Open Source Software

(KT) Chapter X in Future Imperfect argues that open source software has developed its own community to deal with property rights. For example, it cites that if someone substitutes their name into an open source project of which they didn't author, their name is "mud" in the open source community. Knowing the private mechanisms that the open source community uses to entail quality control and honesty, is the best arena for solving disputes within the open source community the traditional legal system or one based solely around the community itself? For example, if there is modification and credit taken for a code unfairly, are private mechanisms effective enough to adequately deter such bad behavior? Or would there be a need for injunctions and traditional legal remedies? Does cyberspace "scorn" serve as an effective barrier to distributing modified versions of open source software in place of the "owner" of the software project?

(KT) The open source community operates on a cash-free basis -- most of the software that is offered is done so for free (ex: Firefox, Linux). Imagine a situation in which open source software code is negligently distributed around the net -- that is, the open source software used ends up doing irreparable damage to its hosts computers by deleting files or stealing private information from its users and sending it back to a central server. Seeing as the users of open source software go far beyond the limits of amateur programmers and coders, it is possible that people would run open source software without knowing what the code is doing in the background. Does the fact that no money changes hands mean that there is no liability for such damage? Could the traditional "assumption of risk" doctrine provide a valid defense to such claims ( i.e., "you could have easily looked at the source code and seen that it was doing this, and your failure to do so is not my fault")?

(KT) Following off of the above question, imagine open source software ends up damaging your computer. Who should be liable for that damage? The person who released the first version of the software, or the person who made the actual change to the software that resulted in the damage?

(KT) Could an "open source" approach to lawmaking be effective, or does the concept of "open source" only apply effectively to cyberspace (non-real world) software? Do we already effectively have an open source lawmaking community when we look at law review articles, rules committees, etc? Does the fact that many of the people involed in such open source aspects of lawmaking are getting paid for their work mean that perhaps the open source comparison is not as accurate or effective because "It may be that commissioned work will, in general, be less creative than work that is done out of pure interest?"

(KT) Does the open source software movement spell doom for commercial software developers? Or, put differently, is the community of open source software contributors large enough that it could effectively outpace and outproduce current software makers? Are certain software genres ( i.e., business applications like OpenOffice or web browsers like Firefox) more compatible with the open source movement than others (say, computer RPG games?)

Legal Research for this year.