Fri 15 Aug 2008
Court Rules in Favor of Open-Source Movement
Posted by Megan Dorn under Technology, Business and Politics
The open-source software movement (also known as the free software movement) received a boost Wednesday from the federal appeals court in Washington, according to an article from the New York Times. The court ruled that “just because a software programmer gave his work away did not mean it could not be protected.”
For those of you who aren’t familiar with the ethics of software and the open-source debate, basically open-source software development occurs when programmers willingly contribute code, as well as their own time and effort, to a collaborative development process without any kind of financial compensation. In essence, they work for the fun of it.
One of the biggest obstacles facing the movement, however, is the ambiguity of open-source licensing. This recent ruling, which is a reversal of a San Francisco federal court ruling, gives the open-source community a significant bump in the right direction. Up until this point anyone was free to modify the programming created by the open-source group. Now they can still do so, but only as long as the open-source programmers retain the credit for their work and can distribute the work with their own instructions.
The ruling provides a strong legal backstop for hardworking members of the open-source community, allowing them to freely do what they’re passionate about and still receive credit for it. I would personally like to congratulate the open-source community on its victory. This is not only great for those involved in the movement, but it’s also important for society as a whole and our ability to use, adapt and learn from highly collaborative software development.
This is a hotly contested issue, so I’d like to know how you all feel about it. Whether you’re a member of the open-source community or not, what do you think of this ruling or the debate in general?
August 18th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Well, I just wanted to point out a few things in the article.
First, that the open source initiative (movement) is separate from the free software foundation (movement). Although they broadly follow the same paths they have different ideals.
Second that open source does not necessarily mean that the software is without financial compensation. That is, it is not free as in free beer ( a widely used example), instead it is free as in freedom. That means the programmer releases it so that others have the freedom to modify it.
Of course, others cannot freely modify it. The original author has wavered his copyright claims subject to certain restrictions. These restrictions are part of the license that the code has been released under.
The courts have upheld that the programmer in fact can release his code under certain restrictions. Just because the programmer has released his/her code does not mean that anybody can use it according to his/her own free will. They still have to follow those restrictions.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:23 am
Thanks Aniket! I’ll be honest, I’m not an expert on the open source movement or the free software movement (althought I was aware that they weren’t the exact same thing, only similar). My point was to give a rough, basic overview of a movement that, with its different variables, is not easy to distill into a few short sentences. So I really appreciate your comments and additional information. Thanks again!
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Admittedly, I didn’t read the jump story or brush up on the background of the case… but this reads like a non-story. There have always been a smattering of open source licenses and copyright options available to the open source community to protect intellectual property and govern re-use, redistribution, attribution and modification of source code.
As Aniket points out, the economics of open source is also mis-represented (or, at least, under-represented). Yes, countless volunteer hours (well, ohloh.org *does* provide estimates) go into open source projects… everything from 1-person projects to thousands of collaborative coders. But many open source developers are full-timers at companies that pay them to work on open source software! Open source business models abound! It is a movement that proprietary business & technology models simply cannot match, from a fundamental scaling standpoint.