1. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights
Vol 13, May 2008, pp 218-224
Open Source Software: The Future Ahead
Sanjanaa Chindalia†
The WB National University of Juridical Sciences, NUJS Bhavan, 12 LB Block, Sector – III, Salt Lake City, Kolkata 700 098
Received 5 September 2007, revised 9 April 2008
The proliferation of computer technology and advent of Internet have created many new relationships and problems
that raise questions about traditional legal and economic principles. The development of ‘open-source software’ is an
example of this phenomenon.1
Open source software is one, where the source code is available and the user can modify the
software to suit his needs. Though the open-source software industry has not completely replaced the conventional software
industry, there has been a considerable invasion into its space. The entire discourse is centred around innovation and growth
on the one hand and proprietary rights on the other.
The object of this article is to understand open source software, by analysing the manner in which it uses principles of
copyright law to provide free access to software. Further, it also looks into the implications of such a movement on software
programming. The article divided into four parts, traces the history of the movement, thereby understanding the concept of
open source software. This part also looks into the paradoxical situation whereby norms of copyright law have been used as
‘copyleft’ to counter the impediments put forward by copyright law. The second part of the article discusses increasingly
important role played by the open source software in the development and dissemination of software programs. The third
part discusses the long-term implications of this movement on the software industry and thereby restricting to the most
famous open source license i.e. GNU GPL. The last section contains concluding remarks.
Keywords: Open source software, copyright law, GNU GPL, copyleft, Free Software Foundation
Copyright law is a bundle of exclusive rights given to
the author, composer or artist of an original work. It
rewards them with the exclusive right to reproduce
the work, prepare derivative works based on the work,
and publicly distribute, perform or display the work.
Copyright protects the original literary work inscribed
in the software program and prevents further
reproductions of the same. However, extending
traditional norms of copyright protection to computer
software has spearheaded a movement known as the
‘open source software movement.’
Open Source Software
To understand which part of the software program
falls within the ambit of copyright protection, one
needs to understand the concept of object code and
source code. The source code is the set of non-
executable instructions written in programming
languages such as ,C, or C++, etc., whereas the format
of instructions in binary language which control the
working of the computer is known as the object code.
What is launched in the market is the object code,
whereas the source code is withheld. This is because
the source code can never be retrieved from the object
code. However, in the case of open source software,
the source code is freely available and the user is free
to copy, modify or distribute the software program
without licensing restrictions.
The core distinction between open source software
and its proprietary counterpart is that the former
makes available to its user the knowledge and
innovation contributed by the creator of the software
in the form of the source code; this not only permits
but also encourages interested programmers to
become involved in the continuing development of
the software, disseminate knowledge about the inner
workings of computer artifacts and breed
independence in the community of software users.2
It
has also been argued that open source software may
be the only viable source of software in developing
countries, where programming talent is available but
the prices for proprietary software licenses are
prohibitive.2
The distinction between open source
software and proprietary software lies in the freedom
of using the software and the licensing structure;
while the proprietary software dealers release into the
market the software program by concealing the source
code with a number of terms that prohibit the use or
__________
†Email: schindalia@gmail.com

2. CHINDALIA: OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE: THE FUTURE AHEAD 219
limit the use of the software.3
The software released
through open sourcing is under a special class of
license known as the General Public License (GPL),
which encourages and permits users to use and
improve the source code, whereas proprietary
software restricts the user’s right to use.3
In the case
of open source software, programmers freely share
the source code and collaborate globally over the
Internet.4
It provides a rich field to explore the
processes of creation, accumulation and dissemination
of knowledge in spatially dispersed settings where
project membership is fluid and participation is
volatile. It represents a special example of
decentralized ‘project-based learning’.5
Open source
software can be analysed as a process innovation: A
new and revolutionary process of producing software
based on unconstrained access to source code as
opposed to the traditional closed and property-based
approach of the commercial world.6
People at times get confused with the terms: Open
source, public domain, freeware and shareware
software. Some softwares are released into the market
without the author claiming any copyright over his
work, the same is said to be distributed in the public
domain. Such software can be used, work can be
sufficiently modified, author’s name can be removed,
etc. However, in the case of open source software, the
creator of the software has copyright over his work,
and can still assert his right over the creation. Open
source software is also different from shareware or
freeware software. In each of these cases, the
developer offers a standard license, with special
pricing terms or at no price but does not give access to
source code or right to make derivative works. Such
software is often referred to as being ‘free’, but it is
usually subject to the same licensing restrictions as
the commercial software.7
The Open Source Software Movement
The most important piece of open source software,
is the operating system GNU/Linux – an open source
equivalent of the Unix operating system which can be
run on most PCs.
Goaded by the philosophy that commercial
development of software would result in a loss of
skilled and independent programmers, and ultimately
lead to a loss of innovation and creativity, Richard
Stallman, the father of open source movement, in the
year 1984 came up with a project called GNU, aimed
at the development of a software system compatible
to the Unix, to be made freely available to all.
Stallman established the Free Software Foundation
(FSF) for the promotion of free software in the year
1985. Though the GNU project was catching up in the
race with the proprietary software, GNU lacked the
kernel8
, which was essential to activate the hardware
of the computer. Linux, developed by Linux Torvalds
in 1991, solved this problem by providing the Linux
core, the kernel necessary for running the GNU
operating system.2
Perhaps the most important goal of
the GNU Project, was to promote Stallman’s
philosophy regarding software development,
i.e.‘information is community property and all
software source [code] should be shared.’9
In
Stallman’s mind, proprietary software, with its source
code closed off from the public, prevented the sort of
cooperation and communitarian spirit necessary – in
Stallman’s opinion – for advancing software
development.9
Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation,
describes four values embodied in the phrase ‘free
software’10
:
Freedom to run the program, for any purpose;
Freedom to study how the program works, and
adapt it to ones needs. Access to the source code
is a precondition for this;
Freedom to redistribute copies so one can help
ones neighbour; and
Freedom to improve the program and release
improvements to the public, so that the whole
community benefits. Access to the source code
is a precondition for this.
‘Free software’ does not mean free of cost or zero
cost. It means software whose source is available to
all to use, modify or distribute it further. As Stallman
points out, ‘when I speak of free software, I’m
referring to freedom, not price. So think of free
speech, not free beer.’11
To make the free software,
available to all, Stallman placed it on the Internet, the
most easily accessible and apt ‘public domain’.
However, the project faced one problem whereby the
users would modify the programs according to their
needs, and then assert proprietary rights over such
modified work. For example, if X used the source
code of a program ‘A’ (original program –free
software), to modify it to suit his own needs and came
up with a program ‘B’(derivative software), since
there has been labour invested by X, he can gain
proprietary rights over B. This process would
ultimately abort and invalidate the very object of the

3. J INTELLEC PROP RIGHTS, MAY 2008220
GNU project and would obstruct the free flow of
information thus hampering the process of creativity
and innovation. To counter this problem Stallman
used the tenets of copyright law, twisted it around to
come up with something called ‘Copyleft’.
Copyleft and GPL
Richard Stallman realized that without any legal
mechanism to protect free access to software,
anybody could use the available source code, modify
it and then use proprietary rights to prevent free
access to such modified version. To make the
derivative work accessible, he came up with GPL.
The GPL covers the initial program and ‘any
derivative work’ under copyright law: that is to say, a
work containing the program or a portion of it, either
verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into
another language.12
GPL uses the concept of copyleft.
Copyleft is not some sort of left-wing, revolutionary
change in basic conceptions of intellectual property;
copyleft is copyright.13
To copyleft a program means,
that it is first copyrighted, after which distribution
terms are added that provide a right to use, modify
and redistribute the program’s code or any program
derived from it but only if the distribution terms are
unchanged. Thus, the code and the freedom become
legally inseparable.14
The copyleft license, by
asserting copyright over the software and by limiting
the user’s rights subject to the terms of the license,
acknowledges the existence of copyright as an
integral part of the open source movement.2
The concept of licensing under conventional
copyright law is very different from the one discussed
above. The owner of a copyright may grant an interest
in the copyright by way of a license.15
For example,
the author of a novel may license the right to
reproduce the work in hard-back to one person and
paper-back to another, the serialization rights to
newspapers and magazines, film rights and
dramatization rights to others and the translation
rights to yet another.16
Firstly, licensing under
copyright law, the proprietary rights are seldom
transferred and a licensee has the liberty to use the
copyrighted work with some restrictions. Secondly,
copyright being a bundle of rights, a license may
provide a part of such rights to one licensee and
another part of the rights to some other licensee.
On the other hand, copyleft licenses the software
programs under the GNU GPL through its licensing
terms and agreement guarantees users the freedom of
distribution of free software, freedom to receive the
source code and the liberty to modify or alter the
software or use it in new free programs.17
The
preamble18
to the GPL ensures that the source code of
a program, gets transferred to another user with the
same freedom including the freedom associated with
derivative works. For example, when a user uses a
software program as a GPL licensee, he enjoys the
right to use, modify or distribute the software
program. In the given case when he modifies the
software program and creates a derivative version of
the software, GPL demands him to further license this
derivative version and release the source code of the
changes or modifications to the community under the
same terms as those given under the original license.
Innovation and Growth through Open Source
Software
In recent years there has been a surge of interest in
open source development. A number of open source
products, such as, the Apache web server, dominate
product categories.19
In the personal system, operating
system market, International Data Corporation
estimates that the open source program Linux has
from seven to twenty one million users worldwide,
with a two hundred percent annual growth rate.20
Many observers believe that it represents a leading
challenger to Microsoft Windows in this important
market segment.19-21
The adoption of GNU/Linux and
applications like Open Office and Mozilla Firefox for
desktop computers has not been as rapid, but there is
growing interest evident amongst large-scale
government, business and end users.22
Due to the
large number of users accessing the open source
software, this movement aims at bringing about a new
era in the history of software programming through its
successful development and dissemination. It is surely
not without sound reasons that this movement has
attained such importance.
Decentralized System Produces Better Results
Open source software projects provide a rich field
to explore the processes of creation, accumulation and
dissemination of knowledge in spatially dispersed
settings where project membership is fluid and
participation is volatile. They represent a special
example of decentralized ‘project-based learning’.5,23
Differently from standard industry, where software is
developed in-house by firms and then sold out as a
finished product to customers on the market, in open
source software projects as many as thousands of
skilled programmers and users collectively develop

4. CHINDALIA: OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE: THE FUTURE AHEAD 221
the software online via the Internet in a decentralized,
highly interactive, knowledge intensive, apparently
unmanaged process.23,24
The source code, which is the
basis of the software, is not a trade secret but open for
inspection and change by other programmers and
users without the legal restrictions typical of
commercial software.24,25
Due to this feature , the
software developed is of a higher quality in
comparison to proprietary software. The fact of
having numerous contributors, process of undergoing
an iterative development and following debugging
and testing cycles establishes the reliability and
stability of open source software over proprietary
software.3
Customization and Bug-Fixing Benefits
The great advantage of direct innovation by users
over innovation by manufacturers, from the users’
point of view, is captured by the well-known adage:
‘If you want something done right, do it yourself!’ In
the case of new product and service development this
adage holds because (1) a manufacturer cannot know
what a user wants to the depth and detail that the user
does, and (2) even if a manufacturer does know
exactly what a user wants, it will not have an
incentive to provide exactly that.26
Further, the cost of
contributing to an open source software project can be
off-set if the activity brings about private benefit for
the programmer and his or her firm.19
Thus, one of the
advantages, that has been noted by the open source
advocates is that the bugs27
in a software program are
easily detected and fixing of the bug is taken care of
by one of the numerous programmers working on the
software.
Diversity in Ownership Leads to Further Innovation
Since most licenses for open source software do
not allow monopoly even over the derivative works, it
ensures continuous availability of the program and its
source code. Even when a developer from whom the
software owes its origin ceases to work on the
program, further availability and improvement of the
program is guaranteed by a different developer, who
taking advantage of the licensing scheme of open
source is able to produce new and improved versions
of the same.28
Open source software incorporates
demands and practical knowledge that the users
themselves develop in designing and testing software
online. Knowledge creation and dissemination take
place in a fast and cost-effective way, challenging
conventional views that see the market a superior
vehicle for creating and transferring knowledge. In a
nutshell, our point is that open source software
projects are evolutionary systems based on dense
interactions between humans and technical artifacts
within an electronic media. In such environment
knowledge, processes develop by means of variation,
selection, and stabilization, gaining a distinctive
ecological quality.26
The Future That Lies Ahead: Implications of the
Movement on Questions of Software Protection
The Internet enhances social connectivity and
facilitates its conversion into purposeful collective
action in a very cost-effective way, becoming the
primary medium for programming, communicating
and coordinating.26
Open source activity systems have
a higher capability to evolve and regenerate
themselves because they can always count on a broad
variety of participating agents and exploit a large pool
of freely circulating resources.26,29
Unlike its
proprietary counterparts, open source software is
based on particular license terms, which allow any
user to freely use, modify, and redistribute the
original software.30
However, from the economic and
legal point of view one key issue is to find out
whether this original production and distribution
mode is viable in the long run and can establish itself
as a credible alternative to proprietary software.
Copyright is nothing but a bundle of exclusive rights
granted to the creator of original work. This bundle of
exclusive rights include reproduction of the work
created, preparation of derivative works based on the
copyrighted work, distribution of copies of the work,
performance of the work, communication of the work
to the public, adaptation and translation of the work
among others. Copyright is essentially a negative right,
which prohibits rest of the world from enjoying the
rights, that are available exclusively to the copyright
holder. However, a person other than the copyright
holder can enjoy the above mentioned rights under the
exceptions of fair use or the aegis of a license or
assignment given by the copyright holder The problem
with the open source approach arises because, the open
source movement allows enjoyment of these exclusive
rights by others, thus rendering the rights non-exclusive
and modifying the very nature of copyright law.
Several licenses satisfy the requirements under the
open source approach, however, looking at the terms
of GNU GPL, and analysing the implications, it may
have for infringement and other allied issues.

5. J INTELLEC PROP RIGHTS, MAY 2008222
Copyright in Derived Products
The GPL sets out a two-pronged strategy: The first
is to have the original author retain the copyright in
the author’s code or assign it to an entity, such as,
FSF that will enforce these norms. The second is to
allow developers to copy, modify and redistribute the
code only as long as they agree to comply with the
GPL’s terms.19-31
The Preamble to the GPL makes it
very clear that a person using, distributing or
modifying copies of an open source program has
certain responsibilities. For example, if one distributes
copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee,
one must pass on to the recipients the same freedom
that one has received. One has to make sure that they
too receive or can get the source code. Further, one
has to show them these terms so they know their
rights.31
Their policy is that any GPL work when
modified shall not be further restricted. Interestingly,
however, with respect to products which may be
derived from software licensed under open source,
GPL states that ‘if identifiable sections of that work
are not derived from the program, and can be
reasonably considered independent and separate
works in themselves, then this license and its terms,
do not apply to those sections when distributed as
separate works. But when same sections are
distributed as part of a whole, which is based on the
program, the distribution of the whole must be on the
terms of this license, whose permissions for other
licenses extend to the entire whole, and thus to each
and every part regardless of who wrote it.’32
Say X
writes a program under GPL and distributes it to Y. Y
uses and modifies (containing X’s code and Y’s own
code) the program and further distributes it to Z. Z
shall inturn enjoy the same rights enjoyed by X and
Y. However, in another situation Y can modify the
program written by X containing both X’s original
code and his new code. Y can always use or distribute
‘his work’, i.e. his code if it is reasonably considered
independent and separate from X’s code, and the
terms of the license shall not apply to Y’s independent
code when it is distributed as a separate work. Thus, if
Y distributes his independent code, as a separate work
to A, according to terms of a special agreement, A
cannot sue Y for violating terms of the GPL.
The GPL does not allow any GPL-covered work to
be distributed under a non-disclosure agreement. The
GPL says that anyone who receives a copy from you
has the right to redistribute copies, modified or not.
One is not allowed to distribute the work on any more
restrictive basis.33
However, one can accept a contract
to develop changes and agree not to release the
changes until the client says ok. This is permitted
because in this case no GPL-covered code is being
distributed under a non-disclosure agreement.33
One
can also release the changes to the client under GPL,
but agree not to release them to anyone else unless the
client says ok. In this case, too, no GPL-covered code
is being distributed under any additional restrictions.
The GPL would give the client the right to redistribute
ones version.33
Thus, the problem that possibly might
arise in such a situation is the determination of the
terms ‘independent and separate works’. This is
because the question whether the rules of the license
shall apply or not is dependent on such distribution of
one’s independent work.
Section 2 of the GPL speaks about its coverage for
‘other software’. In this, ‘other software’ could mean,
on the one hand, minor modifications added to an
existing open source program, which the GPL would
capture; or, on the other hand, completely separate
software (possibly previously licensed as proprietary
software) intermixed or coupled with the open source
software.34
The GPL has an expansive approach
because section 2 stops somewhere just short of
extending its terms to other software merely
aggregated with the open source program; it draws
this fuzzy boundary using the rubric of the ‘whole’ - a
label for a standard that is not expressly identified, but
which may take its gist from the reproduction right or
derivative work right in copyright.34
Disclaimer of Warranty and Limitation of Liability
The ‘no warranty’35
section of the GPL clearly states
that there shall be no warranty for the program and
entire risk for the quality and performance of the
program shall be borne by the user. Further, the license
completely shields the programmer from any liability36
for damages including general, special, incidental or
consequential arising out of the use or inability to use
the program. The development of software under the
open source approach is with the application of the
mind and energy of a large number of programmers.
Due to the vast number of participants in the creation
of the software, it is usually impossible to attribute a
particular piece of code to a programmer. As long as
there is value addition to the process of creation and
innovation of software, the open source approach poses
no problems. However, problem arises when an
infringing code is introduced into the program and the
infringer cannot be traced. The burden of damage due

6. CHINDALIA: OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE: THE FUTURE AHEAD 223
to such infringing code falls heavy on the users or
licensees as the license provides no protection for
them. This is an area where the user still feels safe to
use proprietary software as compared to open source
software.
Free Riding
An often discussed problem under open source
software has been the problem of free riders. Free
riders can be quite a common phenomenon when
contributions to the code exist from innumerable
number of programmers working on it. Contributing
to a code may improve the program, aid in fixing
bugs, add value to the program, however at the same
time it could hamper development of large products in
open source.3,37
Connected with the issue of free riding is the issue
of motivation. The opponents of open source software
say that no one invests labour if the benefits cannot be
appropriated; and if benefits cannot be appropriated,
motivation will lack. However, attention needs to be
drawn to the academic enterprise, and in particular,
scientific research. Yochai Bekler draws a corollary
and explains that thousands of individuals make
contributions to a body of knowledge, set up internal
systems of quality control, and produce the core of the
information and knowledge environment.38
These
individuals do not expect to exclude from their
product anyone who does not pay for it, and for many
of them the opportunity cost of participating in
academic research, rather than applying themselves to
commercial enterprise, carries a high economic price
tag.36
In other words, individuals produce on a
nonproprietary basis and contribute their product to a
knowledge ‘commons’ that no one is understood as
‘owning,’ and that anyone can, indeed is required by
professional norms to, take and extend.36
Thus,
despite the problem of free riding, motivation in
various forms, will always goad people to contribute
to the existing body of knowledge.
Conclusion
Though proprietary software interests remain
powerful, free and open source alternatives have
strong backers among business interests,
governmental adopters, and the technical community.
It is also picking up significant support. There are
both free and controlled resources in a society. The
question that remains to be answered in the present
discourse is whether knowledge is a controlled
resource or free resource and even if labour has been
expended in creation of particular software, should
the larger picture of distribution and dissemination of
knowledge be given greater importance over the strict
rules of protection under the copyright regime. The
ambition of replacing the proprietary software with
open source software shall remain a distant one until
the legal risks involved in the area are well dealt with.
References
1 Välimäki Mikko, Dual licensing in open source software
industry, http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/valimaki.pdf.
2 Chopra Samir & Scott Dexter, A comparative ethical
assessment of free software licensing schemes,
http://www.luc.edu/philosophy/opensource/FOSSEthics.pdf.
3 Madhavan Mahesh, Use of copyright by open source
software movement on computer software and its
implications, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 8 (1)
(2003) 32.
4 Schweik Charles M, Fostering open source research via a
world wide web system, http://www.pamij.com/
5_4/5_4_2_opensource.html; See also Baldi Stefan et al.,
Open courseware vs open source software- a critical
comparison, http://is2.lse.ac.uk/asp/aspecis/20020137.pdf.
5 Lanzara Giovan Francesco & Morner Michele, The
knowledge ecology of open source software projects,
http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/lanzaramorner.pdf; See also
Bitzer Jurgen & Wolfram Schrettl, Intrinsic motivation in
open source software development, http://teaching.coll.mpg.
de/econwork/BitzerSchr%C3%B6der.pdf.
6 1
Bonaccorsi Andrea & Cristina Rossi, Why open source
software can succeed, http://www2.ing.unipi.it/
~d6889/Approfondimenti/SO_Bonacc_Rossi(2003).pdf ; See
also Crowston Kevin et al., Information systems success in
free and open source software development: theory and
measures, http://floss.syr.edu/publications/crowston2006
flossSuccessSPIPpre-print.pdf.
7 Shareware: What is a definition? http://whatis.
techtarget.com/WhatIs_Definition_Page/0, 4152,212977,00.
html; See also Freeware: what is a definition?
http://whatis.techtarget.com/WhatIs_Definition_Page/0,4152,
212159,00.html.
8 Kernel is the fundamental part of a program, it is the part of
the operating system, which is closest to the machine, it
activates the hardware directly or interfaces to another
software layer that derives the hardware.
9 Lee Steve H, Open source software licensing,
http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/gpl.pdf.
10 FSF, the free software definition, http://www.fsf.org/
philosophy/freesw.
11 Stallman Richard, Free software: freedom and cooperation
(Speech delivered at New York University, New York, 29 May
2001), http://www.gnu.org/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt.
12 Legal Issues Relating to Free and Open Source Software,
2004, edited by Brian Fitzgerald and Graham Bassett,
http://www.law.qut.edu.au/files/open_source_book.pdf.
13 Pfaffenberger Bryan, Copyright strikes back,
http://www2.linuxjournal.com/article/5076; See also Evers
Steffen, An introduction to open source software development,
http://user.cs.tu-berlin.de/~tron/opensource/opensource.pdf.

7. J INTELLEC PROP RIGHTS, MAY 2008224
14 FSF, what is copyleft? The GNU Project,
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html.
15 ‘A license is an authorization of an act, which without such
authorization would be an infringement.’
16 P Narayan, Law of Copyright and Industrial Designs, 2nd
edn
(Eastern Law House, New Delhi), 2002, p. 125.
17 GNU General Public License, http://www.gnu.org/
copyleft/gpl.html.
18 The Preamble to the GPL states: When we speak of free
software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General
Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the
freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
this service if you wish), that you receive the source code and
can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or
use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know that
you know that you can do these things. To protect your rights
we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you
these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These
restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it. For
example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights
that you have. You must make sure that they too receive or
can get the source code. And you must show them these
terms so they know their rights.
19 Feller Joseph et al, Perspectives on Free and Open Source
Software (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts , England,
London), 2005, p.1; See also Peeling Nic &Julian Satchell,
Analysis of the Impact of Open Source Software,
http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/documents/QinetiQ_OSS_rep.pdf.
20 Kenwood Carolyn A, A business case study of open source
software, http://www.mitre.org/work/tech_papers/tech_
papers_01/kenwood_software/kenwood_software.pdf.
21 Hippel Eric Von, Open source shows the way: Innovation by
and for users- no manufacturer required, http://opensource.
mit.edu/papers/evhippel-osuserinnovation.pdf.
22 Elizabeth Millard, Firefox continues to gain browser share,
http://www.cio-today.com/news/Firefox-Continues-To-Gain-
Share/story.xhtml?story_id=102003F7F7R0; See also
Paklons Batist, Intellectual property and open source
software, http://www.student.kuleuven.ac.be/~m9923416/
paper_ICT.pdf.
23 Lakhani Karim R & Hippel Eric Von, How open
source software works: ‘free’ user-to-user assistance,
http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/lakhanivonhippelusersuppo
rt.pdf.
24 Why ‘Free software’ is better than open source?
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html.
25 Lessig Lawrence, Open code and open societies: values of
Internet governance, http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/works/
lessig/kent.pdf.
26 Osterloh Margit & Sandra Rota, Open source software
development: just another case of collective invention?
http://people.brandeis.edu/~amykolo/Moodle/OpenSourceSo
ftwareDevelopment.pdf.
27 The bugs that are found in a software program are two-fold:
bugs that are detected in the early stages of software
development and hose, which produce the run-time errors. In
closed software where only a sole or only a few developers
are allowed to work on the source code, detection and fixing
of bugs present a huge task. Due to lack of sufficient
technical hands, it is the user who usually detects bugs that
escape detection, on running the software program.
28 Free software/open source: Information society opportunities
for Europe? Working group on libre software,
http://eu.conecta.it/paper.pdf.
29 Krogh Georg Von et al., Collective action and communal
resources in open source software development: the case of
free net, http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/vonkroghhae
fligerspaeth.pdf
30 Kuan Jenny, Understanding open source software: A non-
profit competitive threat, http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/
bhhall/soft2.pdf.
31 GNU General Public License, http://www.gnu.org/
copyleft/gpl.html. Preamble to the GPL: ‘To protect your rights,
we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or
asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain
responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you
modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.
32 What is copyleft? http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/.
33 Frequently asked questions about the GNU GPL,
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPL
Allow NDA.
34 Vetter Greg R, Infectious open source software: Spreading
incentives or promoting resistance? Rutgers Law Journal, 36
(2004) 53.
35 Disclaimer of Warranty: There is no warranty for the
program, to the extent permitted by applicable law. except
when otherwise stated in writing the copyright holders and/or
other parties provide the program ‘as is’ without warranty of
any kind, either expressed or implied, including, but not
limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and
fitness for a particular purpose. the entire risk as to the
quality and performance of the program is with you. should
the program prove defective, you assume the cost of all
necessary servicing, repair or correction.; See also Jeremy
Malcolm, Problems in open source licensing,
http://www.ilaw.com.au/public/licencearticle.html ; Arne
Paul H et al., Open source software licenses: Perspectives of
the end user and the software developer,
http://www.mmmlaw.com/articles/article_238.pdf .
36 Limitation of Liability: In no event unless required by
applicable law or agreed to in writing will any copyright
holder, or any other party who modifies and/or conveys the
program as permitted above, be liable to you for damages,
including any general, special, incidental or consequential
damages arising out of the use or inability to use the program
(including but not limited to loss of data or data being
rendered inaccurate or losses sustained by you or third
parties or a failure of the program to operate with any other
programs), even if such holder or other party has been
advised of the possibility of such damages; See also
Gonzalez Andres Guadamuz, Legal challenges to open
source licenses, available http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/
ahrb/script-ed/vol2-2/challenges.doc; Frost Jonathan J, Some
economic and legal aspects of open source software,
http://freesoftware.mit.edu/papers/frost.pdf.
37 Darmon Eric et al., Commercial or open source software?
winner-takes-all competition, partial adoption and efficiency,
http://greqam.univmrs.fr/pdf/seminars/gt_interaction2006-
04-10.pdf. Yochai Benkler, Coase's Penguin, or, Linux and
the nature of the firm, Yale Law Journal, 112 (3) (2002) 369.[[[