(More test prep.)

Can open source models serve as viable substitutes for copyright’s goals?

I’m assuming that we’re using “open source” to refer to specifically to non-proprietary source code models. And I’m also assuming that we accept that copyright’s goals are delineated in Title 17 and Section 106, as outlined in my post on Technology and Copyright. Assuming all of that, I would say that open source partially fulfills copyright’s goals. Open source makes the source code for a program public, and it requires that all changes to the code be re-released in a reciprocal manner. This spirit of reciprocity drives the progress of open source applications, since volunteer coders push them forward with new, innovative hacks. As such, it does fully promote progress and protect the commons.

Open-source licenses (particularly the GNU license) protect the author to an extent, since they allow individuals to profit from their contributions while at the same time contributing to the commons. They do not, however, secure Section 106 rights for programmers. This should not necessarily be construed as a failure of open-source, though. Instead, we should consider whether the standard rights are appropriate for an innovation commons like the Internet. 106 rights were developed for print, as was the rest of the code � the very same code that treats software as literature. Perhaps the standard rights to distribution, derivative works, performance and display are neither appropriate nor necessary in this instance. Software is certainly a prevalent enough force in our economy that it deserves to be considered as what it is, with its own section of code that addresses its unique concerns.