Open-source-software movement
The open-source-software movement is a movement that supports the use of open-source licenses for some or all software, as part of the broader notion of open collaboration.[1] The open-source movement was started to spread the concept/idea of open-source software.
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#1__subtextDEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#1__answer--0DEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#1__answer--1DEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#1__answer--2DEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#1__answer--3DEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#1__answer--4DEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#1__answer--5DEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#1__answer--6DEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#1__answer--7DEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#1__answer--8DEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#1__answer--9DEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
Legal issues[edit]
The open-source movement has faced a number of legal challenges. Companies that manage open-source products have some difficulty securing their trademarks.
For example, the scope of "implied license" conjecture remains unclear and can compromise an enterprise's ability to patent productions made with open-source software. Another example is the case of companies offering add-ons for purchase; licensees who make additions to the open-source code that are similar to those for purchase may have immunity from patent suits.
In the court case "Jacobsen v. Katzer", the plaintiff sued the defendant for failing to put the required attribution notices in his modified version of the software, thereby violating license. The defendant claimed Artistic License in not adhering to the conditions of the software's use, but the wording of the attribution notice decided that this was not the case. "Jacobsen v Katzer" established open-source software's equality to proprietary software in the eyes of the law.
In a court case accusing Microsoft of being a monopoly, Linux and open-source software was introduced in court to prove that Microsoft had valid competitors and was grouped in with Apple.
There are resources available for those involved open-source projects in need of legal advice. The Software Freedom Law Center features a primer on open-source legal issues. International Free and Open Source Software Law Review offers peer-reviewed information for lawyers on free-software issues.
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#0__titleDEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#0__subtitleDEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
Not to be confused with Free software movement, a related movement.Social structure of open source contribution teams[edit]
Historically, researchers have characterized open source contributors as a centralized, onion-shaped group.[16] The center of the onion consists of the core contributors who drive the project forward through large amounts of code and software design choices. The second-most layer are contributors who respond to pull requests and bug reports. The third-most layer out are contributors who mainly submit bug reports. The farthest out layer are those who watch the repository and users of the software that's generated. This model has been used in research to understand the lifecycle of open source software, understand contributors to open source software projects, how tools such as can help contributors at the various levels of involvement in the project, and further understand how the distributed nature of open source software may affect the productivity of developers.[17][18][19]
Some researchers have disagreed with this model. Crowston et al.'s work has found that some teams are much less centralized and follow a more distributed workflow pattern.[17] The authors report that there's a weak correlation between project size and centralization, with smaller projects being more centralized and larger projects showing less centralization. However, the authors only looked at bug reporting and fixing, so it remains unclear whether this pattern is only associated with bug finding and fixing or if centralization does become more distributed with size for every aspect of the open source paradigm.
An understanding of a team's centralization versus distributed nature is important as it may inform tool design and aid new developers in understanding a team's dynamic. One concern with open source development is the high turnover rate of developers, even among core contributors (those at the center of the "onion").[20] In order to continue an open source project, new developers must continually join but must also have the necessary skill-set to contribute quality code to the project. Through a study of GitHub contribution on open source projects, Middleton et al. found that the largest predictor of contributors becoming full-fledged members of an open source team (moving to the "core" of the "onion") was whether they submitted and commented on pull requests. The authors then suggest that GitHub, as a tool, can aid in this process by supporting "checkbox" features on a team's open source project that urge contributors to take part in these activities.[19]
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#1__titleDEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
Programmers who support the open-source-movement philosophy contribute to the open-source community by voluntarily writing and exchanging programming code for software development.[2] The term "open source" requires that no one can discriminate against a group in not sharing the edited code or hinder others from editing their already-edited work. This approach to software development allows anyone to obtain and modify open-source code. These modifications are distributed back to the developers within the open-source community of people who are working with the software. In this way, the identities of all individuals participating in code modification are disclosed and the transformation of the code is documented over time.[3] This method makes it difficult to establish ownership of a particular bit of code but is in keeping with the open-source-movement philosophy. These goals promote the production of high-quality programs as well as working cooperatively with other similarly-minded people to improve open-source technology.[2]
With the growth and attention on the open-source movement, the reasons and motivations of programmers for creating code for free has been under investigation. In a paper from the 15th Annual Congress of the European Economic Association on the open-source movement, the incentives of programmers on an individual level as well as on a company or network level were analyzed. What is essentially the intellectual gift giving of talented programmers challenges the "self-interested-economic-agent paradigm",[21] and has made both the public and economists search for an understanding of what the benefits are for programmers.
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#3__titleDEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
The Open Source Initiative (OSI) was instrumental in the formalization of the open-source movement. The OSI was founded by Eric Raymond and Bruce Perens in February 1998 with the purpose of providing general education and advocacy of the open-source label through the creation of the Open Source Definition that was based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines. The OSI has become one of the main supporters and advocators of the open-source movement.[6]
In February 1998, the open-source movement was adopted, formalized, and spearheaded by the Open Source Initiative (OSI), an organization formed to market software "as something more amenable to commercial business use"[3] The OSI applied to register "Open Source" with the US Patent and Trademark Office, but was denied due to the term being generic and/or descriptive. Consequently, the OSI does not own the trademark "Open Source" in a national or international sense, although it does assert common-law trademark rights in the term.[2]
The main tool they adopted for this was The Open Source Definition.[13]
The open-source label was conceived at a strategy session that was held on February 3, 1998 in Palo Alto, California and on April 8 of the same year, the attendees of Tim O’Reilly's Free Software Summit voted to promote the use of the term "open source".[6]
Overall, the software developments that have come out of the open-source movement have not been unique to the computer-science field, but they have been successful in developing alternatives to propriety software. Members of the open-source community improve upon code and write programs that can rival much of the propriety software that is already available.[3]
The rhetorical discourse used in open-source movements is now being broadened to include a larger group of non-expert users as well as advocacy organizations. Several organized groups such as the Creative Commons and global development agencies have also adopted the open-source concepts according to their own aims and for their own purposes.[14]
The factors affecting the open-source movement's legal formalization are primarily based on recent political discussion over copyright, appropriation, and intellectual property.[15]
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#2__titleDEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#2__descriptionDEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#4__titleDEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#4__subtextDEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#5__descriptionDEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#6__titleDEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#6__descriptionDEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#8__titleDEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#8__subtextDEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#7__titleDEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#7__subtextDEEZ_NUTS$_$_$