Hey John,

All of this is facinating. I'll pick-up the book.

You made an interesting point concerning legal issues as going beyond the code itself. One of the main issues involves the concept of intellectual property as you mentioned. I think that intellectual property varies inversely with scientific progress as well. I'm beginning to look at it as a bastardization of U.S. Copyright and Patent law as copyrights and patents are thrown into the public domain eventually. I'm sure you have more knowledge of all of this with your law studies. By the way, I think you are making a great career move.

The social implications of Open Source is what interests me - the motivation of the programmers. These guys are no dummys. It seems like it's almost spirtual to them. Sure there are those who are on a anti-MS jihad, but there is something else... Maybe it's the passion of a scientist who puts monetary rewards as secondary.

Anyway, it's good to here from you. I was kinda hoping you would read my post remembering all the past, er ah, debates we had < BG >


>
>The open vs. closed source debate is very interesting. For an interesting perspective, I suggest the book Code and other Laws of Cyberspace by Lawrence Lessig. Larry Lessig is a law professor at Stanford.
>
>Open source does not lend itself to regulation. The captains of e-commerce, and any business for that matter, require some form of regulation. Their investments have to be protected. A web that is nothing more than a free for all does not invite investment. Keep in mind, I am not talking about gov't regulation, rather, I am talking about degrees of control. In the mix of course, is some gov't regulation. The more business creeps into the web, the more regulation there is likely to be.
>
>Ironically, while many argue for open source, many also argue for more controls, particularly with regard to child access to online pornography. In this context, issues of free speech and constitutionality creep in as well.
>
>Entirely closed source is not good either because it breeds the invisible hand of control. You don't know what is going on behind the scenes. Intrestingly enough, many companies peer into what you are doing to the degree that if the government did the same thing, without a warrant, you would very well have a claim of a 4th amendment violation. Does one have the same privacy expectation in cyberspace as one has in real space? I think one should have the same expectation. Why should a person shed his/her constitutional rights in cyberspace.
>
>Closed source, from an intellectual property standpoint protects owners and authors. U.S. Copyright and patent law does make some provisions of fair use. The more closed the code is, the less likely fair use can result. I guess the question is how much is too closed and how much is too open?
>
>I contend there is an inverse relationship between intellectual property and constitutional rights.
>
>The issues regarding open vs. closed source are much bigger than just the code itself...
>
>
>There is a need for some sort of regulation: either gov't, industry, both, some, none, I don't even know if the correct body exists yet.
>
>Thanks for the link. FWIW, I think we could have the same debate here...
>
>
>
>>Now HERE is a debate - note the heavy hitters.
>>
>>http://forums.siliconvalley.com/msgshow.cfm/msgboard=5968009897410465&msg=2624711957806167&page=1&idDispSub=5145094516046185