This article may be in need of reorganization to comply with Wikipedia's layout guidelines. Please help by editing the article to make improvements to the overall structure. (November 2010)

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2009)

In production and development, open source is a philosophy,^{[1][not in citation given][2][not in citation given]} or pragmatic methodology^{[2][not in citation given]} that promotes free redistribution and access to an end product's design and implementation details.^[3] Before the phrase open source became widely adopted, developers and producers used a variety of phrases to describe the concept; open source gained hold with the rise of the Internet, and the attendant need for massive retooling of the computing source code.^{[citation needed]} Opening the source code enabled a self-enhancing diversity of production models, communication paths, and interactive communities.^[4] The open-source software movement was born to describe the environment that the new copyright, licensing, domain, and consumer issues created.^{[citation needed]}

The open-source model includes the concept of concurrent yet different agendas and differing approaches in production, in contrast with more centralized models of development such as those typically used in commercial software companies.^[5] A main principle and practice of open-source software development is peer production by bartering and collaboration, with the end-product, source-material, "blueprints", and documentation available at no cost to the public. This is increasingly being applied in other fields of endeavor, such as biotechnology.^[6]

History[link]

This article may not properly summarize the main article. Specific concerns can be found on the Talk page. Please improve this article if you can.

The concept of free sharing of technological information existed long before computers. For example, cooking recipes have been shared since the beginning of human culture.

In the early years of automobile development, a group of capital monopolists owned the rights to a 2-cycle gasoline engine patent originally filed by George B. Selden.^[7] By controlling this patent, they were able to monopolize the industry and force car manufacturers to adhere to their demands, or risk a lawsuit. In 1911, independent automaker Henry Ford won a challenge to the Selden patent. The result was that the Selden patent became virtually worthless and a new association (which would eventually become the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association) was formed.^[7] The new association instituted a cross-licensing agreement among all US auto manufacturers: although each company would develop technology and file patents, these patents were shared openly and without the exchange of money between all the manufacturers.^[7] By the time the US entered World War 2, 92 Ford patents and 515 patents from other companies were being shared between these manufacturers, without any exchange of money (or lawsuits).^[7]

Very similar^[vague] to open standards, researchers with access to Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET) used a process called Request for Comments to develop telecommunication network protocols. This collaborative process of the 1960s led to the birth of the Internet in 1969.

Early instances of the free sharing of source code include IBM's source releases of its operating systems and other programs in the 1950s and 1960s, and the SHARE user group that formed to facilitate the exchange of software.^[8][9]

In a foreshadowing of the Internet, software with source code included became available on BBS networks in the 1980s. This was sometimes a necessity; distributing software written in BASIC and other interpreted languages can only be distributed as source code as there is no separate portable executable binary to distribute.

Example of BBS systems and networks that gathered source code, and setup up boards specifically to discuss its modification includes WWIV, developed initially in BASIC by Wayne Bell. A culture of "modding" his software and distributing the mods, grew up so extensively that when the software was ported to first Pascal, then C++, its source code continued to be distributed to registered users, who would share mods and compile their own versions of the software.^{[citation needed]} This may have contributed to its being a dominant system and network, despite being outside the Fidonet umbrella that was shared by so many other BBS makers.

The sharing of source code on the Internet began when the Internet was relatively primitive, with software distributed via UUCP, Usenet, and irc, and gopher. Linux, for example, was first widely distributed by posts to comp.os.linux on the Usenet, which is also where its development was discussed. Linux became the archetype for organized software development orientated around the sharing of source code.

The label “open source” was adopted by a group of people in the free software movement at a strategy session^[10] held at Palo Alto, California, in reaction to Netscape's January 1998 announcement of a source code release for Navigator. The group of individuals at the session included Christine Peterson who suggested “open source”, Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, Jon Hall, Sam Ockman, Michael Tiemann and Eric S. Raymond. Over the next week, Raymond and others worked on spreading the word. Linus Torvalds gave an all-important sanction the following day. Phil Hughes offered a pulpit in Linux Journal. Richard Stallman, pioneer of the free software movement, flirted with adopting the term, but changed his mind.^[10] Those people who adopted the term used the opportunity before the release of Navigator's source code to free themselves of the ideological and confrontational connotations of the term "free software". Netscape released its source code under the Netscape Public License and later under the Mozilla Public License.^[11]

The term was given a big boost at an event organized in April 1998 by technology publisher Tim O'Reilly. Originally titled the "Freeware Summit" and later known as the "Open Source Summit",^[12] The event brought together the leaders of many of the most important free and open-source projects, including Linus Torvalds, Larry Wall, Brian Behlendorf, Eric Allman, Guido van Rossum, Michael Tiemann, Paul Vixie, Jamie Zawinski of Netscape, and Eric Raymond. At that meeting, the confusion caused by the name free software was brought up. Tiemann argued for “sourceware” as a new term, while Raymond argued for “open source.” The assembled developers took a vote, and the winner was announced at a press conference that evening. Five days later, Raymond made the first public call to the free software community to adopt the new term.^[13] The Open Source Initiative was formed shortly thereafter.^[10]

Starting in the early 2000s, a number of companies began to publish a portion of their source code to claim they were open source, while keeping key parts closed. This led to the development of the now widely used terms free open-source software and commercial open-source software to distinguish between truly open and hybrid forms of open source.^{[original research?]}

Economic analysis[link]

Most economists agree that open-source candidates have an information good^[14] (also termed 'knowledge good') aspect. In general, this suggests that the original work involves a great deal of time, money, and effort. However, the cost of reproducing the work is very low, so that additional users may be added at zero or near zero cost — this is referred to as the marginal cost of a product. At this point, it is necessary to consider a copyright. The idea of copyright for works of authorship is to protect the incentive of making these original works. Copyright restriction then creates access costs on consumers who value the original more than making an additional copy but value the original less than the initial production cost. Thus, they will pay an access cost of this difference. Access costs also pose problems for authors who wish to create something based on another work but are not willing to pay the copyright holder for the rights to the copyrighted work. The second type of cost incurred with a copyright system is the cost of administration and enforcement of the copyright.

Being organized effectively as a consumers' cooperative, the idea of open source is then to eliminate the access costs of the consumer and the creator by reducing the restrictions of copyright. This will lead to creation of additional works, which build upon previous work and add to greater social benefit. Additionally some proponents argue that open source also relieves society of the administration and enforcement costs of copyright. Organizations such as Creative Commons have websites where individuals can file for alternative “licenses”, or levels of restriction, for their works.^[15] These self-made protections free the general society of the costs of policing copyright infringement. Thus, on several fronts, there is an efficiency argument to be made on behalf of open-sourced goods.

Others argue that society loses through open-sourced goods. Because there is a loss in monetary incentive to the creation of new goods some argue that new products will not be created. This argument seems to apply particularly well to the business model where extensive research and development is done, e.g. pharmaceuticals. However, this argument ignores the fact that cost reduction for all concerned is perhaps an even better monetary incentive than is a price increase. In addition, others argue that visual art and other works of authorship should be free. These proponents of extensive open-source ideals argue that monetary incentive for artists would perhaps better be derived from performances or exhibitions, in a similar fashion to the funding of provision of other types of services.

Case study[link]

An investigation of open-source industrial symbiosis was performed by Doyle and Pearce using Google Earth. Their paper^[16] found that virtual globes coupled with open-source waste information can be used to:

1. Reduce embodied energy of transport by reducing distances to recycling facilities
2. Choose end-of-life at recycling facilities rather than landfills
3. Establish industrial symbiosis and Eco-industrial parks on known by-product synergies

Ultimately, the open-source sharing of information in virtual globes provide a means to identify economically and environmentally beneficial opportunities for waste management if the data have been made available.

Applications[link]

Many fields of study and social and political views have been affected by the growth of the concept of open source. Advocates in one field often support the expansion of open source in other fields. For example, Linus Torvalds said, "the future is open source everything."^[17] But Eric Raymond and other founders of the open-source movement have sometimes publicly argued against speculation about applications outside software, saying that strong arguments for software openness should not be weakened by overreaching into areas where the story is less compelling. The broader impacts of the open-source movement, and the extent of its role in the development of new information sharing procedures, remain to be seen.

The open-source movement has inspired increased transparency and liberty in biotechnology research by CAMBIA,^[18] and in the book Democratizing Innovation.^[19] its argued that a trend toward democratized innovation in physical products is occurring like the free and open-source software movement. The difference between crowdsourcing and open source is that open-source production is a cooperative activity initiated and voluntarily undertaken by members of the public

Computer software[link]

Blender is an open source 3D graphics editor.

Ubuntu is a popular Linux-based open-source computer operating system.

Android, the most popular mobile operating system (as of 2012)^{[citation needed]}

Open-source software is software whose source code is published and made available to the public, enabling anyone to copy, modify and redistribute the source code without paying royalties or fees.^[20] Open source code can evolve through community cooperation. These communities are composed of individual programmers as well as very large companies. Many of these individuals programmers who start an open source project usually end up as large companies with open source programs.^{[citation needed]} Examples of open-source software products are:^[21]

Application software

• 7-Zip — file archiver
• Blender — 3D graphics editor
• Eclipse — development environment comprising an IDE
• GIMP — graphics editor
• Inkscape - Vector graphics editor for .svg
• Mozilla Firefox — web browser
• Chromium — web browser
• Mozilla Thunderbird — e-mail client
• NASA World Wind — virtual globe, geobrowser
• OpenOffice.org (and the LibreOffice fork) — office suite
• PrestaShop — Electronic commerce platform
• ADempiere — (now Free Software forked from Compiere) an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Open Source Software platform for business
• Vue - (Visual Understanding Environment) mind mapping software project of Tufts University

Operating systems

• Android — operating system derived from Linux
• FreeBSD — operating system derived from Unix
• Linux — family of Unix-like operating systems
• OpenIndiana — a free Unix-like operating system
• ReactOS — operating system built on Windows NT architecture
• Haiku — free and open source operating system compatible with BeOS

Programming languages

• Perl — a general purpose programming language
• PHP — scripting language suited for the web
• Python — general purpose programming language
• Ruby — general purpose programming language

Server software

• Apache — HTTP web server
• Drupal — content management system
• MediaWiki — wiki server software, the software that runs Wikipedia
• MongoDB — document-oriented, non-relational database
• Moodle — course management system or virtual learning environment
• WordPress — blog software
• TYPO3 — enterprise content management system

Electronics[link]

Open-source hardware is hardware whose initial specification, usually in a software format, are published and made available to the public, enabling anyone to copy, modify and redistribute the hardware and source code without paying royalties or fees. Open-source hardware evolves through community cooperation. These communities are composed of individual hardware/software developers, hobbyists, as well as very large companies. Examples of open-source hardware initiatives are:

• Openmoko: a family of open-source mobile phones, including the hardware specification and the operating system.
• OpenRISC: an open-source microprocessor family, with architecture specification licensed under GNU GPL and implementation under LGPL.
• Sun Microsystems's OpenSPARC T1 Multicore processor. Sun has released it under GPL.^[22]
• Arduino, a microcontroller platform for hobbyists, artists and designers.^[23]
• Simputer, an open hardware handheld computer, designed in India for use in environments where computing devices such as personal computers are deemed inappropriate.^[24]
• LEON: A family of open-source microprocessors distributed in a library with peripheral IP cores, open SPARC V8 specification, implementation available under GNU GPL.
• Open Compute Project: designs for computer data center including power supply, Intel motherboard, AMD motherboard, chassis, racks, battery cabinet, and aspects of electrical and mechanical design.^[25]

Beverages[link]

OpenCola, is a open source cola.

• OpenCola — a cola soft drink, similar to Coca-Cola and Pepsi, whose recipe is open source and developed by volunteers. The taste is said to be comparable to that of the standard beverages. Most corporations producing beverages hold their formulas as closely guarded secrets.^[26]
• Vores Øl beer (Open Source Beer) — a beer created by students at the IT-University in Copenhagen together with Superflex, a Copenhagen-based artist collective, to illustrate how open-source concepts might be applied outside the digital world.^[27][28][29]
• In 2002, the beer company Brewtopia in Australia started an open-source brewery and invited the general population to be involved in the development and ownership of the brewery, and to vote on the development of every aspect of its beer, Blowfly, and its road to market. In return for their feedback and input, individuals received shares in the company, which is now publicly traded on a stock exchange in Australia. The company has always adhered to its open-source roots and is the only beer company in the world that allows the public to design, customise and develop its own beers online.^[30]
• Coffee: capsule-based beverage systems such as Nestle's Nespresso or Krups' Tassimo turn home-brewed coffee from an inherently "open-source" beverage into a product limited by the specific range of capsules made available by the system manufacturers.^[31]

Digital content[link]

• Open-content projects organized by the Wikimedia Foundation — Sites such as Wikipedia and Wiktionary have embraced the open-content GFDL and Creative Commons content licenses. These licenses were designed to adhere to principles similar to various open-source software development licenses. Many of these licenses ensure that content remains free for re-use, that source documents are made readily available to interested parties, and that changes to content are accepted easily back into the system. An important site embracing open-source-like ideals is Project Gutenberg,^[32] which posts many books on which the copyright has expired and are thus in the public domain, ensuring that anyone can use that content for any purpose whatsoever.

Health and science[link]

Medicine[link]

• Pharmaceuticals — There have been several proposals for open-source pharmaceutical development,^[33][34] which led to the establishment of the Tropical Disease Initiative. There are also a number of not-for-profit "virtual pharmas" such as the Institute for One World Health and the Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative.
• Genomics — The term "open-source genomics" was coined to describe the combination of rapid release of sequence data (especially raw reads) and crowdsourced analyses from bioinformaticians around the world that characterised the analysis of the 2011 E. coli O104:H4 outbreak.^[35]

Science[link]

• Research — The Science Commons was created as an alternative to the expensive legal costs of sharing and reusing scientific works in journals etc.^[36]
• Research — The Open Source Science Project was created to increase the ability for students to participate in the research process by providing them access to microfunding — which, in turn, offers non-researchers the opportunity to directly invest, and follow, cutting-edge scientific research. All data and methodology is subsequently published in an openly accessible manner under a Creative Commons fair use license.
• Research — The Open Solar Outdoors Test Field (OSOTF)^[37] is a grid-connected photovoltaic test system, which continuously monitors the output of a number of photovoltaic modules and correlates their performance to a long list of highly accurate meteorological readings. The OSOTF is organized under open source principles -- All data and analysis is be made freely available to the entire photovoltaic community and the general public.^{[citation needed]}

Robotics[link]

An open-source robot is a robot whose blueprints, schematics, and/or source code are released under an open-source model.

Other[link]

VIA OpenBook, is an open-source hardware laptop reference design.

• Open-source principles can be applied to technical areas such as digital communication protocols and data storage formats.
• Open design — which involves applying open-source methodologies to the design of artifacts and systems in the physical world. Very nascent but has huge potential.^[38]
• Open-source-appropriate technology (OSAT) refers to technologies that are designed in the same fashion as free and open-source software.^[39] These technologies must be “appropriate technology” (AT) — meaning technology that is designed with special consideration to the environmental, ethical, cultural, social, political, and economic aspects of the community it is intended for. An example of this application is the use of open-source 3D printers like the RepRap to manufacture appropriate technology.^[40]
• Teaching — which involves applying the concepts of open source to instruction using a shared web space as a platform to improve upon learning, organizational, and management challenges. An example of an Open-source courseware is the Java Education & Development Initiative (JEDI).^[41] Other examples include wikiversity. At the university level, the use of open-source-appropriate technology classroom projects has been shown to be successful in forging the connection between science/engineering and social benefit:^[42] This approach has the potential to use university students’ access to resources and testing equipment in furthering the development of appropriate technology. Similarly OSAT has been used as a tool for improving service learning.^[43][44]
• There are few examples of business information (methodologies, advice, guidance, practices) using the open-source model, although this is another case where the potential is enormous. ITIL is close to open source. It uses the Cathedral model (no mechanism exists for user contribution) and the content must be bought for a fee that is small by business consulting standards (hundreds of British pounds). Various checklists are published by government, banks or accounting firms.

Society and culture[link]

This article may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. More details may be available on the talk page. (May 2012)

Open-source culture is the creative practice of appropriation and free sharing of found and created content. Examples include collage, found footage film, music, and appropriation art. Open-source culture is one in which fixations, works entitled to copyright protection, are made generally available. Participants in the culture can modify those products and redistribute them back into the community or other organizations.

The rise of open-source culture in the 20th century resulted from a growing tension between creative practices that involve appropriation, and therefore require access to content that is often copyrighted, and increasingly restrictive intellectual property laws and policies governing access to copyrighted content. The two main ways in which intellectual property laws became more restrictive in the 20th century were extensions to the term of copyright (particularly in the United States) and penalties, such as those articulated in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), placed on attempts to circumvent anti-piracy technologies.^[45]

Although artistic appropriation is often permitted under fair-use doctrines, the complexity and ambiguity of these doctrines creates an atmosphere of uncertainty among cultural practitioners. Also, the protective actions of copyright owners create what some call a "chilling effect" among cultural practitioners.^[46]

In the late 20th century, cultural practitioners began to adopt the intellectual property licensing techniques of free software and open-source software to make their work more freely available to others, including the Creative Commons.

The idea of an "open-source" culture runs parallel to "Free Culture," but is substantively different. Free culture is a term derived from the free software movement, and in contrast to that vision of culture, proponents of open-source culture (OSC) maintain that some intellectual property law needs to exist to protect cultural producers. Yet they propose a more nuanced position than corporations have traditionally sought. Instead of seeing intellectual property law as an expression of instrumental rules intended to uphold either natural rights or desirable outcomes, an argument for OSC takes into account diverse goods (as in "the Good life") and ends.

One way of achieving the goal of making the fixations of cultural work generally available is to maximally utilize technology and digital media. In keeping with Moore's law's prediction about processors, the cost of digital media and storage plummeted in the late 20th Century. Consequently, the marginal cost of digitally duplicating anything capable of being transmitted via digital media dropped to near zero. Combined with an explosive growth in personal computer and technology ownership, the result is an increase in general population's access to digital media. This phenomenon facilitated growth in open-source culture because it allowed for rapid and inexpensive duplication and distribution of culture. Where the access to the majority of culture produced prior to the advent of digital media was limited by other constraints of proprietary and potentially "open" mediums, digital media is the latest technology with the potential to increase access to cultural products. Artists and users who choose to distribute their work digitally face none of the physical limitations that traditional cultural producers have been typically faced with. Accordingly, the audience of an open-source culture faces little physical cost in acquiring digital media.

Open-source culture precedes Richard Stallman's codification of free software with the creation of the Free Software movement. As the public began to communicate through Bulletin Board Systems (BBS) like FidoNet, places like Sourcery Systems BBS were dedicated to providing source code to Public Domain, Shareware and Freeware programs.^{[citation needed]}

Essentially born out of a desire for increased general access to digital media, the Internet is open-source culture's most valuable asset. It is questionable whether the goals of an open-source culture could be achieved without the Internet. The global network not only fosters an environment where culture can be generally accessible, but also allows for easy and inexpensive redistribution of culture back into various communities. Some reasons for this are as follows.

First, the Internet allows even greater access to inexpensive digital media and storage. Instead of users being limited to their own facilities and resources, they are granted access to a vast network of facilities and resources, some free. Sites such as ccMixter offer up free web space for anyone willing to license their work under a Creative Commons license. The resulting cultural product is then available to download free (generally accessible) to anyone with an Internet connection.^[47]

Second, users are granted unprecedented access to each other. Older analog technologies such as the telephone or television have limitations on the kind of interaction users can have. In the case of television there is little, if any interaction between users participating on the network. And in the case of the telephone, users rarely interact with any more than a couple of their known peers. On the Internet, however, users have the potential to access and meet millions of their peers. This aspect of the Internet facilitates the modification of culture as users are able to collaborate and communicate with each other across international and cultural boundaries. The speed in which digital media travels on the Internet in turn facilitates the redistribution of culture.

Through various technologies such as peer-to-peer networks and blogs, cultural producers can take advantage of vast social networks to distribute their products. As opposed to traditional media distribution, redistributing digital media on the Internet can be virtually costless. Technologies such as BitTorrent and Gnutella take advantage of various characteristics of the Internet protocol (TCP/IP) in an attempt to totally decentralize file distribution.

Government[link]

• Open politics (sometimes known as Open-source politics) is a term used to describe a political process that uses Internet technologies such as blogs, email and polling to provide for a rapid feedback mechanism between political organizations and their supporters. There is also an alternative conception of the term Open-source politics which relates to the development of public policy under a set of rules and processes similar to the open-source software movement.
• Open-source governance is similar to open-source politics, but it applies more to the democratic process and promotes the freedom of information.

Ethics[link]

Open-source ethics is split into two strands:

• Open-source ethics as an ethical school — Charles Ess and David Berry are researching whether ethics can learn anything from an open-source approach. Ess famously even defined the AoIR Research Guidelines as an example of open-source ethics.^[48]
• Open-source ethics as a professional body of rules — This is based principally on the computer ethics school, studying the questions of ethics and professionalism in the computer industry in general and software development in particular.^[49]

Media[link]

Open-source journalism, referred to the standard journalistic techniques of news gathering and fact checking, and reflected a similar term that was in use from 1992 in military intelligence circles, open-source intelligence. It is now commonly used to describe forms of innovative publishing of online journalism, rather than the sourcing of news stories by a professional journalist. In the December 25, 2006 issue of TIME magazine this is referred to as user created content and listed alongside more traditional open-source projects such as OpenSolaris and Linux.

Weblogs, or blogs, are another significant platform for open-source culture. Blogs consist of periodic, reverse chronologically ordered posts, using a technology that makes webpages easily updatable with no understanding of design, code, or file transfer required. While corporations, political campaigns and other formal institutions have begun using these tools to distribute information, many blogs are used by individuals for personal expression, political organizing, and socializing. Some, such as LiveJournal or WordPress, utilize open-source software that is open to the public and can be modified by users to fit their own tastes. Whether the code is open or not, this format represents a nimble tool for people to borrow and re-present culture; whereas traditional websites made the illegal reproduction of culture difficult to regulate, the mutability of blogs makes "open sourcing" even more uncontrollable since it allows a larger portion of the population to replicate material more quickly in the public sphere.

Messageboards are another platform for open-source culture. Messageboards (also known as discussion boards or forums), are places online where people with similar interests can congregate and post messages for the community to read and respond to. Messageboards sometimes have moderators who enforce community standards of etiquette such as banning users who are spammers. Other common board features are private messages (where users can send messages to one another) as well as chat (a way to have a real time conversation online) and image uploading. Some messageboards use phpBB, which is a free open-source package. Where blogs are more about individual expression and tend to revolve around their authors, messageboards are about creating a conversation amongst its users where information can be shared freely and quickly. Messageboards are a way to remove intermediaries from everyday life — for instance, instead of relying on commercials and other forms of advertising, one can ask other users for frank reviews of a product, movie or CD. By removing the cultural middlemen, messageboards help speed the flow of information and exchange of ideas.

OpenDocument is an open document file format for saving and exchanging editable office documents such as text documents (including memos, reports, and books), spreadsheets, charts, and presentations. Organizations and individuals that store their data in an open format such as OpenDocument avoid being locked into a single software vendor, leaving them free to switch software if their current vendor goes out of business, raises their prices, changes their software, or changes their licensing terms to something less favorable.

Open-source movie production is either an open call system in which a changing crew and cast collaborate in movie production, a system in which the end result is made available for re-use by others or in which exclusively open-source products are used in the production. The 2006 movie Elephants Dream is said to be the "world's first open movie",^[50] created entirely using open-source technology.

An open-source documentary film has a production process allowing the open contributions of archival material, footage, and other filmic elements, both in unedited and edited form. By doing so, on-line contributors become part of the process of creating the film, helping to influence the editorial and visual material to be used in the documentary, as well as its thematic development. The first open-source documentary film is the non-profit "The American Revolution," which went into production in 2005, and will examine the role media played in the cultural, social and political changes from 1968 to 1974 through the story of radio station WBCN-FM in Boston.^{[51][52][53][54]} The film is being produced by Lichtenstein Creative Media and the non-profit Filmmakers Collaborative. Open Source Cinema is a website to create Basement Tapes, a feature documentary about copyright in the digital age, co-produced by the National Film Board of Canada. Open-source film-making refers to a form of film-making that takes a method of idea formation from open-source software, but in this case the 'source' for a film-maker is raw unedited footage rather than programming code. It can also refer to a method of film-making where the process of creation is 'open' i.e. a disparate group of contributors, at different times contribute to the final piece.

Open-IPTV is IPTV that is not limited to one recording studio, production studio, or cast. Open-IPTV uses the Internet or other means to pool efforts and resources together to create an online community that all contributes to a show.

Education[link]

Within the academic community, there is discussion about expanding what could be called the "intellectual commons" (analogous to the Creative Commons). Proponents of this view have hailed the Connexions Project at Rice University, OpenCourseWare project at MIT, Eugene Thacker's article on "open-source DNA", the "Open Source Cultural Database", Salman Khan's Khan Academy and Wikipedia as examples of applying open source outside the realm of computer software.

Open-source curricula are instructional resources whose digital source can be freely used, distributed and modified.

Another strand to the academic community is in the area of research. Many funded research projects produce software as part of their work. There is an increasing interest in making the outputs of such projects available under an open-source license. In the UK the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) has developed a policy on open source software. JISC also funds a development service called OSS Watch which acts as an advisory service for higher and further education institutions wishing to use, contribute to and develop open source software.

Innovation communities[link]

The principle of sharing pre-dates the open-source movement; for example, the free sharing of information has been institutionalized in the scientific enterprise since at least the 19th century. Open-source principles have always been part of the scientific community. The sociologist Robert K. Merton described the four basic elements of the community — universalism (an international perspective), communalism (sharing information), disinterestedness (removing one's personal views from the scientific inquiry) and organized skepticism (requirements of proof and review) that accurately describe the scientific community today. These principles are, in part, complemented by US law's focus on protecting expression and method but not the ideas themselves. There is also a tradition of publishing research results to the scientific community instead of keeping all such knowledge proprietary. One of the recent initiatives in scientific publishing has been open access — the idea that research should be published in such a way that it is free and available to the public. There are currently many open access journals where the information is available free online, however most journals do charge a fee (either to users or libraries for access). The Budapest Open Access Initiative is an international effort with the goal of making all research articles available free on the Internet. The National Institutes of Health has recently proposed a policy on "Enhanced Public Access to NIH Research Information." This policy would provide a free, searchable resource of NIH-funded results to the public and with other international repositories six months after its initial publication. The NIH's move is an important one because there is significant amount of public funding in scientific research. Many of the questions have yet to be answered — the balancing of profit vs. public access, and ensuring that desirable standards and incentives do not diminish with a shift to open access.

Farmavita.Net is a community of pharmaceuticals executives that has recently proposed a new business model of open-source pharmaceuticals.^[55] The project is targeted to development and sharing of know-how for manufacture of essential and life-saving medicines. It is mainly dedicated to the countries with less developed economies where local pharmaceutical research and development resources are insufficient for national needs. It will be limited to generic (off-patent) medicines with established use. By the definition, medicinal product have a “well-established use” if is used for at least 15 years, with recognized efficacy and an acceptable level of safety. In that event, the expensive clinical test and trial results could be replaced by appropriate scientific literature.

Benjamin Franklin was an early contributor eventually donating all his inventions including the Franklin stove, bifocals, and the lightning rod to the public domain.

New NGO communities are starting to use the open-source technology as a tool. One example is the Open Source Youth Network started in 2007 in Lisboa by ISCA members.^[56]

Open innovation is also a new emerging concept which advocate putting R&D in a common pool. The Eclipse platform is openly presenting itself as an Open innovation network.^[57]

Arts and recreation[link]

Copyright protection is used in the performing arts and even in athletic activities. Some groups have attempted to remove copyright from such practices.^[58]

See also[link]

Free software portal

References[link]

Further reading[link]

• David M. Berry (2008). Copy, Rip, Burn: The Politics of Copyleft and Open Source. London:Pluto Press. http://www.amazon.com/Copy-Rip-Burn-Politics-Source/dp/0745324142. 
• Karl Fogel. Producing Open Source Software (How to run a successful free-software project). Free PDF version available.
• Ron Goldman and Richard P. Gabriel (2005). Innovation Happens Elsewhere. Richard P. Gabriel. ISBN 1-55860-889-3. http://dreamsongs.com./IHE/IHE.html. 
• Isaac Hunter Dunlap (2006). Open Source Database Driven Web Development. Oxford: Chandos. ISBN 1-84334-161-1. http://www.chandospublishing.com/chandos_publishing_record_detail.php?ID=98. 
• Nettingsmeier, Jörn. “So What? I Don’t Hack!” eContact! 11.3 — Logiciels audio « open source » / Open Source for Audio Application (September 2009). Montréal: CEC.
• Richard M. Stallman. Free Software Free Society. http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society. 
• Various authors. eContact! 11.3 — Logiciels audio « open source » / Open Source for Audio Application (September 2009). Montréal: CEC.
• Various authors. "Open Source Travel Guide [wiki]." eContact! 11.3 — Logiciels audio « open source » / Open Source for Audio Application (September 2009). Montréal: CEC.
• Steven Weber (2005). The Success of Open Source. Harvard: Harvard University Press. http://www.amazon.com/Success-Open-Source-Steven-Weber/dp/0674018583/ref=ed_oe_p. 

Literature on legal and economic aspects[link]

• Benkler, Y. (December 2002). "Coase's Penguin, or, Linux and The Nature of the Firm" (PDF). Yale Law Journal 112 (3): 367(78). http://www.benkler.org/CoasesPenguin.PDF. 
• Berry, D. M. & Moss, G. (2008). Libre Culture: Meditations on Free Culture. Canada: Pygmalion Books. (in Adobe PDF format)
• Bitzer, J. & Schröder, P. J.H. (2005): "The Impact of Entry and Competition by Open Source Software on Innovation Activity", Industrial Organization 0512001, EconWPA. (in Adobe Systems PDF format)
• v. Engelhardt, S. (2008): "The Economic Properties of Software", Jena Economic Research Papers, Volume 2 (2008), Number 2008-045. (in Adobe PDF format)
• v. Engelhardt, S. (2008): "Intellectual Property Rights and Ex-Post Transaction Costs: the Case of Open and Closed Source Software", Jena Economic Research Papers 2008-047. (in Adobe PDF format)
• v. Engelhardt, S. & Swaminathan, S. (2008): "Open Source Software, Closed Source Software or Both: Impacts on Industry Growth and the Role of Intellectual Property Rights", Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 799. (in Adobe Systems PDF format)
• European Commission. (2006). Economic impact of open source software on innovation and the competitiveness of the Information and Communication Technologies sector in the EU. Brussels.
• Feller, J., Fitzgerald, B. & Hissam, S. A. (eds.), (2005): Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software, MIT Press.
• v. Hippel, E.; v. Krogh, G. (2003). "Open source software and the "private-collective" innovation model: Issues for organization science". Organization Science 14 (2): 209–223. DOI:10.1287/orsc.14.2.209.14992. 
• Lerner J., Pathak P. A., Tirole, J. (2006). "The Dynamics of Open Source Contributors". American Economic Review 96 (2): 114–8. DOI:10.1257/000282806777211874. http://econ-www.mit.edu/files/3023. 
• Lerner, J., Tirole, J. (2002). "Some simple economics on open source". Journal of Industrial Economics 50 (2): 197–234.  earlier revision (PDF)
• Lerner, J.; Tirole, J. (2005). "The Scope of Open Source Licensing". The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 21: 20–56. DOI:10.1093/jleo/ewi002. 
• Lerner, J.; Tirole, J. (2005). "The Economics of Technology Sharing: Open Source and Beyond". Journal of Economic Perspectives 19 (2): 99–120. DOI:10.1257/0895330054048678. 
• Maurer, S.M. (2008). "Open source biology: Finding a niche (or maybe several)" (PDF). UMKC Law Review 76 (2). http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1114371. 
• Osterloh, M.; Rota, S. (2007). "Open source software development—Just another case of collective invention?". Research Policy 36 (2): 157–171. DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2006.10.004.  earlier revision (PDF)
• Riehle, D. (April 2007). "The Economic Motivation of Open Source: Stakeholder Perspectives". IEEE Computer 40 (4): 25–32. http://www.riehle.org/computer-science/research/2007/computer-2007-article.html. 
• Rossi, M. A. (2006): Decoding the free/open source software puzzle: A survey of theoretical and empirical contributions, in J. Bitzer P. Schröder, eds, ‘The Economics of Open Source Software Development’, p 15–55. (download an online version) (in Adobe PDF format)
• Schiff, A. (2002). "The Economics of Open Source Software: A Survey of the Early Literature" (PDF). Review of Network Economics 1 (1): 66–74. http://www.rnejournal.com/articles/schiff_software_mar02.pdf. 
• Schwarz, M.; Takhteyev, Y. (2010). "Half a Century of Public Software Institutions: Open Source as a Solution to the Hold-Up Problem". Journal of Public Economic Theory 12 (4): 609–639. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9779.2010.01467.x.  earlier revision
• Spagnoletti P., Federici T. (2011). Exploring the Interplay Between FLOSS Adoption and Organizational Innovation, Communications of the Association for Information Systems (CAIS), Vol. 29, Art. 15, pp. 279–298
• Abramson, Bruce (2005). Digital Phoenix; Why the Information Economy Collapsed and How it Will Rise Again. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-51196-4. 
• K.S.Sampathkumar. Understanding FOSS Version 3.0i revised. K.S.Sampathkumar. GGKEY:AH67T8G68QJ. http://books.google.com/books?id=kJvnYQj3YWIC. Retrieved 25 July 2011. 

External links[link]

Wikibooks has a book on the topic of Open Source

Look up open source in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

• The Changelog, a podcast and blog that covers what's fresh and new in Open Source (essentially covering "the changelog" of open source projects)
• An open-source shot in the arm? The Economist, Jun 10th 2004,
• SVForum Distinguished Speaker talks on Open Source Software by Guido van Rossum, Howard Rheingold, and Bruce Perens, 2005.
• SVForum Global Open Source, March 24, 2008
• Calendar of Open Source Events and Conferences World Wide
• Google-O'Reilly Open Source Awards
• QualiPSo European Initiative
• International Institute for Software Technology / United Nations University
• UNU/IIST Open Source Software Certification
• Calls for open source government
• Open Source Open World — Open Standards Throughout the Globe
• How to Contribute to Open Source Without Coding
• Spanish National Open Source Software Observatory

Clay Shirky
Clay Shirky at the 2006 O'Reilly Emerging Technology Conference
Born	1964 (age 47–48) Columbia, Missouri
Occupation	Writer, consultant, lecturer[1]
Known for	Writing

Clay Shirky (born 1964^[2]) is an American writer, consultant and teacher on the social and economic effects of Internet technologies. He has a joint appointment at New York University (NYU) as a Distinguished Writer in Residence at the Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute and Assistant Arts Professor in the New Media focused graduate Interactive Telecommunications Program (ITP).^[3] His courses address, among other things, the interrelated effects of the topology of social networks and technological networks, how our networks shape culture and vice-versa.^[4]

He has written and been interviewed extensively about the Internet since 1996. His columns and writings have appeared in Business 2.0, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Harvard Business Review and Wired.

Shirky divides his time between consulting, teaching, and writing on the social and economic effects of Internet technologies. His consulting practice is focused on the rise of decentralized technologies such as peer-to-peer, web services, and wireless networks that provide alternatives to the wired client–server infrastructure that characterizes the World Wide Web. He is a member of the Wikimedia Foundation's Advisory Board.

In The Long Tail, Chris Anderson calls Shirky "a prominent thinker on the social and economic effects of Internet technologies."^[5]

Education and career[link]

Photograph of Shirky taken by Creative Commons chairman and MIT Media Laboratory director Joi Ito.

After graduating from Yale University with a Bachelor of Arts degree in fine art in 1986, he moved to New York.^[6] In the 1990s he founded the Hard Place Theater, a theatre company that produced non-fiction theater using only found materials such as government documents, transcripts and cultural records.^[6] and also worked as a lighting designer for other theater and dance companies, including the Wooster Group, Elevator Repair Service and Dana Reitz.^[7] During this time, Shirky was vice-president of the New York chapter of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and wrote technology guides for Ziff Davis. He appeared as an expert witness on cyberculture in Shea v. Reno, a case cited in the U. S. Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Communications Decency Act in 1996.

Shirky was the first Professor of New Media in the Media Studies department at Hunter College, where he was key in developing the MFA in Integrated Media Arts program.

In the fall of 2010, Shirky was as a visiting Morrow Lecturer at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government^[8] instructing a course titled: "New Media and Public Action".^[9]

Views[link]

In his book Here Comes Everybody Shirky explains how he has long spoken in favor of crowdsourcing and collaborative efforts online. He uses the phrase "the Internet runs on love" to describe the nature of such collaborations.^[10] In the book, he discusses the ways in which the action of a group adds up to something more than just aggregated individual action.

He points to four key steps. The first is sharing, a sort of “me-first collaboration” in which the social effects are aggregated after the fact; people share links, URLs, tags, and eventually come together around a type. This type of sharing is a reverse of the so-called old order of sharing, where participants congregate first and then share (examples include Flickr, and Delicious). The second is conversation, that is, the synchronization of people with each other and the coming together to learn more about something and to get better at it. The third is collaboration, in which a group forms under the purpose of some common effort. It requires a division of labor, and teamwork. It can often be characterized by people wanting to fix a market failure, and is motivated by increasing accessibility.

The fourth and final step is collective action, which Shirky says is “mainly still in the future.” The key point about collective action is that the fate of the group as a whole becomes important. In a presentation called "Gin, Television, and Social Surplus",^[11] Shirky popularized the concept of cognitive surplus, the time freed from watching television which can be enormously productive when applied to other social endeavors. He also notes that we are experiencing an era where people like to produce and share just as much, if not more than they like to consume. Since technology has made the producing and sharing possible, he argues that we will see a new era of participation that will lead to big change. In 2010 Shirky published Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age.

Shirky has also written about "algorithmic authority," which describes the process through which unverified information is vetted for its trustworthiness through multiple sources.^{[12] [13]}

The Shirky Principle[link]

In April 2010, Kevin Kelly cited the phrase "Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution," and called it the "Shirky Principle", as the phrasing reminded him of the clarity of the Peter Principle.^[14][15][16]

Response to Evgeny Morozov[link]

In March 2011, Shirky responded to questions raised by Evgeny Morozov about consulting he had done for the Libyan government. Shirky explained that he had been invited in 2007 to speak in Boston to Libya's IT Minister.^[17] Shirky stated that the talk was "about using social software to improve citizen engagement in coastal towns. The idea was that those cities would be more economically successful if local policies related to the tourist trade were designed by the locals themselves." Shirky added that nothing came of the project beyond his initial talk. He defended his underlying desire to expand representative government in Libya and concluded that "the best reason to believe that social media can aid citizens in their struggle to make government more responsive is that both citizens and governments believe that."

Bibliography[link]

• The Internet by E-Mail (1994) - ISBN 1-56276-240-0
• Voices from the Net (1995) - ISBN 1-56276-303-2
• P2P Networking Overview (2001) - ISBN 0-596-00185-1
• Planning for Web Services: Obstacles and Opportunities (2003) - ISBN 0-596-00364-1
• Selected Articles in The Best Software Writing I, Joel Spolsky ed. (2005) - ISBN 1-59059-500-9
  • A Group is its Own Worst Enemy by Clay Shirky
  • Group as User: Flaming and the Design of Social Software by Clay Shirky
• Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations (2008) - ISBN 978-1-59420-153-0
• Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age (2010) - ISBN 978-1-59420-253-7

See also[link]

• Collective action

Footnotes[link]

References[link]

• Shirky, Clay (2003). "Power Laws, Weblogs, and Inequality". Writings About the Internet. http://shirky.com/writings/powerlaw_weblog.html. Retrieved 2006-02-16. 
• MacLeod, Hugh (2006). "Shirky's Law: "Equality. Fairness. Opportunity. Pick Two."". gapingvoid. http://www.gapingvoid.com/Moveable_Type/archives/002238.html. Retrieved 2006-02-16. 
• Clay Shirky's Bio
• Gillette, Felix (2010-06-08). "Feats of Clay". The New York Observer. http://www.observer.com/2010/media/feats-clay. Retrieved 2010-06-09. 

External links[link]

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Clay Shirky

• Clay Shirky's homepage
• Clay Shirky on Twitter
• Clay Shirky’s writings on the O'Reilly Network
• Profile and videos at TED.com
• Profile and talks at Fora.tv
• Socially Intelligent Computing A Dialogue with Daniel Goleman
• Ontology is Overrated: Links, Tags, and Post-hoc Metadata - a presentation (mp3) from the O'Reilly Emerging Technology Conference held in San Diego, California, March 14–17, 2005.
• Futures of the Internet (Flash,mp4,RealVideo,3gp,mp3). Internet Society - NY Chapter. 2008-04-16. http://www.isoc-ny.org/?p=214. Retrieved 2008-04-27.  - Colloquium @ NYU.
• Clay Shirky at Web 2.0 Expo SF 2008
• "It's Not Information Overload. It's Filter Failure." Video, Clay Shirky at Web 2.0 Expo NY, Sept. 16-19, 2008.
• Video (and audio) of interview/discussion with Clay Shirky by Will Wilkinson on Bloggingheads.tv
• Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom A talk about journalism and pay walls.

Tim O'Reilly
Tim O'Reilly at the PayPal X Innovate in 2009.
Born	(1954-06-06) June 6, 1954 (age 58) Cork, Ireland
Alma mater	Harvard College
Occupation	Founder and CEO, O'Reilly Media
Website
tim.oreilly.com

Tim O'Reilly (born June 6, 1954) is the founder of O'Reilly Media (formerly O'Reilly & Associates) and a supporter of the free software and open source movements.^[1]