DOCSLIB.ORG

Viewpoint Why "Open Source" Misses the Point of Free Software

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Viewpoint Why viewpoints VDOI:10.1145/1516046.1516058 Richard Stallman Viewpoint Why “Open Source” Misses the Point of Free Software Decoding the important differences in terminology, underlying philosophy, and value systems between two similar categories of software. HEN WE CALL software appeal to business executives by citing “free,” we mean it re- practical benefits, while avoiding ideas spects the users’ essen- of right and wrong they might not like tial freedoms: the free- to hear. Other proponents flatly reject- dom to run it, to study ed the free software movement’s ethi- Wand change it, and to redistribute cal and social values. Whichever their copies with or without changes (see views, when campaigning for “open http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free- source” they did not cite or advocate sw.html). This is a matter of freedom, those values. The term “open source” not price, so think of “free speech,” not quickly became associated with the “free beer.” practice of citing only practical values, These freedoms are vitally impor- such as making powerful, reliable soft- tant. They are essential, not just for the ware. Most of the supporters of “open individual users’ sake, but because they source” have come to it since then, promote social solidarity—that is, shar- the development of the free operating and that practice is what they take it to ing and cooperation. They become even system GNU, so we could avoid the non- mean. more important as more aspects of our free operating systems that deny free- Nearly all open source software is culture and life activities are digitized. dom to their users. During the 1980s, free software; the two terms describe In a world of digital sounds, images, we developed most of the essential almost the same category of software. and words, free software increasingly components of such a system, as well But they stand for views based on fun- equates with freedom in general. as the GNU General Public License (see damentally different values. Open Tens of millions of people around http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html), source is a development methodology; the world now use free software; the a license designed specifically to pro- free software is a social movement. For schools in regions of India and Spain tect freedom for all users of a program. the free software movement, free soft- now teach all students to use the free However, not all of the users and de- ware is an ethical imperative, because GNU/Linux operating system (see velopers of free software agreed with the only free software respects the users’ http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and- goals of the free software movement. In freedom. By contrast, the philosophy of gnu.html). But most of these users have 1998, a part of the free software com- open source considers issues in terms never heard of the ethical reasons for munity splintered off and began cam- of how to make software “better”—in which we developed this system and paigning in the name of “open source.” a practical sense only. It says that non- built the free software community, be- The term was originally proposed to free software is a suboptimal solution. cause today this system and commu- avoid a possible misunderstanding For the free software movement, how- nity are more often described as “open of the term “free software,” but it soon ever, non-free software is a social prob- source,” and attributed to a different became associated with philosophical lem, and moving to free software is the philosophy in which these freedoms views quite different from those of the solution. are hardly mentioned. free software movement. Free software. Open source. If it’s The free software movement has Some of the proponents of “open the same software, does it matter campaigned for computer users’ free- source” considered it a marketing cam- which name you use? Yes, because dif- dom since 1983. In 1984 we launched paign for free software, which would ferent words convey different ideas. JUNE 2009 | VOL. 52 | NO. 6 | COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM 31 viewpoints While a free program by any other the same; it is a little looser in some re- considered free software licenses. name would give you the same free- spects, so open source supporters have dom today, establishing freedom in accepted a few licenses that we consid- Different Values Can Lead a lasting way depends above all on er unacceptably restrictive of the users. to Similar Conclusions… teaching people to value freedom. If Nonetheless, it is fairly close to our defi- But Not Always you want to help do this, it is essential nition in practice. Radical groups in the 1960s had a repu- to speak about “free software.” However, the obvious meaning for tation for factionalism: some organiza- We in the free software movement the expression “open source software” tions split because of disagreements don’t think of the open source camp is “You can look at the source code,” on details of strategy, and the two re- as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary and most people seem to think that’s sultant groups treated each other as (non-free) software. But we want people what it means. That is a much weaker enemies despite having similar basic to know we stand for freedom, so we do criterion than free software, and much goals and values. The right wing made not accept being misidentified as open weaker than the official definition of much of this, and used it to criticize the source supporters. open source. It includes many pro- entire left. grams that are neither free nor open Some try to disparage the free soft- Common Misunderstandings of source. Since that obvious meaning ware movement by comparing our “Free Software” and “Open Source” for “open source” is not the meaning disagreement with open source to the The term “free software” has a problem that its advocates intend, the result disagreements of those radical groups. of misinterpretation: an unintended is that most people misunderstand They have it backward. We disagree meaning, “software you can get for zero the term. Here is how writer Neal Ste- with the open source camp on the ba- price,” fits the term just as well as the phenson defined “open source”: Li- sic goals and values, but their views and intended meaning, “software that gives nux is “open source” software meaning, ours lead in many cases to the same the user certain freedoms.” We address simply, that anyone can get copies of its practical behavior—such as developing this problem by publishing the defi- source code files. free software. nition of free software, and by saying I don’t think Stephenson deliberately As a result, people from the free “Think of free speech, not free beer.” sought to reject or dispute the “official” software movement and the open This is not a perfect solution; it cannot definition. I think he simply applied the source camp often work together on completely eliminate the problem. An conventions of the English language to practical projects such as software de- unambiguous, correct term would be come up with a meaning for the term. velopment. It is remarkable that such better, if it didn’t have other problems. The state of Kansas published a similar different philosophical views can so Unfortunately, all the alternatives definition: Make use of open-source soft- often motivate different people to par- in English have problems of their own. ware (OSS). OSS is software for which the ticipate in the same projects. Nonethe- We’ve looked at many alternatives that source code is freely and publicly avail- less, these views are very different, and people have suggested, but none is able, though the specific licensing agree- there are situations where they lead to so clearly correct that switching to it ments vary as to what one is allowed to do very different actions. would be a good idea. Every proposed with that code. The idea of open source is that allow- replacement for “free software” has Open source supporters try to deal ing users to change and redistribute the some kind of semantic problem—and with this by pointing to their official software will make it more powerful and this includes “open source software.” definition, but that corrective approach reliable. But this is not guaranteed. De- The official definition of “open is less effective for them than it is for us. velopers of proprietary software are not source software,” which is published by The term “free software” has two natu- necessarily incompetent. Sometimes the Open Source Initiative (see http:// ral meanings, one of which is the in- they produce a program that is power- opensource.org/docs/osd) and too long tended meaning, so a person who has ful and reliable, even though it does not to cite here, was derived indirectly from grasped the idea of “free speech, not respect the users’ freedom. How will our criteria for free software. It is not free beer” will not get it wrong again. free software activists and open source But “open source” has only one natural enthusiasts react to that? meaning, which is different from the A pure open source enthusiast, one meaning its supporters intend. So there that is not at all influenced by the ide- Open source is is no succinct way to explain and justify als of free software, will say, “I am sur- a development the official definition of “open source.” prised you were able to make the pro- That makes for worse confusion. gram work so well without using our methodology; free Another common misunderstand- development model, but you did.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Practice Tips for Open Source Licensing Adam Kubelka
    Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal Volume 22 | Issue 4 Article 4 2006 No Free Beer - Practice Tips for Open Source Licensing Adam Kubelka Matthew aF wcett Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Adam Kubelka and Matthew Fawcett, No Free Beer - Practice Tips for Open Source Licensing, 22 Santa Clara High Tech. L.J. 797 (2005). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj/vol22/iss4/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLE NO FREE BEER - PRACTICE TIPS FOR OPEN SOURCE LICENSING Adam Kubelkat Matthew Fawcetttt I. INTRODUCTION Open source software is big business. According to research conducted by Optaros, Inc., and InformationWeek magazine, 87 percent of the 512 companies surveyed use open source software, with companies earning over $1 billion in annual revenue saving an average of $3.3 million by using open source software in 2004.1 Open source is not just staying in computer rooms either-it is increasingly grabbing intellectual property headlines and entering mainstream news on issues like the following: i. A $5 billion dollar legal dispute between SCO Group Inc. (SCO) and International Business Machines Corp. t Adam Kubelka is Corporate Counsel at JDS Uniphase Corporation, where he advises the company on matters related to the commercialization of its products.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Software Licensing
    An Introduction to Software Licensing James Willenbring Software Engineering and Research Department Center for Computing Research Sandia National Laboratories David Bernholdt Oak Ridge National Laboratory Please open the Q&A Google Doc so that I can ask you Michael Heroux some questions! Sandia National Laboratories http://bit.ly/IDEAS-licensing ATPESC 2019 Q Center, St. Charles, IL (USA) (And you’re welcome to ask See slide 2 for 8 August 2019 license details me questions too) exascaleproject.org Disclaimers, license, citation, and acknowledgements Disclaimers • This is not legal advice (TINLA). Consult with true experts before making any consequential decisions • Copyright laws differ by country. Some info may be US-centric License and Citation • This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). • Requested citation: James Willenbring, David Bernholdt and Michael Heroux, An Introduction to Software Licensing, tutorial, in Argonne Training Program on Extreme-Scale Computing (ATPESC) 2019. • An earlier presentation is archived at https://ideas-productivity.org/events/hpc-best-practices-webinars/#webinar024 Acknowledgements • This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR), and by the Exascale Computing Project (17-SC-20-SC), a collaborative effort of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science and the National Nuclear Security Administration. • This work was performed in part at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which is managed by UT-Battelle, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725. • This work was performed in part at Sandia National Laboratories.
    [Show full text]
  • Crowdsourcing: Today and Tomorrow
    Crowdsourcing: Today and Tomorrow An Interactive Qualifying Project Submitted to the Faculty of the WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science by Fangwen Yuan Jun Liang Zhaokun Xue Approved Professor Sonia Chernova Advisor 1 Abstract This project focuses on crowdsourcing, the practice of outsourcing activities that are traditionally performed by a small group of professionals to an unknown, large community of individuals. Our study examines how crowdsourcing has become an important form of labor organization, what major forms of crowdsourcing exist currently, and which trends of crowdsourcing will have potential impacts on the society in the future. The study is conducted through literature study on the derivation and development of crowdsourcing, through examination on current major crowdsourcing platforms, and through surveys and interviews with crowdsourcing participants on their experiences and motivations. 2 Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 8 1.1 Definition of Crowdsourcing ............................................................................................................... 8 1.2 Research Motivation ........................................................................................................................... 8 1.3 Research Objectives ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Linux and Free Software: What and Why?
    Linux and Free Software: What and Why? (Qué son Linux y el Software libre y cómo beneficia su uso a las empresas para lograr productividad económica y ventajas técnicas?) JugoJugo CreativoCreativo Michael Kerrisk UniversidadUniversidad dede SantanderSantander UDESUDES © 2012 Bucaramanga,Bucaramanga, ColombiaColombia [email protected] 77 JuneJune 20122012 http://man7.org/ man7.org 1 Who am I? ● Programmer, educator, and writer ● UNIX since 1987; Linux since late 1990s ● Linux man-pages maintainer since 2004 ● Author of a book on Linux programming man7.org 2 Overview ● What is Linux? ● How are Linux and Free Software created? ● History ● Where is Linux used today? ● What is Free Software? ● Source code; Software licensing ● Importance and advantages of Free Software and Software Freedom ● Concluding remarks man7.org 3 ● What is Linux? ● How are Linux and Free Software created? ● History ● Where is Linux used today? ● What is Free Software? ● Source code; Software licensing ● Importance and advantages of Free Software and Software Freedom ● Concluding remarks man7.org 4 What is Linux? ● An operating system (sistema operativo) ● (Operating System = OS) ● Examples of other operating systems: ● Windows ● Mac OS X Penguins are the Linux mascot man7.org 5 But, what's an operating system? ● Two definitions: ● Kernel ● Kernel + package of common programs man7.org 6 OS Definition 1: Kernel ● Computer scientists' definition: ● Operating System = Kernel (núcleo) ● Kernel = fundamental program on which all other programs depend man7.org 7 Programs can live
    [Show full text]
  • 2012 Winners List
    ® 2012 Winners List Category 1: American-Style Wheat Beer, 23 Entries Category 29: Baltic-Style Porter, 28 Entries Gold: Wagon Box Wheat, Black Tooth Brewing Co., Sheridan, WY Gold: Baltic Gnome Porter, Rock Bottom Denver, Denver, CO Silver: 1919 choc beer, choc Beer Co., Krebs, OK Silver: Battle Axe Baltic Porter, Fat Heads Brewery, North Olmsted, OH Bronze: DD Blonde, Hop Valley Brewing Co., Springfield, OR Bronze: Dan - My Turn Series, Lakefront Brewery, Milwaukee, WI Category 2: American-Style Wheat Beer With Yeast, 28 Entries Category 30: European-Style Low-Alcohol Lager/German-Style, 18 Entries Gold: Whitetail Wheat, Montana Brewing Co., Billings, MT Silver: Beck’s Premier Light, Brauerei Beck & Co., Bremen, Germany Silver: Miners Gold, Lewis & Clark Brewing Co., Helena, MT Bronze: Hochdorfer Hopfen-Leicht, Hochdorfer Kronenbrauerei Otto Haizmann, Nagold-Hochdorf, Germany Bronze: Leavenworth Boulder Bend Dunkelweizen, Fish Brewing Co., Olympia, WA Category 31: German-Style Pilsener, 74 Entries Category 3: Fruit Beer, 41 Entries Gold: Brio, Olgerdin Egill Skallagrimsson, Reykjavik, Iceland Gold: Eat A Peach, Rocky Mountain Brewery, Colorado Springs, CO Silver: Schönramer Pils, Private Landbrauerei Schönram, Schönram, Germany Silver: Da Yoopers, Rocky Mountain Brewery, Colorado Springs, CO Bronze: Baumgartner Pils, Brauerei Jos. Baumgartner, Schaerding, Austria Bronze: Blushing Monk, Founders Brewing Co., Grand Rapids, MI Category 32: Bohemian-Style Pilsener, 62 Entries Category 4: Fruit Wheat Beer, 28 Entries Gold: Starobrno Ležák,
    [Show full text]
  • Building Online Content and Community with Drupal
    Collaborative Librarianship Volume 1 Issue 4 Article 10 2009 Building Online Content and Community with Drupal Gabrielle Wiersma University of Colorado at Boulder, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/collaborativelibrarianship Part of the Collection Development and Management Commons Recommended Citation Wiersma, Gabrielle (2009) "Building Online Content and Community with Drupal," Collaborative Librarianship: Vol. 1 : Iss. 4 , Article 10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29087/2009.1.4.10 Available at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/collaborativelibrarianship/vol1/iss4/10 This Review is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Collaborative Librarianship by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. Wiersma: Building Online Content and Community with Drupal Building Online Content and Community with Drupal Gabrielle Wiersma ([email protected]) Engineering Research and Instruction Librarian, University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries use content management systems Additionally, all users are allowed to post in order to create, manage, edit, and publish content without using code, which enables content on the Web more efficiently. Drupal less tech savvy users to contribute content (drupal.org), one such Web-based content just as easily as their more proficient coun- management system, is unique because it terparts. For example, a library could use employs a bottom-up strategy for Web de- Drupal to allow library staff to view and sign that separates the content of the site edit the library Web site, blog, and staff from the formatting which means that “you intranet.
    [Show full text]
  • Deposit Systems for One-Way Beverage Containers: Global Overview 2018 Author’S Note
    DEPOSIT SYSTEMS FOR ONE-WAY BEVERAGE CONTAINERS: GLOBAL OVERVIEW 2018 AUTHOR’S NOTE This report was prepared by CM Consulting in association with Reloop Platform, and is intended to provide a comprehensive summary of 39 different deposit-return systems for one-way beverage containers in existence around the world. CM Consulting Inc. Working with industry, government, and not-for-profits, CM Consulting is recognized worldwide for the comprehensive information and analysis it provides – information that is relied upon to make informed policy and programming decisions. Established in 1998 by Clarissa Morawski, CM Consulting was founded on the principle that industry and consumers must assume greater responsibility for ensuring that the manufacture, use, reuse and recycling of their products and packaging has a minimum impact on the environment. CM Consulting specializes in waste minimization and Canadian stewardship policy with a specific focus on extended producer responsibility programs, cost and performance. The CM Consulting team consists of Clarissa Morawski (Principal), Jason Wilcox (Projects Manager), and Samantha Millette (Content Writer & Researcher). Reloop Platform Reloop is a broad platform of like-minded interests that share a common vision for a circular economy. The founding members of the organization bring together industry, government, and non-governmental organizations to form a network for advances in policy that create enabling system conditions for circularity across the European economy. With members coming from different sectors across Europe, the platform aims to work as a catalyst in order to generate economic and environmental opportunities for all stakeholders in the value chain. This includes producers, distributors, recyclers, academia, NGOs, trade unions, green regions, or cities.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Code Forking in Open Source Software
    EKONOMI OCH SAMHÄLLE ECONOMICS AND SOCIETY LINUS NYMAN – UNDERSTANDING CODE FORKING IN OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE SOURCE OPEN IN FORKING CODE UNDERSTANDING – NYMAN LINUS UNDERSTANDING CODE FORKING IN OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE AN EXAMINATION OF CODE FORKING, ITS EFFECT ON OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE, AND HOW IT IS VIEWED AND PRACTICED BY DEVELOPERS LINUS NYMAN Ekonomi och samhälle Economics and Society Skrifter utgivna vid Svenska handelshögskolan Publications of the Hanken School of Economics Nr 287 Linus Nyman Understanding Code Forking in Open Source Software An examination of code forking, its effect on open source software, and how it is viewed and practiced by developers Helsinki 2015 < Understanding Code Forking in Open Source Software: An examination of code forking, its effect on open source software, and how it is viewed and practiced by developers Key words: Code forking, fork, open source software, free software © Hanken School of Economics & Linus Nyman, 2015 Linus Nyman Hanken School of Economics Information Systems Science, Department of Management and Organisation P.O.Box 479, 00101 Helsinki, Finland Hanken School of Economics ISBN 978-952-232-274-6 (printed) ISBN 978-952-232-275-3 (PDF) ISSN-L 0424-7256 ISSN 0424-7256 (printed) ISSN 2242-699X (PDF) Edita Prima Ltd, Helsinki 2015 i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are many people who either helped make this book possible, or at the very least much more enjoyable to write. Firstly I would like to thank my pre-examiners Imed Hammouda and Björn Lundell for their insightful suggestions and remarks. Furthermore, I am grateful to Imed for also serving as my opponent. I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to Liikesivistysrahasto, the Hanken Foundation, the Wallenberg Foundation, and the Finnish Unix User Group.
    [Show full text]
  • Open-Source Practices for Music Signal Processing Research Recommendations for Transparent, Sustainable, and Reproducible Audio Research
    MUSIC SIGNAL PROCESSING Brian McFee, Jong Wook Kim, Mark Cartwright, Justin Salamon, Rachel Bittner, and Juan Pablo Bello Open-Source Practices for Music Signal Processing Research Recommendations for transparent, sustainable, and reproducible audio research n the early years of music information retrieval (MIR), research problems were often centered around conceptually simple Itasks, and methods were evaluated on small, idealized data sets. A canonical example of this is genre recognition—i.e., Which one of n genres describes this song?—which was often evaluated on the GTZAN data set (1,000 musical excerpts balanced across ten genres) [1]. As task definitions were simple, so too were signal analysis pipelines, which often derived from methods for speech processing and recognition and typically consisted of simple methods for feature extraction, statistical modeling, and evalua- tion. When describing a research system, the expected level of detail was superficial: it was sufficient to state, e.g., the number of mel-frequency cepstral coefficients used, the statistical model (e.g., a Gaussian mixture model), the choice of data set, and the evaluation criteria, without stating the underlying software depen- dencies or implementation details. Because of an increased abun- dance of methods, the proliferation of software toolkits, the explo- sion of machine learning, and a focus shift toward more realistic problem settings, modern research systems are substantially more complex than their predecessors. Modern MIR researchers must pay careful attention to detail when processing metadata, imple- menting evaluation criteria, and disseminating results. Reproducibility and Complexity in MIR The common practice in MIR research has been to publish find- ©ISTOCKPHOTO.COM/TRAFFIC_ANALYZER ings when a novel variation of some system component (such as the feature representation or statistical model) led to an increase in performance.
    [Show full text]
  • Annex I Definitions
    Annex I Definitions Free and Open Source Software (FOSS): Software whose source code is published and made available to the public, enabling anyone to copy, modify and redistribute the source code without paying royalties or fees. Open source code evolves through community cooperation. These communities are composed of individual programmers and users as well as very large companies. Some examples of open source initiatives are GNU/Linux, Eclipse, Apache, Mozilla, and various projects hosted on SourceForge1 and Savannah2 Web sites. Proprietary software -- Software that is distributed under commercial licence agreements, usually for a fee. The main difference between the proprietary software licence and the open source licence is that the recipient does not normally receive the right to copy, modify, redistribute the software without fees or royalty obligations. Something proprietary is something exclusively owned by someone, often with connotations that it is exclusive and cannot be used by other parties without negotiations. It may specifically mean that the item is covered by one or more patents, as in proprietary technology. Proprietary software means that some individual or company holds the exclusive copyrights on a piece of software, at the same time denying others access to the software’s source code and the right to copy, modify and study the software. Open standards -- Software interfaces, protocols, or electronic formats that are openly documented and have been accepted in the industry through either formal or de facto processes, which are freely available for adoption by the industry. The open source community has been a leader in promoting and adopting open standards. Some of the success of open source software is due to the availability of worldwide standards for exchanging information, standards that have been implemented in browsers, email systems, file sharing applications and many other tools.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Source in the Enterprise
    Open Source in the Enterprise Andy Oram and Zaheda Bhorat Beijing Boston Farnham Sebastopol Tokyo Open Source in the Enterprise by Andy Oram and Zaheda Bhorat Copyright © 2018 O’Reilly Media. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Published by O’Reilly Media, Inc., 1005 Gravenstein Highway North, Sebastopol, CA 95472. O’Reilly books may be purchased for educational, business, or sales promotional use. Online edi‐ tions are also available for most titles (http://oreilly.com/safari). For more information, contact our corporate/institutional sales department: 800-998-9938 or [email protected]. Editor: Michele Cronin Interior Designer: David Futato Production Editor: Kristen Brown Cover Designer: Karen Montgomery Copyeditor: Octal Publishing Services, Inc. July 2018: First Edition Revision History for the First Edition 2018-06-18: First Release The O’Reilly logo is a registered trademark of O’Reilly Media, Inc. Open Source in the Enterprise, the cover image, and related trade dress are trademarks of O’Reilly Media, Inc. The views expressed in this work are those of the authors, and do not represent the publisher’s views. While the publisher and the authors have used good faith efforts to ensure that the informa‐ tion and instructions contained in this work are accurate, the publisher and the authors disclaim all responsibility for errors or omissions, including without limitation responsibility for damages resulting from the use of or reliance on this work. Use of the information and instructions contained in this work is at your own risk. If any code samples or other technology this work contains or describes is subject to open source licenses or the intellectual property rights of others, it is your responsibility to ensure that your use thereof complies with such licenses and/or rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Rights Management
    ROBERTO CASO DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT Il commercio delle informazioni digitali tra contratto e diritto d'autore Ristampa digitale Trento - 2006 La prima edizione di questo libro - © Copyright 2004 by CEDAM, Padova (stampata in Italia: Grafiche TPM – Padova) ISBN 88-13-25253-6 - è stata realizzata nell’ambito di un progetto di ricerca sul tema “Agenti software e commercio elettronico: profili giuridici, tecnologici e psico-sociali” (MIUR- cofin 2001), ed è stata inserita come XLVIII titolo nella Collana CEDAM del Dipartimento di Scienze Giuridiche dell’Università di Trento. Questa ristampa digitale del libro “Roberto Caso, Digital Rights Management. Il commercio delle informazioni digitali tra contratto e diritto d'autore”- © Copyright 2006 by Roberto Caso - è pubblicata con licenza Creative Commons Attribuzione-NonCommerciale-NoOpereDerivate 2.0 Italy. Tale licenza consente l'uso non commerciale dell’opera, a condizione che ne sia sempre data attribuzione all’autore. Per maggiori informazioni circa la licenza, visita il sito http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/it/ A mio padre che amava la vita anche attraverso la lettura INDICE Pag. INTRODUZIONE..................................................................... 1 CAPITOLO PRIMO UNO SGUARDO RAVVICINATO AL DRM ............................... 5 1.1 Qualche chiarimento terminologico .............................. 5 1.2 Business models e tecnologie di riferimento.................. 12 1.3 Campi di applicazione ................................................... 26 1.4 Standard........................................................................
    [Show full text]