Free and Open Source Software: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Readings: focusing on the alternate economy, f/oss as gift economy, and potentially competing views) |
(Total re-work to focus on hybrid economies and the commons) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
=Precis= | =Precis= | ||
Free | Free and Open Source Software (F/OSS) does not obey the usual rules of market based economies. Those who contribute to the codebase of large F/OSS projects, for example, are often unpaid amateurs working in their free time. We propose that F/OSS is better understood using the mechanics of "gift economies" rather than market economies. These are economies which value reputation over profit, where value is had in the giving, not in the taking, and where the wealthiest are those who have given away the most. Yet Linux distributors such as [http://www.redhat.com/ RedHat] operate in the market economy even though their products are free, depending on a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_open-source services based business model]. | ||
We propose that this is an example of a hybrid of gift and market economies. We further propose that F/OSS is an excellent example of the excellent and important work that can come out of an intellectual commons, where co-operative development and sharing allow authors to produce work of outstanding quality. | |||
The creative potential of the intellectual commons isn't limited to software. Indeed, Youtube mashups and artists such as Girl Talk demonstrate that new artistic works can also be created from the existing body of work. The Internet and computer technology generally enable commons-based creativity in a way never before possible. But the development of such mashups and remixes is runing into a legal blockade. The intellectual property regime is perhaps not very amenable to the commons-based development, be it software development or artistic development. | |||
With that in mind, we propose to discuss how the IP regime limits, or doesn't, the commons-based development of software and art. We would like to speculate as to why Linux has succeeded as a commons-based development and why art hasn't. We would then like to discuss how the artistic commons can thrive despite the current IP regime, or what changes really must be made in order to create a legal framework that encourages commons-based development while protecting a market economy interests as well. | |||
=Fundemental Question= | |||
Given the intellectual commons as our goal, what do we need to reform, or not, in IP law to better encourage creativity while protecting authors? | |||
=Guest Wish-list= | =Guest Wish-list= | ||
| Line 54: | Line 28: | ||
* [http://www.amazon.com/Remix-Making-Commerce-Thrive-Economy/dp/1594201722/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1232118569&sr=8-1 Remix], by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig Lawrence Lessig]. Ch. 9, 10. | * [http://www.amazon.com/Remix-Making-Commerce-Thrive-Economy/dp/1594201722/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1232118569&sr=8-1 Remix], by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig Lawrence Lessig]. Ch. 9, 10. | ||
* TBD by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yochai_Benkler Yochai Benkler]. | * TBD by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yochai_Benkler Yochai Benkler]. | ||
Revision as of 11:04, 16 January 2009
Back to syllabus.
Precis
Free and Open Source Software (F/OSS) does not obey the usual rules of market based economies. Those who contribute to the codebase of large F/OSS projects, for example, are often unpaid amateurs working in their free time. We propose that F/OSS is better understood using the mechanics of "gift economies" rather than market economies. These are economies which value reputation over profit, where value is had in the giving, not in the taking, and where the wealthiest are those who have given away the most. Yet Linux distributors such as RedHat operate in the market economy even though their products are free, depending on a services based business model.
We propose that this is an example of a hybrid of gift and market economies. We further propose that F/OSS is an excellent example of the excellent and important work that can come out of an intellectual commons, where co-operative development and sharing allow authors to produce work of outstanding quality.
The creative potential of the intellectual commons isn't limited to software. Indeed, Youtube mashups and artists such as Girl Talk demonstrate that new artistic works can also be created from the existing body of work. The Internet and computer technology generally enable commons-based creativity in a way never before possible. But the development of such mashups and remixes is runing into a legal blockade. The intellectual property regime is perhaps not very amenable to the commons-based development, be it software development or artistic development.
With that in mind, we propose to discuss how the IP regime limits, or doesn't, the commons-based development of software and art. We would like to speculate as to why Linux has succeeded as a commons-based development and why art hasn't. We would then like to discuss how the artistic commons can thrive despite the current IP regime, or what changes really must be made in order to create a legal framework that encourages commons-based development while protecting a market economy interests as well.
Fundemental Question
Given the intellectual commons as our goal, what do we need to reform, or not, in IP law to better encourage creativity while protecting authors?
Guest Wish-list
Readings
- The Gift, by Lewis Hyde. Chapter TDB, probably introduction.
- The Gift Economy and Free Software, by Jem Matzan.
- Remix, by Lawrence Lessig. Ch. 9, 10.
- TBD by Yochai Benkler.