Wired, October 15 2003: differenze tra le versioni
(trasferito) |
(titoli) |
||
Riga 18: | Riga 18: | ||
{{Citazione|Open source has flourished in software because programming, for all the romance of guerrilla geeks and hacker ethics, is a fairly precise discipline; you're only as good as your code. It's relatively easy to run an open source software project as a meritocracy, a level playing field that encourages participation. But those virtues aren't exclusive to software. Coders, it could be argued, got to open source first only because they were closest to the tool that made it a feasible means of production: the Internet.|--[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)|<ref>[http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.11/opensource_pr.html Wired News article] entitled "Open Source Everywhere" has a section on Wikipedia. October 15 2003</ref>}} | {{Citazione|Open source has flourished in software because programming, for all the romance of guerrilla geeks and hacker ethics, is a fairly precise discipline; you're only as good as your code. It's relatively easy to run an open source software project as a meritocracy, a level playing field that encourages participation. But those virtues aren't exclusive to software. Coders, it could be argued, got to open source first only because they were closest to the tool that made it a feasible means of production: the Internet.|--[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)|<ref>[http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.11/opensource_pr.html Wired News article] entitled "Open Source Everywhere" has a section on Wikipedia. October 15 2003</ref>}} | ||
− | {{Citazione|So what motivates Wikipedia contributors? Pretty much the same things behind any open source project: a dash of altruism, a dose of obsessive compulsiveness, and a good chunk of egotism. It lets users have a hand not just in shaping the debate, but in designing the product. Some are genuinely motivated by the greater good, or find it satisfying to apply their professional knowledge to a broader audience, pro-bono style. And some get to prove how smart they are. | + | ====Perché partecipare?==== |
+ | {{Citazione|So what motivates Wikipedia contributors? Pretty much the same things behind any open source project: a dash of altruism, a dose of obsessive compulsiveness, and a good chunk of egotism. It lets users have a hand not just in shaping the debate, but in designing the product. Some are genuinely motivated by the greater good, or find it satisfying to apply their professional knowledge to a broader audience, pro-bono style. And some get to prove how smart they are.|--[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)|<ref>[http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.11/opensource_pr.html Wired News article] entitled "Open Source Everywhere" has a section on Wikipedia. October 15 2003</ref>}} | ||
− | Not to say mischief-makers don't lurk out there. Wikipedia has banned several ne'er-do-wells from the site, and some areas have been locked down - the front page, for instance, because, Wales says, "people kept putting giant penis pictures on there." But in general, the system works surprisingly well, and the traffic bears that out. | + | ====Vandalismo==== |
+ | {{Citazione|Not to say mischief-makers don't lurk out there. Wikipedia has banned several ne'er-do-wells from the site, and some areas have been locked down - the front page, for instance, because, Wales says, "people kept putting giant penis pictures on there." But in general, the system works surprisingly well, and the traffic bears that out.|--[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)|<ref>[http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.11/opensource_pr.html Wired News article] entitled "Open Source Everywhere" has a section on Wikipedia. October 15 2003</ref>}} | ||
− | + | ====Britannica==== | |
+ | {{Citazione|This summer, Wikipedia surpassed Britannica.com in daily hits, according to Web traffic monitor Alexa.com. Wikipedia's popularity is all the more extraordinary because, like Linux, it started as a small-scale experiment. But the result challenged Britannica, a 235-year-old institution. | ||
− | + | There's some satisfaction in the fact that the technology behind Wikipedia is the same one that's baffled Britannica for years. The old-guard encyclopedia has never figured out how to adapt to the digital era. In 1998, Britannica stopped updating its print version and focused on its CD-ROM, then last year revived the print version. In 1999, it launched a free site online; two years later, switched to a paid version. The struggles aren't unique, but they illustrate how a proprietary model built on traditional notions of intellectual property can be undone by irresistible forces. |--[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)|<ref>[http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.11/opensource_pr.html Wired News article] entitled "Open Source Everywhere" has a section on Wikipedia. October 15 2003</ref>}} | |
+ | ====DVD e stampa==== | ||
+ | {{Citazione|Now Wales is thinking big. He wants to square off with Britannica not just online but in print and on CD-ROM. Next year, he hopes to release Wikipedia 1.0, a peer-reviewed and peer-edited compendium of 75,000 entries, available to anyone, for commercial or noncommercial purposes. |--[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)|<ref>[http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.11/opensource_pr.html Wired News article] entitled "Open Source Everywhere" has a section on Wikipedia. October 15 2003</ref>}} | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Rivoluzione open 5==== | ||
{{Citazione|Open source embodies an ethos as fruitful and resilient as the closed capitalism Bill Gates represents: the spirit of democratic solutions to daunting problems. It's the creed of Emerson, who preached independent initiative and advocated a "creative economy." It's the philosophy of William James, whose pragmatism dictated that "ideals ought to aim at the transformation of reality." It's the science of Frederick Taylor, who proved that distributing work could exponentially boost productivity and replace "suspicious watchfulness" with "mutual confidence." It's the logic of Adam Smith, whose notion of "enlightened self-interest" among workers neatly presages the primary motivation for many open source collaborators. | {{Citazione|Open source embodies an ethos as fruitful and resilient as the closed capitalism Bill Gates represents: the spirit of democratic solutions to daunting problems. It's the creed of Emerson, who preached independent initiative and advocated a "creative economy." It's the philosophy of William James, whose pragmatism dictated that "ideals ought to aim at the transformation of reality." It's the science of Frederick Taylor, who proved that distributing work could exponentially boost productivity and replace "suspicious watchfulness" with "mutual confidence." It's the logic of Adam Smith, whose notion of "enlightened self-interest" among workers neatly presages the primary motivation for many open source collaborators. | ||
Riga 34: | Riga 41: | ||
Just as the assembly line served the manufacturing economy, open source serves a knowledge-based economy. Facilitating intellectual collaboration is open source's great advantage, but it also makes the method a threat. It's a direct challenge to old-school R&D: a closed system, where innovations are quickly patented and tightly guarded. And it's an explicit reaction to the intellectual property industry, that machine of proprietary creation and idea appropriation that grew up during the past century and out of control in the past 30 years - now often impeding the same efforts it was designed to protect.|--[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)|<ref>[http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.11/opensource_pr.html Wired News article] entitled "Open Source Everywhere" has a section on Wikipedia. October 15 2003</ref>}} | Just as the assembly line served the manufacturing economy, open source serves a knowledge-based economy. Facilitating intellectual collaboration is open source's great advantage, but it also makes the method a threat. It's a direct challenge to old-school R&D: a closed system, where innovations are quickly patented and tightly guarded. And it's an explicit reaction to the intellectual property industry, that machine of proprietary creation and idea appropriation that grew up during the past century and out of control in the past 30 years - now often impeding the same efforts it was designed to protect.|--[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)|<ref>[http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.11/opensource_pr.html Wired News article] entitled "Open Source Everywhere" has a section on Wikipedia. October 15 2003</ref>}} | ||
+ | ====Rivoluzione open 6==== | ||
{{Citazione|But the balance and fair-mindedness that made the American system hum like a well-tuned Briggs & Stratton is now clogged up with opportunism. Copyright protections that originally lasted 14 years now drag on for nearly a century, leaving the public domain a barren ground. Particularly since the mid-1990s, when the US Patent and Trademark Office began recognizing business methods, intellectual property has become more than just guarding what you've made. Trademark, copyright, and patents are now offensive weapons. The result often impedes, rather than encourages, innovation. Intellectual property has grown infuriating in its excesses, such as Netflix's recent patenting of something as simple as a subscription model for DVD rentals. | {{Citazione|But the balance and fair-mindedness that made the American system hum like a well-tuned Briggs & Stratton is now clogged up with opportunism. Copyright protections that originally lasted 14 years now drag on for nearly a century, leaving the public domain a barren ground. Particularly since the mid-1990s, when the US Patent and Trademark Office began recognizing business methods, intellectual property has become more than just guarding what you've made. Trademark, copyright, and patents are now offensive weapons. The result often impedes, rather than encourages, innovation. Intellectual property has grown infuriating in its excesses, such as Netflix's recent patenting of something as simple as a subscription model for DVD rentals. | ||
Versione attuale delle 01:38, 25 apr 2009
Wired News article entitled "Open Source Everywhere" has a section on Wikipedia. October 15 2003
Organizzazione: Progetto · Portineria · Gruppo su Facebook
Copione WikiGuide: Wikipedia · Commons · Wikisource · Wikiquote |
2007: gen-apr/mag-ago/set-dic · 2008: gen-apr/mag-ago/set-dic · 2009 · Scientific articles
Sorted: The Register
Indice
Rivoluzione open 1
(Testo originale) | (Traduzione) | |||
«Open Source Everywhere
Software is just the beginning … open source is doing for mass innovation what the assembly line did for mass production. Get ready for the era when collaboration replaces the corporation.»
|
«<ref>Wired News article entitled "Open Source Everywhere" has a section on Wikipedia. October 15 2003</ref>»
| |||
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
|
«Open Source Everywhere
Software is just the beginning … open source is doing for mass innovation what the assembly line did for mass production. Get ready for the era when collaboration replaces the corporation.»
| |||
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
}} |
- Le prime 3 citazioni sono bellissime. Sarebbero forse un bel finale di un eventuale spettacolo... --Christian (discussione) 02:13, 25 apr 2009 (CEST)
Rivoluzione open 2
(Testo originale) | (Traduzione) | |||
«If the ideas behind it are so familiar and simple, why has open source only now become such a powerful force? Two reasons: the rise of the Internet and the excesses of intellectual property. The Internet is open source's great enabler, the communications tool that makes massive decentralized projects possible. Intellectual property, on the other hand, is open source's nemesis: a legal regime that has become so stifling and restrictive that thousands of free-thinking programmers, scientists, designers, engineers, and scholars are desperate to find new ways to create.»
|
«<ref>Wired News article entitled "Open Source Everywhere" has a section on Wikipedia. October 15 2003</ref>»
| |||
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
|
«If the ideas behind it are so familiar and simple, why has open source only now become such a powerful force? Two reasons: the rise of the Internet and the excesses of intellectual property. The Internet is open source's great enabler, the communications tool that makes massive decentralized projects possible. Intellectual property, on the other hand, is open source's nemesis: a legal regime that has become so stifling and restrictive that thousands of free-thinking programmers, scientists, designers, engineers, and scholars are desperate to find new ways to create.»
| |||
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
}} |
Rivoluzione open 3
(Testo originale) | (Traduzione) | |||
«We are at a convergent moment, when a philosophy, a strategy, and a technology have aligned to unleash great innovation. Open source is powerful because it's an alternative to the status quo, another way to produce things or solve problems. And in many cases, it's a better way. Better because current methods are not fast enough, not ambitious enough, or don't take advantage of our collective creative potential.»
|
«<ref>Wired News article entitled "Open Source Everywhere" has a section on Wikipedia. October 15 2003</ref>»
| |||
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
|
«We are at a convergent moment, when a philosophy, a strategy, and a technology have aligned to unleash great innovation. Open source is powerful because it's an alternative to the status quo, another way to produce things or solve problems. And in many cases, it's a better way. Better because current methods are not fast enough, not ambitious enough, or don't take advantage of our collective creative potential.»
| |||
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
}} |
Rivoluzione open 4
(Testo originale) | (Traduzione) | |||
«Open source has flourished in software because programming, for all the romance of guerrilla geeks and hacker ethics, is a fairly precise discipline; you're only as good as your code. It's relatively easy to run an open source software project as a meritocracy, a level playing field that encourages participation. But those virtues aren't exclusive to software. Coders, it could be argued, got to open source first only because they were closest to the tool that made it a feasible means of production: the Internet.»
|
«<ref>Wired News article entitled "Open Source Everywhere" has a section on Wikipedia. October 15 2003</ref>»
| |||
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
|
«Open source has flourished in software because programming, for all the romance of guerrilla geeks and hacker ethics, is a fairly precise discipline; you're only as good as your code. It's relatively easy to run an open source software project as a meritocracy, a level playing field that encourages participation. But those virtues aren't exclusive to software. Coders, it could be argued, got to open source first only because they were closest to the tool that made it a feasible means of production: the Internet.»
| |||
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
}} |
Perché partecipare?
(Testo originale) | (Traduzione) | |||
«So what motivates Wikipedia contributors? Pretty much the same things behind any open source project: a dash of altruism, a dose of obsessive compulsiveness, and a good chunk of egotism. It lets users have a hand not just in shaping the debate, but in designing the product. Some are genuinely motivated by the greater good, or find it satisfying to apply their professional knowledge to a broader audience, pro-bono style. And some get to prove how smart they are.»
|
«<ref>Wired News article entitled "Open Source Everywhere" has a section on Wikipedia. October 15 2003</ref>»
| |||
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
|
«So what motivates Wikipedia contributors? Pretty much the same things behind any open source project: a dash of altruism, a dose of obsessive compulsiveness, and a good chunk of egotism. It lets users have a hand not just in shaping the debate, but in designing the product. Some are genuinely motivated by the greater good, or find it satisfying to apply their professional knowledge to a broader audience, pro-bono style. And some get to prove how smart they are.»
| |||
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
}} |
Vandalismo
(Testo originale) | (Traduzione) | |||
«Not to say mischief-makers don't lurk out there. Wikipedia has banned several ne'er-do-wells from the site, and some areas have been locked down - the front page, for instance, because, Wales says, "people kept putting giant penis pictures on there." But in general, the system works surprisingly well, and the traffic bears that out.»
|
«<ref>Wired News article entitled "Open Source Everywhere" has a section on Wikipedia. October 15 2003</ref>»
| |||
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
|
«Not to say mischief-makers don't lurk out there. Wikipedia has banned several ne'er-do-wells from the site, and some areas have been locked down - the front page, for instance, because, Wales says, "people kept putting giant penis pictures on there." But in general, the system works surprisingly well, and the traffic bears that out.»
| |||
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
}} |
Britannica
(Testo originale) | (Traduzione) | |||
«This summer, Wikipedia surpassed Britannica.com in daily hits, according to Web traffic monitor Alexa.com. Wikipedia's popularity is all the more extraordinary because, like Linux, it started as a small-scale experiment. But the result challenged Britannica, a 235-year-old institution.
There's some satisfaction in the fact that the technology behind Wikipedia is the same one that's baffled Britannica for years. The old-guard encyclopedia has never figured out how to adapt to the digital era. In 1998, Britannica stopped updating its print version and focused on its CD-ROM, then last year revived the print version. In 1999, it launched a free site online; two years later, switched to a paid version. The struggles aren't unique, but they illustrate how a proprietary model built on traditional notions of intellectual property can be undone by irresistible forces. »
|
«<ref>Wired News article entitled "Open Source Everywhere" has a section on Wikipedia. October 15 2003</ref>»
| |||
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
|
«This summer, Wikipedia surpassed Britannica.com in daily hits, according to Web traffic monitor Alexa.com. Wikipedia's popularity is all the more extraordinary because, like Linux, it started as a small-scale experiment. But the result challenged Britannica, a 235-year-old institution.
There's some satisfaction in the fact that the technology behind Wikipedia is the same one that's baffled Britannica for years. The old-guard encyclopedia has never figured out how to adapt to the digital era. In 1998, Britannica stopped updating its print version and focused on its CD-ROM, then last year revived the print version. In 1999, it launched a free site online; two years later, switched to a paid version. The struggles aren't unique, but they illustrate how a proprietary model built on traditional notions of intellectual property can be undone by irresistible forces. »
| |||
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
}} |
DVD e stampa
(Testo originale) | (Traduzione) | |||
«Now Wales is thinking big. He wants to square off with Britannica not just online but in print and on CD-ROM. Next year, he hopes to release Wikipedia 1.0, a peer-reviewed and peer-edited compendium of 75,000 entries, available to anyone, for commercial or noncommercial purposes. »
|
«<ref>Wired News article entitled "Open Source Everywhere" has a section on Wikipedia. October 15 2003</ref>»
| |||
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
|
«Now Wales is thinking big. He wants to square off with Britannica not just online but in print and on CD-ROM. Next year, he hopes to release Wikipedia 1.0, a peer-reviewed and peer-edited compendium of 75,000 entries, available to anyone, for commercial or noncommercial purposes. »
| |||
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
}} |
Rivoluzione open 5
(Testo originale) | (Traduzione) | |||
«Open source embodies an ethos as fruitful and resilient as the closed capitalism Bill Gates represents: the spirit of democratic solutions to daunting problems. It's the creed of Emerson, who preached independent initiative and advocated a "creative economy." It's the philosophy of William James, whose pragmatism dictated that "ideals ought to aim at the transformation of reality." It's the science of Frederick Taylor, who proved that distributing work could exponentially boost productivity and replace "suspicious watchfulness" with "mutual confidence." It's the logic of Adam Smith, whose notion of "enlightened self-interest" among workers neatly presages the primary motivation for many open source collaborators.
Finding the roots of open source in Taylor and Smith is especially significant because the approach isn't, as some insist, anticommercial or anticorporate. Rather, it is a return to basic free-market principles. The open source process fosters competition, creativity, and enterprise. And just as Taylor and Smith provided the intellectual grounding for the revolution in mass production, open source offers the mechanism to mass innovation. While the assembly line accelerated the pace of production, it also embedded workers more deeply into the corporate manufacturing machine. Indeed, that was the big innovation of the 20th-century factory: The machines, rather than the workers, drove production. With open source, the people are back in charge. Through distributed collaboration, a multitude of workers can tackle a problem, all at once. The speed is even greater - but so is the freedom. It's a cottage industry on Internet time. Just as the assembly line served the manufacturing economy, open source serves a knowledge-based economy. Facilitating intellectual collaboration is open source's great advantage, but it also makes the method a threat. It's a direct challenge to old-school R&D: a closed system, where innovations are quickly patented and tightly guarded. And it's an explicit reaction to the intellectual property industry, that machine of proprietary creation and idea appropriation that grew up during the past century and out of control in the past 30 years - now often impeding the same efforts it was designed to protect.» |
«<ref>Wired News article entitled "Open Source Everywhere" has a section on Wikipedia. October 15 2003</ref>»
| |||
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
|
«Open source embodies an ethos as fruitful and resilient as the closed capitalism Bill Gates represents: the spirit of democratic solutions to daunting problems. It's the creed of Emerson, who preached independent initiative and advocated a "creative economy." It's the philosophy of William James, whose pragmatism dictated that "ideals ought to aim at the transformation of reality." It's the science of Frederick Taylor, who proved that distributing work could exponentially boost productivity and replace "suspicious watchfulness" with "mutual confidence." It's the logic of Adam Smith, whose notion of "enlightened self-interest" among workers neatly presages the primary motivation for many open source collaborators.
Finding the roots of open source in Taylor and Smith is especially significant because the approach isn't, as some insist, anticommercial or anticorporate. Rather, it is a return to basic free-market principles. The open source process fosters competition, creativity, and enterprise. And just as Taylor and Smith provided the intellectual grounding for the revolution in mass production, open source offers the mechanism to mass innovation. While the assembly line accelerated the pace of production, it also embedded workers more deeply into the corporate manufacturing machine. Indeed, that was the big innovation of the 20th-century factory: The machines, rather than the workers, drove production. With open source, the people are back in charge. Through distributed collaboration, a multitude of workers can tackle a problem, all at once. The speed is even greater - but so is the freedom. It's a cottage industry on Internet time. Just as the assembly line served the manufacturing economy, open source serves a knowledge-based economy. Facilitating intellectual collaboration is open source's great advantage, but it also makes the method a threat. It's a direct challenge to old-school R&D: a closed system, where innovations are quickly patented and tightly guarded. And it's an explicit reaction to the intellectual property industry, that machine of proprietary creation and idea appropriation that grew up during the past century and out of control in the past 30 years - now often impeding the same efforts it was designed to protect.» | |||
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
}} |
Rivoluzione open 6
(Testo originale) | (Traduzione) | |||
«But the balance and fair-mindedness that made the American system hum like a well-tuned Briggs & Stratton is now clogged up with opportunism. Copyright protections that originally lasted 14 years now drag on for nearly a century, leaving the public domain a barren ground. Particularly since the mid-1990s, when the US Patent and Trademark Office began recognizing business methods, intellectual property has become more than just guarding what you've made. Trademark, copyright, and patents are now offensive weapons. The result often impedes, rather than encourages, innovation. Intellectual property has grown infuriating in its excesses, such as Netflix's recent patenting of something as simple as a subscription model for DVD rentals.
Perversely, this is just how the law wants it. The courts and the patent and trademark offices exist to protect property, be it physical or intellectual - slap on "All Rights Reserved" and reap the rewards. But it's annoyingly difficult to share something - to open intellectual property to a wide audience. The conventional legal system simply isn't built to handle "Some Rights Reserved." Open source flips this paradigm around. Now there are dozens of licenses, from Stallman's General Public License to Creative Commons' ShareAlike agreement, that let open products exist in a proprietary world. Under these licenses, to use political scientist Steven Weber's terms, property is something to be distributed rather than protected. The owners are more guardians than guards.» |
«<ref>Wired News article entitled "Open Source Everywhere" has a section on Wikipedia. October 15 2003</ref>»
| |||
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
|
«But the balance and fair-mindedness that made the American system hum like a well-tuned Briggs & Stratton is now clogged up with opportunism. Copyright protections that originally lasted 14 years now drag on for nearly a century, leaving the public domain a barren ground. Particularly since the mid-1990s, when the US Patent and Trademark Office began recognizing business methods, intellectual property has become more than just guarding what you've made. Trademark, copyright, and patents are now offensive weapons. The result often impedes, rather than encourages, innovation. Intellectual property has grown infuriating in its excesses, such as Netflix's recent patenting of something as simple as a subscription model for DVD rentals.
Perversely, this is just how the law wants it. The courts and the patent and trademark offices exist to protect property, be it physical or intellectual - slap on "All Rights Reserved" and reap the rewards. But it's annoyingly difficult to share something - to open intellectual property to a wide audience. The conventional legal system simply isn't built to handle "Some Rights Reserved." Open source flips this paradigm around. Now there are dozens of licenses, from Stallman's General Public License to Creative Commons' ShareAlike agreement, that let open products exist in a proprietary world. Under these licenses, to use political scientist Steven Weber's terms, property is something to be distributed rather than protected. The owners are more guardians than guards.» | |||
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 18:40, 20 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
}} |