Apr 08

Open Source Software

The establishment of the Internet has altered the way people go about their day. In reading Steven Weber’s “Political Economy of Open Source Software” he describes the economy of open source software and how it affects our current society. Weber describes that Open source software as three essential features. He states, “Open source allows free re-distribution of the software without royalties or licensing fees. The source code made available for no more than the cost of distribution. It allows anyone to modify the software and redistribute the modified software under the same term”. In grasping this information open source allows your brand to be modified by the open public. The product could be re-distributed legally and made available at a standard price.

Weber describes most writing and analysis as a job that is mostly done by computer hackers who are apart of another open source project. He characterizes the open source model as a methodology for research, binds a group of people to create a common good, replace production structures, and political movements. To me open source is a collaborative system where everyone works together to help society. Open source software is accessible to the public and creates greater equity between the producer and consumer according to Weber.

Steven Weber presents the company Linux as an example of an open source project which includes thousands developers who work from all around the world without direct pay or compensation. He states that Linux has attracted the most attention because of their technical competitive success. In reading this article I got this idea that the main mandate is to create to improve society rather then create an economic system to make a profit.

Apr 08

Open Source Media

There are two types of forms of media. Open source and closed source form of media. The difference being that one gives the public the freedom to alter a softwares original code and essentially add or remove features to the software and the other being that no one can alter the code at all. Allowing something to be open source allows creative expression and even creates a community around the original software that is constantly being altered and updated. A prime example of this would be Wikipedia which is a ever growing online encyclopedia that gets information added onto itself everyday by a multitude of people, but there is a staff that is working at Wikipedia that has to fact check a lot of the information added to the site. That is the beauty of open source, it creates this sense of hey if I don’t like this specific thing I’ll just change it and make it better. In “The Political Economy of Open Source Software”  it talks about the three essential things about open source media.

  1.  That it allows free re-distribution. There is no charge for royalties or licensing fees to the author.
  2. It requires that source code be distributed with the software or otherwise made available for no more than the cost of distribution
  3. · It allows anyone to modify the software or derive other software from it, and to redistribute the modified software under the same terms.

These three essential things is what makes open source possible because of these three rules this allows project to be carried out by hundreds of developers that can work from around the world with out any real direct pay for their contributions to the software. Now since anyone can just copy and alter your work with open source it makes it difficult for someone to actually make a profit off their own software. Close source media allows people to live off and claim their creation as their own. Microsoft is an example of a closed source media that has strived over the years. In the future we may be heading down the path of more and more open source media but we’ll see when that happens the effects it will have on the economy.

Apr 08

Open Source Media

Open Source software could be a good thing, number 1 it’s free so you don’t have to pay for it. I know that this example wasn’t brought up but I think this could be great when it comes to “Sneaker Bots” If people could collaborate on how to make a sneaker bot better and when I say “better” I’m not just talking about the aspect of securing your sneaker purchase in your cart and not worrying about it not being there when all of the web traffic to that site dies down. I do like the fact that Open Source Media is a collaborative effort and it also gives “rogue developers” the ability to create and make better instead of waiting on a large corporation like Microsoft or Apple to present us with a program that could be flawed but can only be updated solely through them. Now the bad thing about this is (And I thought about this before even reading this article) ANYBODY can alter this code or whatever. That can really mess sh*t up.

I don’t think products such as beverages should ever be opened source. I mean I remember I heard Mountain Dew had crazy flavors like “Doritos” and all that type of stuff but that was by the corporation. Imagine if you let people tamper with the ingredient here and there, that could be very dangerous. Open Source software’s downfall is that it can’t be monetized so I guess that it’s more about the love of the game over being able to lay fame to creating the latest and greatest soft ware. If I was into cpu’s and all that stuff I believe that would deter me from being involved with the whole Open Source thing because of my drive for money and I believe that there are people out there that are cpu inclined that think the same way.

 

 

Apr 08

Open Source

 

“Open-source software (OSS) is computer software with its source code made available with a license in which the copyright holder provides the rights to study, change, and distribute the software to anyone and for any purpose. Open-source software may be developed in a collaborative public manner.” (Google)

Open source media may have an effect the way people approach content. For example, many say that Wikipedia isn’t a trustworthy site but it’s not like someone can literally just write anything they want on any Wikipedia content. Certain people are moderators of Wikipedia and anything you might want to change and/or add have to be approved by the moderators. With more contributions to a specific topic it helps out when trying to analyse that topic. You got more perspective towards that topic. It’s almost like a group project, but in this scenario you might not necessarily know the people that are contributing to the same topic as you.

I believe Open Source is a viable business model and can definitely be used more often for future business projects. It’s a great type of source to use wherever, whenever. With the use of Open Sources I feel like some people don’t trust certain content and rather not use that source to find their information. But I feel as if some people don’t know that there are moderators that have to approve content before it goes up on a website.

Apr 08

Class Activity (open source)

 

Our group will need about 30 min to present to the class

For our class activity, we decided to divide the class into 2 teams. The teams would both have to come up with a new flavor for V8 Splash. For Team 1, we would pick who the boss would be over the group. The boss would be the only one who gets to delegate and he will sit back and oversee the group without giving any input. For Team 2, there would be no boss, only ideas from everyone. All of their input is considered.
Team 1: Come up with a new flavor using old ways. (Closed Source)
Team 2: Come up with a new flavor that everyone can customize. (Open Source)

Apr 08

Open Source Media

Open source media is technology that has given users the freedom to not only view, but to modify software in a way that makes their ideas shine through. In “Common-based Peer Production and Virtue” it talks about how open source code inspires collaboration so that people can share different concepts and marketing ideas. in the article it says that “no one ‘owns’ a free software project, though individuals own-in a formal sense- the software they contribute.” the fact that no one person owns the software makes the idea more liberal and democratic than closed sources because it requires cooperation and commitment to produce a final product, and your idea is only as important as the effort you put into developing it. Open source media isn’t reliable because anyone can edit its content, but this makes it easier to detect erros in the system because things are constantly updating. a good example of this is Wikipedia.

Generally, software developers don’t release their source code to the public, they have licenses that protect the software from getting copied and re-distributed.  in “The Political Economy of Open Source Software.” the author uses the example of Coca-Cola and how people are able to purchase it, but the can’t claim the brand as their own because the formula is unique and is protected by intellectual property rights. in my opinion, closed source media is better because it stops people from stealing your ideas, and it actually allows you to make a profit, unlike open- source media

Apr 08

Open Source

Rayshawn Parrilla

Open source is a software designed to be altered, shared and available for the public use. It consists of a code which allows programmers or company’s the opportunity to learn from it, adapt it and modify it into your own specific needs. Through this concept, you are able to add or take away features as well as fix features in a existing software. In the article “Commons-based Peer Production and Virtue,” it discusses open source as a structured software idea. It’s “individuals collectively coming together to contribute towards a common goal.” They are working over a period of time to develop, maintain and improve software. On the other hand, open source can be associated with organizing your product or brand and the same rules applies.

In order to have a successful business, you must have the knowledge and access to how a successful business is organized. It seems as open source would be considered a good and bad aspect for business around the world. It could potentially eliminate the issue of dealing with business tycoons. Usually top brands own a large portion of a product they invented. With open source, it gives upcoming business the blue print as well as allows more people the opportunity to their own businesses. In this case, the brand is no longer owned or controlled by one person. There is no manger directing the products future. Small businesses are in control of making their own decisions nor are they locked in any proprietary standards. On the other hand, open source can be considered non beneficial for companies. Some people may be against it. Through open source, companies are losing money due to their product mimicked all over the world. Its idea also creates a mockery of trade marking where eventually there would be none or no entitlement in the world period. If you created a product or brand, you should be able to own it. However, open source makes it difficult to earn full credit. Everyone is considered equal, has the same amount of rights to that product and are all able to profit from it. Over all, open source can be look upon as a beneficial and non beneficial business model.

Apr 07

Open Source Media

Open Source Media is changing the way people approach content by allowing users to contribute information or content. One of the many wonderful things about the Internet is that it can be updated; however, outdated information can stay on the Internet without being notice. For example, a group of boys get arrested for a crime, the boys are later found innocent, but the Internet article has not been updated with the verdict. Open source media keeps users involve with media. User adding information on a website, not only,  creates content buts gives that’s website views; which can lead to advertisement dollars. The best example of open Source media is Wikipedia. Wikipedia keeps factual information about everything and allows users to contribute information. A Group of administrators will fact check the additional information for it goes on the Internet. Another example of open source media is the Yelp. Yelp is an application that allows users to post pictures, comment and rate restaurants. I often use Yelp to see which restaurant I want to attend for dinner; I even post pictures of what I ordered. Users want to provide information to content they feel is important and open source media is best for that to happen.

Apr 07

Open Source Media

There are open source forms of media and closed source forms of media. Open source has been growing more and more rapidly in the past decade as most forms of media we have discussed in class on Friday mornings. With an open source form of media software, programmers share their codes freely in order to be modified and used by others. They are allowed to alter and change software with improved features. For open source programs to be reliable, licensing has to be approved by Open Source Initiative, which is a corporation that certifies shares and promotes open source software.

 

Open Source began with the Hacker’s society of the United States computer science lab in Stanford MIT in the late 1960’s. It was a collective were members shared their code with other members. This would allow members to use each other’s knowledge to improve their own interest.

In the 1980’s the Hackers Society began to fall apart after the members were hired by commercial companies to produce systems that required users to purchase a license in order to use them. Later they left those commercial companies and recreated the hackers’ society. One of the first open source systems was a Unix compatible operating system named GNU by Richard Stallman.

Open source is similar to “free software”, but the open-source users are generally able to view and modify the source code, and they are also allowed to redistribute the software. Open Source does not just mean to access the source code; the distribution of open-source software must comply with certain criteria. The License cannot restrict any party from selling or giving away the software. The program must include the source code as well as compiled form. The license must allow modifications. The license must explicitly allow distribution of software built from modified sources code, but may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software. The License must not discriminate against any person or group. The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor such as business or genetic research. The rights attached to the program must apply to all whom the program is redistributed, without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties. License must not be specific to a product. License must not restrict other software. License must be technology-neutral.

Closed source programs usually have many flaws, while research shows that most commercial software is poorly engineered. With closed source programs they are able to hide security flaws and fundamental flaws. With open source more people are able to see code and users can recognize an error before it leads to a major problem. Since many developers are themselves users of the software, they will probably do their best on producing higher quality software. Smaller businesses and students are able to afford the free open source software. Closed source commercial media software are able to make more money. Open source means that you can sell your product but you cannot prevent others from selling your product. Open-source software update flaws much faster than closed source media.

Open source software are improving more and more they are becoming more powerful and popular with time.

Apr 07

Open Source Media

Yochai Benkler’s and Helen Nissenbaum’s “Commons-based Peer Production and Virtue” discussed the vital essence about open sources. “Facilitated by the technical infrastructure of the Internet, the hallmark of this socio-technical system is collaboration among large groups of individuals, sometimes in the order of tens or even hundreds of thousands, who cooperate effectively to provide information, knowledge or cultural goods without relying on either market pricing or managerial hierarchies to coordinate their common enterprise. Open source software source codes are made freely available for redistribution or modification. People or group of people with common idea contributes and share ideas towards that agenda. One of the perfect example of open source is the Wikipedia. “Wikipedia is a free, open content online encyclopedia created through the collaborative effort of a community of users known as Wikipedians. Anyone registered on the site can create an article for publication; registration is not required to edit articles” (google).

“The Political Economy of Open Source Software” by Steven Weber also defined open source in three essential features; it “allows free re-distribution of the software without royalties or licensing fees to the author. It requires that source code be distributed with the software or otherwise made available for no more than the cost of distribution. It allows anyone to modify the software or derive other software from it, and to redistribute the modified software under the same terms”. Open source allows anyone to modified or edit something. It is not like Microsoft that strictly protects its coding and as well backed by copy right protection.

 

 

Load more