Digital Commons, Research Paper Example

Increasingly, there has been a struggle for Internet freedom and the rise of the digital commons. Digital commons refers to the basis of open sourced applications, programs, software or other tools that allow interaction among users to better the tool overall. This freedom of collaboration allows for a greater sense of community and awareness for a product that is developed in a community environment. These digital commons are areas in which the community acts as a civil society, in which they can express their interests, protect their rights and form in a collective of users in a symbolic relationship. The benefits of this digital common or community, their ability to promote their interests as well as their ability to progress their passions. Digital commons successful promote group collaboration and execution of open source programs, and this directly relates to corporate and standardized software development.

Limiting user’s access and freedoms limits the overall success and development. The freedoms desired are based on what is believed to be an individual’s rights to share and collaborate as they see fit. Perhaps the fear of success takes its toll on this process. Many applications, programs and software allow the users access to interact. This provides the groundwork for improvement and a tool for a better overall product. By no means does this process mean that they are to abuse this for personal gain or exploitation, but for the common good of all users. A community environment is a common practice that encourages a group to come together under specific terms for a specific reason. This is the exact same process that is now being challenged. There are laws in place to protect from misuse and abuse.

The first consideration is the open source business models. Open source is a commonly used application that is suitable for both non-commercial and public use. Whereas it can be used anywhere, this is common in the business world because it has a lot to offer a professional structure. Consider this as a means for individuals and companies alike to work together on a product that they would not have the success alone. Taking the time to think through the what ifs and have a thorough discussion to prevent unnecessary waste of time or potential failure. This is done on the user’s time and it is a rapid fix for bugs as well as potential changes that the user may have requested to happen.

There has to be increased security for open-source model. This is due to the public view of the code and the potential for negative feedback but any potential issues can be recognize and fixed instead of keeping it in its original format and allowing the wrong individual to identify. Allowing it to fall into the wrong hands instead of addressing it on their terms could give access to someone else to take the unfinished product and finish it. The public eye can be very critical as well, and credibility could potentially decline. Open-source business models lay the groundwork for the underdogs to collaborate and beat the corporate conglomerates. It lays the groundwork for higher reliability. This is how the little people can someday challenge companies like Microsoft and other on this level.

The challenge of internet freedom and the rise of digital commons is the security and ownership associated with it. Challenging or limiting this could ultimately effect the overall outcome. Andrew St. Laurent addresses this in his book, Understanding open source and free software licensing.

“The fundamental purpose of open source licensing is to deny anybody the right to exclusively exploit a work. Typically, in order to permit their works to reach a broad audience, and, incidentally, to make some sort of living from making works, creators are required to surrender all, or substantially all, of the rights granted by copyright to those entities that are capable of distributing and thereby exploiting that work.” (St. Laurent)

This challenges the benefits of open source business models because of its nature, there is a higher potential for exploitation. As with every function, there are pros and cons that are associated with it. Protecting an individual’s creation is just as important as trying to perfect it. This is why the laws are created as a means to protect, even though they essentially limit the rights of the users.

With an open source business model, there are means to dictate the terms in a manner that prevents exploitation and keeps the original writer in control of the outcomes. According to an article in Understanding open source and free software licensing,

“A comparable consumer of open source licensed software is in an entirely different position. She can freely distribute (in exchange for payment or not) copies of the work because of the “open distribution” principle. She can freely modify the work and distribute those derivative works (again, whether in not), because of the “open modification” principle. The only substantial limitation upon her exercise of these rights that an open source license is likely to impose is that the copies of the work that she distributes, whether the original work or her own derivative work, be themselves licensed in a manner consistent with the original license.” (St. Laurent)

This is all dictated by the terms of the licensing. However, the power of distribution, whether that is to share with the consumer or sell it, is with the creator.

In its current status, open source is not just in reference to the source code. This also dictates the terms of the open-source software and criteria must comply with. It must have free distribution. This prevents any restriction from giving away or selling the software. It must include the source code for the program. This includes the distribution in compiled form and in source code. It must allow changes and resulting works to be redistributed under the same license. It must protect the integrity of the creator’s source code. This license allows distribution of software build as a result of the source code being modified. There is no discrimination allowed against any group or individual.

Open source cannot discriminate against fields of endeavor. Its license cannot prevent an individual from making the program useful in a specific field of endeavor. This means if a program was written for a doctor’s office, it cannot be prevented from being used in a rehab facility. Next is the distribution of license. The author’s rights that are attached to the program transfers to all who the program is distributed. The license cannot be specific to a product. The ownership of the program must not be based on that program being part of a specific software distribution. The license cannot restrict other software. It cannot put any restrictions on other software that is dispersed with the licensed software. And lastly the license has to be technology-neutral. No part of the license can be based on type of interface or individual technology.

Open source business models may be favorable in most cases, but it is important to consider when it could lose its benefit. According to an article in The open source alternative: Understanding risks and leveraging opportunities. “However, be aware that open source projects, particularly smaller ones, sometimes resent incorrect or, more often, incomplete information about the licensing terms actually included in their code.” (Meeker) the smaller the projects the more potential there is for error in code. Therefore it is incomplete and does not provide the serve or benefit that was initially intended.

There are many pros that digital commons brings to the table. First is that it focuses on achievement instead of technology. Being a supported platform and fully hosted, digital commons creates the freedom to obtain digital assets. One can also work with scholars, built collections, and endorse a repository as central point in scholarly activity for a community in its entirety. Digital commons also engages scholars in a different way. Providing scholar sites, conference management, and peer-reviewed information, it is a well-established repository. Digital commons can raise the profile of the institution. Create the best search engines that are easy to use and appealing. This will allow one to create a partnership outside of the institution and with a much larger community. It also creates value to funders as well as increasing relevance and visibility of the institution.

Another pro of digital commons is the best practice and expertise that can be given. It has been improved through the years of study and experience from repositories that have found success. This allows clients to hone in on repositories worldwide and get feedback and advice from the ones who have found success. And lastly there is the low cost of ownership. Open Source IR software is free to obtain. However it is time consuming and expensive to implement. It needs dedicated personnel and house data for development and maintenance as well as hardware to serve.

The con of digital commons is that it is extremely costly and time consuming to implement. It has to have an extensive amount of resources to be successful. It has to have personnel whose specific role is to operate and maintain this. Without the institution’s involvement and data it would not serve the purpose for which it was designed.

It is important to consider who benefits from digital commons and open source programs. This is not about one specific money-hungry corporate giant. This could stem all the way back to the little guy who is competing with monopolies. The users are the ones who truly benefit. They benefit from the collaboration, the feedback, and the usage. The consumers benefit from the product and the ability to analyze. They have access to better the tools through interaction with other customers and feedback. They build off of their community and it provides a positive outcome.

Ones who may not benefit from digital commons and open source programs would be media companies and software developers. Media companies do not find it beneficial to utilize open source programs. They do not want access or the ability to share what they own the rights to. Software companies do not benefit from open source programs either. For example Microsoft is a closed-source model source. Their software is maintained by their own team that makes their product in a compiled-executable state. This is all that their market is allowed to access. They are strong enforcers of this type of a model. This is a large financial benefit for companies like Microsoft because they own the monopoly to their products. No one has yet to challenge them in a manner that could rank close to their own creation.

Having the basis of open sourced application programs, software or other tools which allow interaction among users to better the tools overall is extremely important to this platform.

“Individuals need to be at the center of their own digital lives, and not peripheral dependents either vendors or identity providers.” (Mackinnon) The individuals know what they need and what would benefit them the most. This is why allowing this interaction is essential for the best potential outcome in product and usability. The platform by which it is developed can determine the best option for sharing and product development.

Limiting or dictating the open sourced applications, programs, software or other tools that allow interaction among users to better the tool overall could greatly hinder the outcome. “Sharing, not secrecy, is the means by which we realize such a lofty destiny as well as create infinite wealth. The wealth of networks, the wealth of knowledge, and revolutionary wealth— all can create a nonzero win-win Earth that works for one hundred percent of humanity. This is the “utopia” that Buckminster Fuller foresaw, now within our reach.” (Steele) Clearly the fear of exploitation or potential loss will continue to raise challenges and objections to the open source applications, however this should not limit or prevent the purpose.

There are ways to have a successful initiatives. This includes organizations that are focuses on expanding individual rights as well as maintaining the existing ones. The current changes can be successfully challenged. In her writing, Consent of the networked. The worldwide struggle for internet freedom. , Rebecca states, “Creating a more netizen-centric and netizen-driven information environment even holds lucrative opportunities for forward-thinking entrepreneurs and businesses.” (Mackinnon) The democratic government and corporations have a long way to go before they reach the necessary standards of the normal internet user.

“Are digital commons successful in promoting group collaboration and execution of open source programs, and how do they relate to corporate or standardized software development? The relevance of this question to this course coincides with not only the development of the applications and programs, but also the process and methodology in which the users and developers in the community interact and progress their interests. There are basic workflows and key interactions that must occur between the users of the community within the lifecycle of their idea. From the first thoughts on what should be presented and implemented in the new system, to the finalized and published iterations or enhancements rely on multiple variables that promote or negate the ability for the idea to come to fruition.

Digital commons successful promote group collaboration and execution of open source programs, and this directly relates to corporate and standardized software development. In most situations, group collaboration allows room for discussion and improvements. This is just as true in a college class room as it is an executive office. Running ideas past the majority allows for feedback and corrections of errors in the event that they arise. Fixing it on the ground floor could prevent an excessive waste of time and money. It is far better to correct this before it is discovered by the wrong individual. Limiting or dictating the terms of this collaboration could greatly hinder the progress that is intended to occur. Protecting and licensing is completely different than limitations, and there should be no restrictions within this process.

Works Citied

Mackinnon, Rebecca. Consent of the networked. The worldwide struggle for internet freedom. New York. Perseus Books Group, 2013. Print.

Meeker, H. The open source alternative: Understanding risks and leveraging opportunities. John Wiley and Sons, 2008. Print.

St. Laurent, Andrew. Understanding open source and free software licensing. Sebastopol, 2004. Print.

Steele, Robert. The open-source everything manifesto: transparency, truth, and trust. Berkeley, 2012. Print.