Free and Open Source Software - Revision history

Dulles: /* Notes on Future Iterations */

2009-04-27T16:43:49Z

Notes on Future Iterations

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:43, 27 April 2009
Line 307:		Line 307:

	Another nexus of FOSS and law that could be discussed is the ways in which formal law promotes FOSS projects and open collaborations or holds them back. Lawrence Lessig argued, in his book [http://remix.lessig.org/ Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy] that current copyright law opposes the practices of remixing (which could be portrayed as the artistic equivalent to FOSS), by prohibiting the transformation of proprietary materials. This limit forces FOSS projects to start from scratch, thus limiting their potential to influence existing proprietary software, leaving them as a still-marginal phenomenon. Therefore, The GPL license was invented as a license designed to support FOSS and make people to switch to the sharing paradigm (see [http://www.free-soft.org/gpl_history/ here] and [http://clisp.cvs.sourceforge.net/checkout/clisp/clisp/doc/Why-CLISP-is-under-GPL here] for more information on the history of GPL).		Another nexus of FOSS and law that could be discussed is the ways in which formal law promotes FOSS projects and open collaborations or holds them back. Lawrence Lessig argued, in his book [http://remix.lessig.org/ Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy] that current copyright law opposes the practices of remixing (which could be portrayed as the artistic equivalent to FOSS), by prohibiting the transformation of proprietary materials. This limit forces FOSS projects to start from scratch, thus limiting their potential to influence existing proprietary software, leaving them as a still-marginal phenomenon. Therefore, The GPL license was invented as a license designed to support FOSS and make people to switch to the sharing paradigm (see [http://www.free-soft.org/gpl_history/ here] and [http://clisp.cvs.sourceforge.net/checkout/clisp/clisp/doc/Why-CLISP-is-under-GPL here] for more information on the history of GPL).


	Lastly, the in-class exercise should be completely revamped. If future operators of this class are particularly geeky and overachieving, it may be interesting to code a custom "open source law" application, perhaps focused around a single, arbitrarily defined area of law, such as "rules of conduct for using the Harkness Common". Other exercises could be designed around particular examples of "open source law" given above.		Lastly, the in-class exercise should be completely revamped. If future operators of this class are particularly geeky and overachieving, it may be interesting to code a custom "open source law" application, perhaps focused around a single, arbitrarily defined area of law, such as "rules of conduct for using the Harkness Common". Other exercises could be designed around particular examples of "open source law" given above.

Dulles: /* Collaborative Law Making */

2009-04-27T16:42:17Z

Collaborative Law Making

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:42, 27 April 2009
Line 191:		Line 191:
	A glimpse to the possible use of FOSS to create national law could might be seen on [http://www.fantasycongress.com/fc/ Fantasy Congress]. Fantasy Congress is an online fantasy simulation where "citizens" draft members of the United States House and Senate, and keep track of their participation within the U.S. Congress. Actions, especially within the process of making and amending pieces of legislation, of a player's drafted congresspersons are recorded and rated as a cumulative total amount of points against other players.		A glimpse to the possible use of FOSS to create national law could might be seen on [http://www.fantasycongress.com/fc/ Fantasy Congress]. Fantasy Congress is an online fantasy simulation where "citizens" draft members of the United States House and Senate, and keep track of their participation within the U.S. Congress. Actions, especially within the process of making and amending pieces of legislation, of a player's drafted congresspersons are recorded and rated as a cumulative total amount of points against other players.

	~~[[Media:Example.ogg]]~~== In Class Experiment ==		== In Class Experiment ==

	In class, we initiated an experiment of collaborative law editing. The experiment was intended to illustrate one possible, and quite literal, application of open development to law.		In class, we initiated an experiment of collaborative law editing. The experiment was intended to illustrate one possible, and quite literal, application of open development to law.

Dulles: /* In Class Experiment */

2009-04-27T16:41:50Z

In Class Experiment

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:41, 27 April 2009
Line 191:		Line 191:
	A glimpse to the possible use of FOSS to create national law could might be seen on [http://www.fantasycongress.com/fc/ Fantasy Congress]. Fantasy Congress is an online fantasy simulation where "citizens" draft members of the United States House and Senate, and keep track of their participation within the U.S. Congress. Actions, especially within the process of making and amending pieces of legislation, of a player's drafted congresspersons are recorded and rated as a cumulative total amount of points against other players.		A glimpse to the possible use of FOSS to create national law could might be seen on [http://www.fantasycongress.com/fc/ Fantasy Congress]. Fantasy Congress is an online fantasy simulation where "citizens" draft members of the United States House and Senate, and keep track of their participation within the U.S. Congress. Actions, especially within the process of making and amending pieces of legislation, of a player's drafted congresspersons are recorded and rated as a cumulative total amount of points against other players.

	== In Class Experiment ==		[[Media:Example.ogg]]== In Class Experiment ==

	In class, we initiated an experiment of collaborative law editing. The experiment was intended to illustrate one possible, and quite literal, application of open development to law.		In class, we initiated an experiment of collaborative law editing. The experiment was intended to illustrate one possible, and quite literal, application of open development to law.

	~~At the~~ Etherpad ~~website~~ we ~~have~~ set up several copies of the ~~bill~~ of ~~rights~~. We broke up into groups of roughly 8 people and, for ten minutes, co-edited the bill of rights. Each group edited its copy of the document simultaneously, through their individual interfaces.		Using [http://etherpad.com/ Etherpad], we set up several copies of the Bill of Rights. We broke up into groups of roughly 8 people and, for ten minutes, co-edited the bill of rights. Each group edited its copy of the document simultaneously, through their individual interfaces.

	The [http://blog.melchua.com/2009/02/09/the-bill-of-rights-as-revised-by-law-school-netizens-in-10-minutes/ result of the exepriment] was obvious indeed - most of the groups have ridiculed the bill of rights. (not unlike [http://www.theonion.com/content/node/40990 this] Onion article.)		The [http://blog.melchua.com/2009/02/09/the-bill-of-rights-as-revised-by-law-school-netizens-in-10-minutes/ result of the exepriment] was obvious indeed - most of the groups have ridiculed the bill of rights. (not unlike [http://www.theonion.com/content/node/40990 this] Onion article.)

Ayelet: /* Collaborative Law Making */

2009-04-27T16:40:26Z

Collaborative Law Making

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:40, 27 April 2009
Line 187:		Line 187:
	==== Collaborative Law Making ====		==== Collaborative Law Making ====

	A more radical use of FOSS law would be, of course, to create actual binding legal norms. This ~~kind of use~~ is used today ~~only~~ in the internal regulation of online communities. The most well known example is the creation of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_policies Wikipedia's policies]. Wikipedia has created a highly complex system of legal regulation using an open source method. Officially, there are forty-two policies (mainly governing behavior and content) and 356 specific guidelines (mainly governing style and formatting) which all users are expected to follow if they wish to contribute to the encyclopedia. Its arbitration committee, which generates norms and also inflicts punishments, hears cases using an adversarial method which includes submitting evidence. (for more information see R. Stuart Geiger, [http://www.stuartgeiger.com/wordpress/academic-works/2007/05/31/there-is-no-cabal-an-investigation-into-wikipedias-legal-subculture/ There is No Cabal: An Investigation into Wikipedia's Legal Subculture] and David Hoffman & Salil Mehra, [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1354424 Wikitruth Through Wikiorder])		A more radical use of FOSS law would be, of course, to create actual binding legal norms. This take on open source law is used today in the internal regulation of online communities. The most well known example is the creation of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_policies Wikipedia's policies]. Wikipedia has created a highly complex system of legal regulation using an open source method. Officially, there are forty-two policies (mainly governing behavior and content) and 356 specific guidelines (mainly governing style and formatting) which all users are expected to follow if they wish to contribute to the encyclopedia. Its arbitration committee, which generates norms and also inflicts punishments, hears cases using an adversarial method which includes submitting evidence. (for more information see R. Stuart Geiger, [http://www.stuartgeiger.com/wordpress/academic-works/2007/05/31/there-is-no-cabal-an-investigation-into-wikipedias-legal-subculture/ There is No Cabal: An Investigation into Wikipedia's Legal Subculture] and David Hoffman & Salil Mehra, [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1354424 Wikitruth Through Wikiorder])


	A glimpse to the possible use of FOSS to create national law could might be seen on [http://www.fantasycongress.com/fc/ Fantasy Congress]. Fantasy Congress is an online fantasy simulation where "citizens" draft members of the United States House and Senate, and keep track of their participation within the U.S. Congress. Actions, especially within the process of making and amending pieces of legislation, of a player's drafted congresspersons are recorded and rated as a cumulative total amount of points against other players.		A glimpse to the possible use of FOSS to create national law could might be seen on [http://www.fantasycongress.com/fc/ Fantasy Congress]. Fantasy Congress is an online fantasy simulation where "citizens" draft members of the United States House and Senate, and keep track of their participation within the U.S. Congress. Actions, especially within the process of making and amending pieces of legislation, of a player's drafted congresspersons are recorded and rated as a cumulative total amount of points against other players.

Ayelet: /* Collaborative Legal Writing */ points

2009-04-27T16:39:17Z

Collaborative Legal Writing: points

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:39, 27 April 2009
Line 181:		Line 181:

	==== Collaborative Legal Writing ====		==== Collaborative Legal Writing ====
	Several projects have used collaborative writing of other means of laymen participation as mechanisms of creating legal documents for one side in an adjudication. ~~For example,~~ [http://openlaw.org/ The OpenLaw Project] uses FOSS-like suite of tools to discuss cases, and solicit evidence in order to help its lawyers write amicus briefs and other materials. The legal staff behind [http://joelfightsback.com/ Joel Fights Back] ~~also~~ utilizes comments and suggestions from the general public in order to improve the quality of the legal briefs they write.		Several projects have used collaborative writing of other means of laymen participation as mechanisms of creating legal documents for one side in an adjudication.
			* [http://openlaw.org/ The OpenLaw Project] uses FOSS-like suite of tools to discuss cases, and solicit evidence in order to help its lawyers write amicus briefs and other materials.
			* The legal staff behind [http://joelfightsback.com/ Joel Fights Back] utilizes comments and suggestions from the general public in order to improve the quality of the legal briefs they write.

	==== Collaborative Law Making ====		==== Collaborative Law Making ====

Dulles: /* Collaborative Legal Writing */

2009-04-27T16:37:37Z

Collaborative Legal Writing

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:37, 27 April 2009
Line 181:		Line 181:

	==== Collaborative Legal Writing ====		==== Collaborative Legal Writing ====
	Several projects have used collaborative writing of other means of laymen participation as mechanisms of creating legal documents for one side in an adjudication. For example, [http://openlaw.org/ The OpenLaw Project]uses FOSS-like suite of tools to discuss cases, and solicit evidence in order to help its lawyers write amicus briefs and other materials. The legal staff behind [http://joelfightsback.com/ Joel Fights Back] also utilizes comments and suggestions from the general public in order to improve the quality of the legal briefs they write.		Several projects have used collaborative writing of other means of laymen participation as mechanisms of creating legal documents for one side in an adjudication. For example, [http://openlaw.org/ The OpenLaw Project] uses FOSS-like suite of tools to discuss cases, and solicit evidence in order to help its lawyers write amicus briefs and other materials. The legal staff behind [http://joelfightsback.com/ Joel Fights Back] also utilizes comments and suggestions from the general public in order to improve the quality of the legal briefs they write.

	==== Collaborative Law Making ====		==== Collaborative Law Making ====

Dulles: /* Examples of Free Software Principles Applied to the Law */

2009-04-27T16:36:47Z

Examples of Free Software Principles Applied to the Law

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:36, 27 April 2009
Line 160:		Line 160:
	* Collaborative law making		* Collaborative law making

	As http-based web browsing is the most familiar use of the Internet, the examples here will be focused to that domain. That is, other technologies important to FOSS, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revision_control revision control], will not recieve treatment. For these limited purposes, we will focus on "Web 2.0". This term may refer to either particular web page encoding mechanisms to increase interactivity (e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajax_(programming) Ajax] or to structures of web site design that enhance the client's role in contributing to the substantive product available at the site, thereby increasing its value to all clients.		As http-based web browsing is the most familiar use of the Internet, the examples here will be focused to that domain. That is, other technologies important to FOSS, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revision_control revision control], will not recieve treatment. For these limited purposes, we will focus on "Web 2.0". This term may refer to either particular web page encoding mechanisms to increase interactivity (e.g., it may refer to something like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajax_(programming) Ajax] or to structures of web site design that enhance the client's role in contributing to the substantive product available at the site, thereby increasing its value to all clients).

	==== Increasing Transparency in the Existing System ====		==== Increasing Transparency in the Existing System ====

Dulles: /* Examples of Free Software Principles Applied to the Law */

2009-04-27T16:36:00Z

Examples of Free Software Principles Applied to the Law

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:36, 27 April 2009
Line 154:		Line 154:
	=== Examples of Free Software Principles Applied to the Law ===		=== Examples of Free Software Principles Applied to the Law ===

	There are a number of problems that emerge in applying FOSS methods to the law, yet each may hold promise of normitively better processes. We identify ~~four~~ specific implementations of "open source law", all relying on collaborative techology.		There are a number of problems that emerge in applying FOSS methods to the law, yet each may hold promise of normitively better processes. We identify three specific implementations of "open source law", all relying on collaborative techology.

	* Increasing transparency in the existing system		* Increasing transparency in the existing system

Ayelet: /* Ideals and Problems */

2009-04-27T16:35:38Z

Ideals and Problems

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:35, 27 April 2009
Line 150:		Line 150:
	* Without institutional mechanisms, these is a danger that minority voices will be silenced and that the open source law will become the tool of a tyrannical majority, or the tool of those who would [http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/04/21/4chan-takes-over-the-time-100/ game the system].		* Without institutional mechanisms, these is a danger that minority voices will be silenced and that the open source law will become the tool of a tyrannical majority, or the tool of those who would [http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/04/21/4chan-takes-over-the-time-100/ game the system].
	* The downside for the ability of forking law to match specific communities is that usually we aim for a unified body law. FOSS doesn't answer the question of who gets to make the final call on what becomes the law (following a twitt trom [http://twitter.com/leejbaker Leejbaker].		* The downside for the ability of forking law to match specific communities is that usually we aim for a unified body law. FOSS doesn't answer the question of who gets to make the final call on what becomes the law (following a twitt trom [http://twitter.com/leejbaker Leejbaker].
	* As far as experimental democracy and experimental federalism is concerned, we may be too risk-averse to pursue these paths. We often aim for a unified body of law. Open source methods may not immediately answer the question of who gets to make the final call on deciding what the law is (following a tweet from [http://twitter.com/leejbaker Lee Baker]).		* As far as experimental democracy and experimental federalism is concerned, we may be too risk-averse to pursue these paths. We often aim for a unified body of law. Open source methods may not immediately answer the question of who gets to make the final call on deciding what the law is (following a tweet from [http://twitter.com/leejbaker Lee Baker] ).

	=== Examples of Free Software Principles Applied to the Law ===		=== Examples of Free Software Principles Applied to the Law ===

Dulles: /* Ideals and Problems */

2009-04-27T16:34:17Z

Ideals and Problems

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:34, 27 April 2009
Line 139:		Line 139:
	* FOSS methods may allow for greater experimentation in law, thus promoting [http://www.columbialawreview.org/articles/a-constitution-of-democratic-experimentalism experimental democracy]. Moreover, in a radical recasting of federalism, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development) forking] phenomenon of software development might be implemented in legal development, allowing different communities of flexible size to agree to different regulatory, criminal, and common-law systems to the extent our nation-state would allow it.		* FOSS methods may allow for greater experimentation in law, thus promoting [http://www.columbialawreview.org/articles/a-constitution-of-democratic-experimentalism experimental democracy]. Moreover, in a radical recasting of federalism, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development) forking] phenomenon of software development might be implemented in legal development, allowing different communities of flexible size to agree to different regulatory, criminal, and common-law systems to the extent our nation-state would allow it.
	* As seen on the open structure of Wikipedia, for example, creating a successful open law project would require a lot of discussion and consensus-seeking. This, in turn, will promote the ideals of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy deliberative democracy] and will engage more people in the discussion following the laws.		* As seen on the open structure of Wikipedia, for example, creating a successful open law project would require a lot of discussion and consensus-seeking. This, in turn, will promote the ideals of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy deliberative democracy] and will engage more people in the discussion following the laws.


	'''Problems'''		'''Problems'''