a critical view on opensource software

1. COPYRIGHT OR COPYLEFT Righteousness of Open Sourcing In The Eyes of Law 2011 BY GLC-Thiruvananthapuram

3. The supplier holds ownership or intellectual property rights over it;

4. Restriction over modifications and the distribution of the source code.2011 BY GLC-Thiruvananthapuram

6. The user is having no access to the source code, and he is totally under the mercy of the developer

7. Vendors of proprietary software can “withdraw the product, discontinue its support, go out of business, and/or can be acquired by another vendor who can do any of the above”

8. No continuous development by information sharing

9. TRIPS considers a copyrighted software as a literary work and it is protected for a period of 60 years!! It will be obsolete by then…2011 BY GLC-Thiruvananthapuram

10. 2011 BY GLC-Thiruvananthapuram The copyright law, which originally aims to restrict the unauthorized commercial exploitation of the work by others, itself is being used as a tool for exploitation !!!

11. OPEN SOURCE PHILOSOPHY 2011 BY GLC-Thiruvananthapuram

12. “GIVE USERSTHE FREEDOMS TO RUN, COPY, DISTRIBUTE, STUDY, CHANGE AND IMPROVE” 2011 BY GLC-Thiruvananthapuram

13. OPEN SOURCE DEFINITION(OSD) 2011 BY GLC-Thiruvananthapuram

14. 2011 BY GLC-Thiruvananthapuram

15. Copyleft Uses Copyright, To Guarantee The Freedom Of The Users To Use, Modify & Redistribute. . . First the software is copyrighted Then terms of distributions are added to it which gives to everyone the rights to use, modify and redistribute the same, i.e., the program’s code or any program derived from it 2011 BY GLC-Thiruvananthapuram

16. Features of Copylefting:- 2011 BY GLC-Thiruvananthapuram

18. Availability of source code coupled with permission to make modifications;

19. Access open source development community, which may be very active with respect to code used. Continuing improvement; outstanding development;

20. More likely to be built to open standards, so interoperable with other open standards systems.

21. Technology neutral, meaning that applications will run on more than one platform (such as Windows, Linux, Unix, and MacOSX)2011 BY GLC-Thiruvananthapuram

23. Term “viral” has generated an “unreasonable fear of infection” among commercial firms

24. The requirement of reciprocity only applies to works based on the program

25. Mere use of OSS software will not generate any obligation to release one’s own software code as an OSS2011 BY GLC-Thiruvananthapuram

27. Achieved by issuing dire warnings about security concerns, interoperability, or simple ideological attack

28. Most effective way to achieve legal uncertainty is conducting litigation ►SCO v. IBM ► Red Hat v. SCO ► SCO v. Novell(dismissed) ► SCO v. AutoZone(dismissed) ► SCO v. DaimlerChrysler(dismissed) 2011 BY GLC-Thiruvananthapuram

30. DC claims it has supplied the certification (and that it no longer uses the licensed software), and requests dismissal;

32. AutoZone requests a “stay” and advanced the following issues:

33. The elements of the claim are already at issue in SCO v. Novell, Red Hat v. SCO, and SCO v. IBM;

34. Used the Red Hat judge’s “waste of judicial resources” language;

35. In the alternative, SCO should provide more detail on its claims;

37. Novell files motion to dismiss;

39. Main allegations: misappropriation of trade secrets (IBM’s AIX product includes proprietary SCO code); breach of contract;

40. Amended in July 2003 to include more specific claims of contract breach (IBM agreements and Sequent agreement);

41. IBM countersues SCO;

42. Main allegations: breach of contract, Lanham Act and unfair competition; unfair/deceptive trade practices; patent infringement; copyright infringement; breach of GPL;

45. Injunction

46. Specific performance2011 BY GLC-Thiruvananthapuram

48. No maintenance and support (unless purchased separately);

49. No warranties regarding media, viruses, and performance2011 BY GLC-Thiruvananthapuram

50. 2011 BY GLC-Thiruvananthapuram Many disadvantages of the above mentioned, can be addressed by procuring open source software through a third party vendor that will provide maintenance, support, additional warranties, etc.

52. They could even remove the author’s name obtain copyright over it;

53. The structure of incentives that currently sustains OSS development would be jeopardized.2011 BY GLC-Thiruvananthapuram

54. DANGER OF PUBLIC DOMAIN “If put in public domain, middle level users may convert it into proprietary software, and may deny the freedom to modify or improve” 2011 BY GLC-Thiruvananthapuram

56. Librarians lack the skills to be active developers, but have extensive knowledge of their specialised requirements, while experienced developers are unlikely to have significant experience with library requirements

58. WIBS (Windsor Internet Booking System) which allows libraries to schedule use of public computers is based on an earlier F/OS project, MRBS (Meeting Room Booking System)

59. In OSS there is no risk of vendors withdrawing the product, discontinuing its support or going out of business; It is possible for another organisation to take on the role of project “co-ordinator” if the project originator is unable to continue in the role.

60. In the MyLibrary project, when the project’s main developer, Eric Lease Morgan, changed jobs the support to the project was shifted from North Carolina State University to Notre Dame University.2011 BY GLC-Thiruvananthapuram

61. 2011 BY GLC-Thiruvananthapuram This model shows the different project-related tasks done by people in the different roles, and it also shows that people’s involvement in a particular project may change over time. In a library and information context, the developers would not necessarily also be users of the software.

62. Open source as an alternative to copyright 2011 BY GLC-Thiruvananthapuram

64. It prevents the developer’s monopoly; promotes creativity, pace of improvement and reduces the cost

65. An individual programmer working for an MNC would feel foolish if he puts in all efforts to develop/update a code just to see the MNC, who will be the first owner under the present copyright law, selling his efforts and improvement without giving anything back to him

66. An OSS license assures a programmer :

67. The right to make copies of the program, and redistribute these copies further;

68. The right to make further improvements to the program2011 BY GLC-Thiruvananthapuram

70. Unlike Copyright, OSS protects the interest of both users and developers2011 BY GLC-Thiruvananthapuram

72. Heavy Hitters: IBM, C.A., H-P, Sun, PalmSource, WebMethods, Apple, Novell, Sybase, SGI, etc., etc.2011 BY GLC-Thiruvananthapuram

73. Graphical View Of Present OSS Activities: 2011 BY GLC-Thiruvananthapuram

74. “Love Thy Neighbor As Thou Love Thee” 2011 BY GLC-Thiruvananthapuram

75. THANK YOU 2011 BY GLC-Thiruvananthapuram