-ROM, which until lately was uncopyable, most software companies stopped placing copy protection in their programs. Instead, the companies are trying new methods of disc impression. 3M recently developed a new technology of disc impression which allows companies to imprint an image on the read side of a CD-ROM. This technology would not prevent pirates from copying the CD, but it would make a "bootleg" copy differ from the original and make the copy traceable by law enforcement officials (Estes 89). Sometimes, when a person uses a pirated program, there is a "virus" attached to the program. Viruses are self-replicating programs that, when activated, can damage a computer. These viruses are most commonly found on pirated computer games, placed there by some malignant computer programmer. In his January 1993 article, Chris O' Malley points out that if piracy was wiped out viruses would eventually disappear (O' Malley 60). There are ways that a thrifty consumer can save money on software without resorting to piracy. Computer companies often offer discounts on new software if a person has previously purchased an earlier version of the software. Competition between companies also drives prices low and keeps the number of pirated copies down (Morgan 45). People eventually tire or outgrow their software and decide to sell it.
Because of its intangible nature, and particularly the increase of the digital domain and the internet as a whole, computers and cyber piracy make it easier for people to steal many forms of intellectual property. Due to this major threat, intellectual property rights owners’ should take every single measure to protect their rights. Unless these rights are either sold, exchanged, transferred, or appropriately licensed for use in exchange for a monetary fee, they should be protected at all cost. In order to protect these rights, the federal and states governments have passed numerous laws and statutes to protect intellectual property from misappropriation and infringement. “The source of federal copyright and patent law originates with the Copyright and Patent ...
Creative Commons is a non-profit organization that aims to widen the publication of works that can be reused and shared by others. The organization has produced several public copyright authorizations known as Creative Commons License. These licenses allow the licensor to permit his or her work to be re-copied and distributed to others, but the majority of his or her rights are protected. Creative Commons License can be applied to various types of work, particularly in the form of a work of art, literature, and music.
paid for. The pirate has a set of excuses for his actions: prices are too high;
The PC industry is just over 20 years old. In those 20 years, both the quality
Just two decades ago, saying “copyright” to teachers most likely conjured images in their minds only of the fine-print notice in the front of a textbook. Today, with a world of Web 2.0 technology at their fingertips, copyright issues for teachers can be confusing and complex. Add to that an ever-increasing emphasis on technology literacy in our states’ education standards – forcing teachers to incorporate applications and resources that may be uncharted territory to them – and the waters get even murkier. Teachers bear the double-burden of carefully abiding by copyright laws in their day-to-day incorporation of technology in the classroom, while instilling copyright ethics in students as they meet state standards for technology and media literacy. A review of the copyright literature related to education provides some clarity on copyright and fair use applied to classroom practices, suggests barriers to copyright compliance among educators, and provides suggestions on how to teach copyright ethics to a tech-savvy generation.