Antonio B. Sotelo

Antonio B. Sotelo Commercial software From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search Commercial software is computer software sold for commercial purposes or that serves commercial purposes. Until the emergence of the Internet, commercial software represented, until the 2000s, the vast majority of all software used and was referred to as shrinkware because software almost always ships in a shrinkwrapped box. Historically, one of the most important events that have led to the expansion of the retail software market was the Open Letter to Hobbyists by Bill Gates in 1976. The most famous examples of commercial software are the products offered on the IBM PC and clones in the 1980s and 90s, including famous programs like Lotus 123, Word Perfect and the various parts that make up Microsoft Office. Microsoft Windows is also shrinkware, but is most often pre-installed on the computer. The rise of the Internet and software licensing schemes has dramatically changed the retail software market. Users are capable of finding shareware, freeware and free software products as easily as retail. Producers of commercial software have shifted to providing much of their software and services via the Internet, including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, and Apple Computer. Commercial software is most often proprietary software, but free software is also used as commercial software. All or parts of software packages and services that support commerce are increasingly made available as free software, including products from RedHat, Apple Computer, Sun Microsystems, and Google. The Microsoft Corporation uses "commercial software", rather than "proprietary software", to describe their business model.[1] Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_software"

Commercial Software

This is a listing of vendors who provide commercial software that works with NetBSD directly. A wide variety of commercial software runs on various NetBSD platforms in emulation mode; this page is for products that specifically support NetBSD. The SCC Internetworking & Databases Linux Applications database for BSD is a list of Linux applications that also runs on NetBSD using Linux emulation. There is also a page for hardware products.

Apache • •

Stronghold SSL-encrypting Apache (C2Net) Vision For Apache (Focus Array)

Databases • • •

Arkeia Network Backup client and MySQL plug-in Digital Distribution GFS Pty Ltd. PostgreSQL, Inc.

Device Drivers •

Open Sound System Drivers (4Front Technologies)

File Systems •

OmniTraak File System (Traakan)

Network • •

Bandwidth Manager (Emerging Technologies) Sharity CIFS client (Objective Development Group)

The X Window System •

Motif (Software2Go)

Others • • •

Alkaline Internet / Intranet search engine (Vestris Inc.) Aluria Software Gateway Anti-Spyware SDK AXIGEN Mail Server

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Coverity Prevent for NetBSD CYCAS CAD 2D + 3D + Architecture (Verlag Anja C. Frese) EasyStat (Philip Petrescu) F-Prot Antivirus Japanese input and word processor (Omron Software Co) MKS-VIR NC Navigator (Liberate Technologies) Perforce (Perforce Software) Petidomo Mailing List Manager (Cybersolutions) ravantivirus TrackSite TCWebMail Universal Log Profiler Veracity File Integrity Tools (Veracity)

Apache Stronghold SSL-encrypting Apache (C2Net) (top) C2Net produces Stronghold, an SSL-encrypting, enhanced commercial version of the popular Apache server. Based on figures in the Netcraft Survey, Stronghold is the number one full-strength webserver available worldwide. Vision For Apache (Focus Array) (top) The Focus Array Ltd. produces Vision For Apache (VFA), a 100% Java GUI and Tools for the Apache HTTP Server. It supports all Apache 1.3.11 commands, plus a growing number of 3rd party modules, a performance monitor, user and group authentication, configures AccessFiles (.htaccess), remote configuration via X11, server control, transaction logging, and enforces most directive rules and restrictions. It is FREE for non-commercial use.

Databases

Arkeia Network Backup client and MySQL plug-in (top) Arkeia provides a NetBSD version of the client for their Network Backup product They have also developed a hot backup plug-in under MySQL, which is available for NetBSD. Digital Distribution GFS Pty Ltd. (top) The purpose of Digital Distribution GFS Pty Ltd. is to provide high-quality training to the users of Open Source software, and generate revenue to fund the further development of Open Source software (OpenOffice.org and PostgreSQL at present) and further courses (both free ones and those through this site). PostgreSQL, Inc. (top) The Vision of PostgreSQL, Inc. is to support the market dominance of PostgreSQL as the definitive freeware SQL database solutions for individuals and organizations worldwide.

Device Drivers Open Sound System Drivers (4Front Technologies) (top) 4Front Technologies provides sound card drivers for most popular sound cards under NetBSD via their Open Sound System. These drivers support digital audio, MIDI, Synthesizers and mixers found on sound cards. These sound drivers comply with the Open Sound System API specification.

File Systems OmniTraak File System (Traakan) (top) Traakan has developed a fully journaled file system called OmniTraak File System (OTFS). It is a commercial product available under commercial license. OTFS is now running on NetBSD 1.6.1 and a demo kit is available.

Network Bandwidth Manager (Emerging Technologies) (top) Emerging Technologies, Inc. Bandwidth Manager can be used to precisely control the traffic either for an entire intranet or selectively between any number of network segments. Sharity CIFS client (Objective Development Group) (top) Objective Development Group Sharity is a client for the CIFS (Common Internet FileSystem) protocol, formerly known as SMB (Server Message Block) protocol. Sharity allows you to mount directories exported by WindowsNT, Windows95, Windows for Workgroups, OS/2, samba and many others.

The X Window System Motif (Software2Go) (top) Software2Go, LLC announces the release of Motif 2.1.20 for NetBSD on the Alpha, Intel (x86) and SPARC platforms. Motif 2.1.20 is Software2Go's second release of The Open Group's Motif User Interface Toolkit. It adds supports for the Alpha and SPARC platforms. Software2Go Motif 2.1.20 also incorporates the latest fixes and enhancements from The Open Group, enhanced by Software2Go's integration with the latest X Window System distributions for Open Source operating systems. Software2Go Motif is available in both development and runtime distributions, available for $129 and $59 respectively. Contact: Software2Go, LLC Online Ordering, [email protected], www.software2go.com, 817-431-8775 (phone/fax)

Others

Alkaline Internet / Intranet search engine (Vestris Inc.) (top) Alkaline is a Internet / Intranet search engine by Vestris Inc.. Alkaline is free for non-commercial sites and non-profit organizations. NetBSD/alpha binaries are available for download. Aluria Software Gateway Anti-Spyware SDK (top) Aluria Software spyware blocking technology allows gateway application developers to watch incoming traffic and pass suspect files to the Aluria SDK, which scans the files and notifies the gateway to block or accept. Furthermore, the SDK offers features that enable the gateway to prohibit access (incoming or outgoing) to malicious IP addresses and web sites. The Aluria Gateway Anti-Spyware SDK is available for NetBSD. AXIGEN Mail Server (top) AXIGEN Mail Server is an integrated mail server running on NetBSD. It provides SMTP/ESMTP, IMAP, POP3 and WebMail services as well as a list server and reporting tools. There is also a version with a “lite” license available as AXIGEN Mail Server - Gateway for use as a secure relay server. Coverity Prevent for NetBSD (top) CYCAS CAD 2D + 3D + Architecture (Verlag Anja C. Frese) (top) CYCAS is a piece of architectural software for drafting and design in 2 + 3 dimensions. In addition to typical CAD functions, CYCAS offers special elements and techniques for architectural design. Therefore, you can easily design and draft your ideas. System requirements : NetBSD 1.4(.x)/i386, X11, Ghostscript (if no PostScript printer is available), optionally POV-Ray 3.0 or higher. Minimum hardware is x386DX, 16MB RAM, 20MB free disk space, video resolution 800*600, 8bpp. Recommended hardware: x86 PC 133MHz or higher, 32MB RAM or more, 50MB free disk space, video resolution 1024*768 or more, 16bpp or higher. EasyStat (Philip Petrescu) (top) EasyStat is a "counter" like application. It will keep track of the number of visitors to your site, as well as gather information about your visitors such as their browser, operating system, referrer, etc. EasyStat will then display all it

gathers in an elegant fashion, a demo of which is available on its site. It currently runs on x86 (NetBSD/i386) based machines. F-Prot Antivirus (top) F-Prot offers antivirus solutions for NetBSD, both for corporate and home users (which is free). More information on their site. Japanese input and word processor (Omron Software Co) (top) Omron Software Co. produces two products for Japanese users of NetBSD. (Their pages are in Japanese only.) • •

Wnn6 for NetBSD (A Japanese input method) dp/NOTE for NetBSD (A Japanese word processor)

MKS-VIR (top) MKS-VIR, a package including various anti-viral programs, is available for NetBSD/i386. These programs can be integrated using procmail or amavis. NC Navigator (Liberate Technologies) (top) Liberate Technologies produces TV Navigator (formerly NC Desktop), which runs on NCOS 2.3 (version 3.0 is due out soon). NCOS is based on the standard NetBSD distribution, but with a substantially modified kernel, including threads and size reduction, and many changes to the user environment including full localization. In addition TV Navigator includes Netscape Navigator. TV Navigator currently runs on Strong Arm (NetBSD/arm32) and x86 (NetBSD/i386) based machines. More platforms are in the pipeline. Perforce (Perforce Software) (top) Perforce is a Fast Software Configuration Management (SCM) system, providing all features of leading-edge SCM. It is built upon a client/server architecture, doesn't rely on network file access, and will work quickly from initial deployment through to mature, large-scale productivity. The Perforce web site offers an online demo, as well as evaluation binaries for NetBSD 1.4.x PPC and AXP systems.

Petidomo Mailing List Manager (Cybersolutions) (top) Cybersolutions The Petidomo Mailing List Manager is a software package designed to host and maintain mailing lists. Petidomo can do pretty much everything one would expect from a list-server: It can maintain public mailing lists, closed lists, moderated lists, and hidden lists. But beyond that, Petidomo can also: • • • • • • •

run completely PGP-encrypted mailing lists run mailing lists compliant to rfc 2369 mirror mailing list traffic into a newsgroup and vice versa automatically re-format articles posted to the list, using an external (user-written) filter do extensive access control, using a powerful access control language catch the infamous "unsubscribe me" postings and reject them, or redirect them to the appropriate address some more things I can't think of right now. :-)

Petidomo is a commercial program and commercial usage requires a license from Cybersolutions GmbH. All non-commercial usage, though, is free. The full source code of the latest, unrestricted version is available at the web site. Petidomo was developed on a NetBSD/i386 machine and then ported to other platforms. Binary distributions for various NetBSD platforms and versions are available. Peter Simons <[email protected]> ravantivirus (top) The ravantivirus software which can be used with exim or sendmail. TrackSite (top) TrackSite is a comprehensive automated real-time visitor tracking and traffic analytics system for websites. A demo as well as a free edition (with reduced feature set) is available on the web site. TrackSite is cross-platform software and targets NetBSD as one of its supported platforms.

TCWebMail (top) TCWebMail is a web-based email application which supports services using existing POP3 and SMTP servers. The appearence is easily adaptable to any desired corporate design. Universal Log Profiler (top) The Universal Log Profiler is a system-log analysis tool that aggregates log data from firewalls, intrusion-detection systems and other sources to alert managers about network security lapses. Accordingly to NetworkWorld press release (which is also mirrored on Remnant Labs, the ULP vendor), servers supported include a wide range of commercial and free operating systems, as well as NetBSD system logs. Veracity File Integrity Tools (Veracity) (top) Veracity produces multiplatform software for checking file integrity for security and reliability. i386 available now, ask for others on the Veracity site.

Freeware From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search This article or section does not cite its references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!) This article has been tagged since October 2006.

Freeware is copyrighted computer software which is made available for use free of charge, for an unlimited time, as opposed to shareware where the user is required to pay (e.g. after some trial period). Authors of freeware often want to "give something to the community", but also want credit for their software and to retain control of its future development. Sometimes when programmers decide to stop developing a freeware product, they will give the source code to another programmer or release the product's source code to the public as free software.

[edit] History The term freeware was coined by Andrew Fluegelman when he wanted to sell a communications program named PC-Talk that he had created but for which he did not wish to use traditional methods of distribution because of their cost.[1] Previously, he held

a trademark on the term "freeware" but this trademark has since been abandoned. Fluegelman actually distributed PC-Talk via a process now referred to as shareware.

[edit] Criterion The only criterion for being classified as "freeware" is that the software must be made available for use for an unlimited time at no cost. The software license may impose one or more other restrictions on the type of use including personal use, individual use, nonprofit use, non-commercial use, academic use, commercial use or any combination of these. For instance, the license may be "free for personal, non-commercial use." Everything created with the freeware programs can be distributed at no cost (for example graphic, documents, or sounds made by user). There is some software that may be considered freeware, but that have limited distribution; that is, they may only be downloaded from a specific site, and they can not be redistributed. Hence, these software wouldn't be freely redistributable software. According to the basic definition, that software would be freeware; according to stricter definitions, they wouldn't be.

[edit] Comparison with other terms

Freeware contrasts with free software, because of the different meanings of the word "free". Freeware is gratis and refers to zero price, versus free software that is described as "libre", which means free to study, change, copy, redistribute, share and use the software in any purpose. However, many programs are both freeware and free software. They are available for zero price, provide the source code and are distributed with free software permissions. This software would exclusively be called free software to avoid confusion

with freeware that usually does not come with the source code and is therefore proprietary software.

[edit] Variations There are many variations of freeware. Freeware is an umbrella term which can include loss leaders (in the form of crippleware), public domain software, free software, proprietary software, and shareware when there is no price to be paid to use the software. Undelete Plus 2.61 Effectively recover deleted files from NTFS and FAT hard drives.

FastStone Image Viewer 3.0 A full featured image viewer, browser, converter, and editor.

TestDisk 6.6 Recover lost partitions and/or make non-booting disks bootable.

TV v2.0 Watch 300+ live TV stations on your PC. Music, news, more.

Site Categories

Games

Audio & Video

Action, Card, Strategy...

Mp3, Burning Tools, Video Apps...

Internet Tools Video Search, Browsers, P2P...

Organize/Business

Graphics/Design

Accounting, Calendars, PIM...

Animation, Editors, Viewers...

Programming

Web Development

C / C++, Editors, Visual Basic...

Editors, Java, XML Tools...

Screen Savers Bikinis, Patterns/3D, People...

Desktop Icons, Desktop Toys, Cursors...

Utilities

Themes

Antivirus, Tweaking Tools, Zip/Unzip...

Art, Athletes/Sports...

Drivers

Home & Education General, Health & Nutrition...

Free Clipart Downloads

Audio, CD-Rom, Libraries/Dlls...

Web Graphics Backgrounds, Circles, Lines...

Free Tech Magazine Software Magazine - print publication written for IT managers who specify, recommend and purchase software products and services. Plus, here are a few more popular titles: eWeek - the essential technology information source for builders of ebusiness. Internet Telephony - covers the whole breath of the VoIP industry. Game Developer - provides technical and industry information to over 35,000 professional game developers. That's just the tip of the iceberg; see many more in our TradePub area.

Public domain From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search This article is about public ownership of creative works. For use in relationship to public lands, see public domain (land).

Icon sometimes used to indicate that source material is not subject to copyright. Public domain comprises the body of knowledge and innovation (especially creative works such as writing, art, music, and inventions) in relation to which no person or other legal entity can establish or maintain proprietary interests within a particular legal jurisdiction. This body of information and creativity is considered to be part of a common cultural and intellectual heritage, which, in general, anyone may use or exploit, whether for commercial or non-commercial purposes. Only about 15 percent of all books are in the public domain, and 10 percent of all books are still in print. [1] If an item ("work") is not in the public domain, this may be the result of a proprietary interest such as a copyright, patent, or other sui generis right. The extent to which members of the public may use or exploit the work is limited to the extent of the proprietary interests in the relevant legal jurisdiction. However, when the copyright, patent or other proprietary restrictions expire, the work enters the public domain and may be used by anyone for any purpose.

Intellectual property law • • •

Copyright o Moral rights Related rights Patents

• • • • •

Trademarks Geographical indication Industrial design rights Trade secrets Sui generis rights o Database rights o Mask work o Plant breeders' rights o Supplementary protection certificate (SPC) o

Traditional knowledge edit box •

[edit] No legal restriction on use A creative work is said to be in the public domain if there are no laws which restrict its use by the public at large. For instance, a work may be in the public domain if no laws establish proprietary rights over the work, or if the work or its subject matter are specifically excluded from existing laws. Because proprietary rights are founded in national laws, an item may be public domain in one jurisdiction but not another. For instance, some works of literature are public domain in the US but not in the EU and vice versa. The underlying idea that is expressed or manifested in the creation of a work generally cannot be the subject of copyright law (see idea-expression divide). Mathematical formulae will therefore generally form part of the public domain, to the extent that their expression in the form of software is not covered by copyright; however, algorithms can be the subject of a software patent in some jurisdictions. Works created before the existence of copyright and patent laws also form part of the public domain. The Bible and the inventions of Archimedes are in the public domain. However, copyright may exist in translations or new formulations of these works. Although "intellectual property" laws are not designed to prevent facts from entering the public domain, collections of facts organized or presented in a creative way, such as categorized lists, may be copyrighted. Collections of data with intuitive organization, such as alphabetized directories like telephone directories, are generally not copyrightable. In some countries copyright-like rights are granted for databases, even those containing mere facts. A sui generis database rights regime is in place in the European Union.

Works of the United States Government and various other governments are excluded from copyright law and may therefore be considered to be in the public domain in their respective countries. They may also be in the public domain in other countries as well. Creative Commons [2], an organization which promotes the migration of works into the public domain as well as copyleft licensing schemes, holds that: Public access to literature, art, music, and film is essential to preserving and building on our cultural heritage.

[edit] Expiration All copyrights and patents have always had a finite term, though the terms for copyrights and patents differ. When terms expire, the work or invention is released into public domain. In most countries, patents expire 20 years after they are filed. A trademark registration may be renewed and remain in force indefinitely provided the trademark is used, but could otherwise become generic. Copyrights are more complex than patents; generally, in current law, the copyright in a published work expires in all countries when any of the following conditions are satisfied (except Colombia, Cote d'ivoire, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Samoa, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, on all these countries are fair use)[2]: •

•

•

•

The work was created and first published before January 1, 1923, or at least 95 years before January 1 of the current year, whichever is later; The last surviving author died at least 70 years before January 1 of the current year; No Berne Convention signatory has passed a perpetual copyright on the work; and Neither the United States nor the European Union has passed a copyright term extension since

these conditions were last updated. (This must be a condition because the exact numbers in the other conditions depend on the state of the law at any given moment.) These conditions are based on the intersection of United States and European Union copyright law, which most other Berne Convention signatories recognize. Note that copyright term extension under U.S. tradition usually does not restore copyright to public domain works (hence the 1923 date), but European tradition does because the EU harmonization was based on the copyright term in Germany, which had already been extended to life plus 70.

[edit] United States law In the United States, copyright law has changed several times since the founding of the country. It is held under Feist v. Rural that Congress does not have the power to recopyright works that have fallen into the public domain. Eldred v. Ashcroft transcript However, re-copyrighting has happened before. "After World War I and after World War II, there were special amendments to the Copyright Act to permit for a limited time and under certain conditions the recapture of works that might have fallen into the public domain, principally by aliens of countries with which we had been at war." (Testimony of Dorothy Schrader, general counsel of the U.S. copyright office, hearing for H.R. 1623, serial 100/50) Works created by an agency of the United States government are public domain at the moment of creation. Examples include military journalism, federal court opinions (but not necessarily state court opinions), congressional committee reports, and census data. However, works commissioned by the government but created by a contractor are still subject to copyright, and even in the case of public domain documents, availability of such documents may be limited by laws limiting the spread of classified information. Before 1978, unpublished works were not covered by the federal copyright act. This does not mean that the works were in the public domain. Rather, it means that they were covered under (perpetual) state copyright law. The claim that "pre-1923 works are safe" is only correct for published works; unpublished works are under federal copyright for at least the life of the author plus seventy years. If they were created before 1978 but first published before 2002, the works have federal copyright protection until 2047. The public domain began to receive widespread attention after David Lange's seminal law review article, "Recognizing the Public Domain," which was published in volume forty-four of Law & Contemporary Problems in 1981.

Until the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, the lack of a proper copyright notice would force an otherwise copyrightable work into the public domain, although for works published between 1978 and 1989, this defect could be cured by registering the work with the Library of Congress within 5 years of publication. After 1988, an author's copyright in a work begins when it is fixed in a tangible form; neither publication nor registration is required, and a lack of a copyright notice does not place the work into the public domain. Critics of copyright term extensions have said that Congress has achieved a perpetual copyright term "on the installment plan." Statement of Professor Peter Jaszi, The Copyright Term Extension Act of 1995: Hearing on S.483 Before the Senate Judiciary Comm., 104th Cong.

[edit] British law British government works are restricted by either Crown Copyright or Parliamentary Copyright. Published Crown Copyright works become public domain at the end of the year 50 years after they were published, unless the author of the work held copyright and assigned it to the Crown. In that case, the copyright term is the usual life of author plus 70 years. Unpublished Crown Copyright documents become public domain at the end of the year 125 years after they were first created. However, under the legislation that created this rule, and abolished the traditional common law perpetual copyright of unpublished works, no unpublished works will become public domain until 50 years after the legislation came into effect. Since the legislation became law on 1 August 1989, no unpublished works will become public domain under this provision until 2039. Parliamentary Copyright documents become public domain at the end of the year 50 years after they were published. Crown Copyright is waived on some government works provided that certain conditions are met.

[edit] Laws of Canada, Australia, and Other Commonwealth Nations These numbers reflect the most recent extensions of copyright in the United States and Europe. Canada and New Zealand have not, as of 2006, passed similar twenty-year extensions. Consequently, their copyright expiry times are still life of the author plus 50 years. Australia passed a 20-year copyright extension in 2004, but delayed its effect until 2005, and did not make it revive already-expired copyrights. Hence, in Australia works by authors who died before 1955 are still in the public domain. As a result, works ranging from Peter Pan to the stories of H. P. Lovecraft are public domain in both countries. (The copyright status of Lovecraft's work is debatable, as no copyright renewals, which were necessary under the laws of that time, have been found. Also, two competing parties have independently claimed copyright ownership on his work.) As with most other Commonwealth of Nations countries, Canada and Australia follow the general lead of the United Kingdom on copyright of government works. Both have a

version of Crown Copyright which lasts for 50 years from publication. New Zealand also has Crown Copyright, but has a much greater time length, at 100 years from the date of publication. India has a government copyright of sixty years from publication, to coincide with its somewhat unusual life of the author plus sixty years term of copyright.

[edit] Thai law According to Thai copyright law, the copyright term is the life of author plus 50 years.[3] When the author is a legal entity or an anonymous person, the copyright term is 50 years from the date of publication. Works of applied art (defined as drawings/paintings, sculpture, prints, architecture, photography, and drafts) have a copyright term of 50 years from publication.[4] Republication of works after the expiration of the copyright term does not reset the copyright term. Thai state documents are public domain.[5]

[edit] Examples Examples of inventions whose patents have expired include the inventions of Thomas Edison. Examples of works whose copyrights have expired include the works of Carlo Collodi, Mozart, and most of the works of Mark Twain, excluding the work first published in 2001, A Murder, a Mystery, and a Marriage. In the United States, Frank Capra's classic film, It's a Wonderful Life (1946) entered into the public domain in 1974, because someone inadvertently failed to file a copyright renewal application with the Copyright Office during the 28th year after the film's release or publication. It wasn't until 1993 when Republic Pictures relied on the 1990 United States Supreme Court ruling in Stewart v. Abend to enforce its claim of copyright of the film. As a result, only NBC is currently licensed to show the film on U.S. network television, the colorized versions have been withdrawn and Republic got exclusive video rights to the film (under license with Artisan Entertainment). Rights to It's a Wonderful Life now belong to Paramount Pictures. Currently four shorts by the Three Stooges are in the public domain due to accidental failure to renew their copyrights in the 60s. These are Disorder in the Court, Brideless Groom, Malice in the Palace, and Sing a Song of Six Pants. Other features and films from the Stooges are known to be in public domain as well. Several Episodes of The Lucy Show are similarly in the public domain.[citation needed] Some works may never fully lapse into the public domain, such as the play Peter Pan by J. M. Barrie. While the copyright of this work expired in the United Kingdom in 1987, it has been granted special treatment under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (Schedule 6) that requires certain royalties to be paid for performances within the UK, so long as Great Ormond Street Hospital continues to exist.

[edit] Disclaimer of interest The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

Laws may make some types of works and inventions ineligible for monopoly; such works immediately enter the public domain upon publication. Many kinds of mental creations, such as publicized baseball statistics, are never covered by copyright. However, any special layout of baseball statistics, or the like, would be covered by copyright law. For example, while a phonebook is not covered by copyright law, any special method of laying out the information would be. For example: U.S. copyright law, 17 U.S.C. § 105, releases all works created by the U.S. government into the public domain. U.S. patent applications containing a copyright notice must also include a disclaimer of certain exclusive rights as part of the terms of granting the patent to the invention (leaving open the question regarding copyright of patents with no such notice). Agreements that Germany signed at the end of World War I released such trademarks as "aspirin" and "heroin" into the public domain in many areas. Another example would be Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Being an abstract idea it has therefore never been patentable. After Darwin constructed his theory, he did not disclose it for over a decade (see Development of Darwin's theory). He could have kept his manuscript in his desk drawer forever but once he published the idea, the idea itself entered public domain. However, the carrier of his ideas, in the form of a book titled The Origin of Species, was covered by copyright (though, since he died in 1882, the copyright has since expired).

[edit] Copyright In the past, in some jurisdictions such as the USA, a work would enter the public domain with respect to copyright if it was released without a copyright notice. This was true prior to March 1, 1989 (according to the USA Copyright office), but is no longer the case. Any work (of certain, enumerated types) receives copyright as soon as it is fixed in a tangible medium. It is commonly believed by non-lawyers that it is impossible to put a work into the public domain. Although copyright law generally does not provide any statutory means to "abandon" copyright so that a work can enter the public domain, this does not mean that it is impossible or even difficult, only that the law is somewhat unclear. Congress may not have felt it necessary to codify this part of the law, because abandoning property (like a tract of land) to the public domain has traditionally been a matter of judge-made law, rather than statute. (Alternatively, because copyright has traditionally been seen as a valuable right, one which required registration to achieve, it would not have made sense to contemplate someone abandoning it in 1976 and 1988.)

[edit] Statutory law [edit] Computer Software Rental Amendments Act

There are several references to putting copyrighted work into the public domain. The first reference is actually in a statute passed by Congress, in the Computer Software Rental Amendments Act of 1990 (H.R. 5498 of the 101st Congress). Although most of the Act was codified into Title 17 of the U.S. Code, there is a very interesting provision relating to "public domain shareware" which was not, and is therefore often overlooked. Sec. 105. Recordation of Shareware (a) IN GENERAL- The Register of Copyrights is authorized, upon receipt of any document designated as pertaining to computer shareware and the fee prescribed by section 708 of title 17, United States Code, to record the document and return it with a certificate of recordation. (b) MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS; PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION- The Register of Copyrights is authorized to maintain current, separate records relating to the recordation of documents under subsection (a), and to compile and publish at periodic intervals information relating to such recordations. Such publications shall be offered for sale to the public at prices based on the cost of reproduction and distribution. (c) DEPOSIT OF COPIES IN LIBRARY OF CONGRESS- In the case of public domain computer shareware, at the election of the person recording a document under subsection (a), 2 complete copies of the best edition (as defined in section 101 of title 17, United States Code) of the computer shareware as embodied in machine-readable form may be deposited for the benefit of the Machine-Readable Collections Reading Room of the Library of Congress. (d) REGULATIONS- The Register of Copyrights is authorized to establish regulations not inconsistent with law for the administration of the functions of the Register under this section. All regulations established by the Register are subject to the approval of the Librarian of Congress.

One purpose of this legislation appears to be to allow "public domain shareware" to be filed at the Library of Congress, presumably so that the shareware would be more widely disseminated. Therefore, one way to release computer software into the public domain might be to make the filing and pay the $20 fee. This could have the effect of "certifying" that the author intended to release the software into the public domain. It does not seem that registration is necessary to release the software into the public domain, because the law does not state that public domain status is conferred by registration. Judge-made law supports this conclusion, see below. By comparing paragraph (a) and (c), one can see that Congress distinguishes "public domain" shareware as a special kind of shareware. Because this law was passed after the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, Congress was well aware that newly created computer programs (two years worth, since the Berne Act was passed) would automatically have copyright attached. Therefore, one reasonable inference is that Congress intended that authors of shareware would have the power to release their

programs into the public domain. This interpretation is followed by the Copyright Office in 37 C.F.R. § 201.26. [edit] Berne Convention Implementation Act

Main article: Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works The Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 states in section twelve that the Act "does not provide copyright protection for any work that is in the public domain." The congressional committee report explains that this means simply that the Act does not apply retroactively. Some interest groups lobbied heavily to make the Act retroactive in order to increase the U.S.'s negotiating leverage with other countries, because the U.S. often asks developing countries to allow the copyrighting of previously public-domain work. Although the only part of the act that does mention "public domain" does not speak to whether authors have the right to dedicate their work to the public domain, the remainder of the committee report does not say that they intended copyright should be an indestructible form of property. Rather the language speaks to getting rid of formalities in order to comply with Berne (non-compliance had become a severe impediment in trade negotiations) and making registration and marking optional, but encouraged. A fair reading is that the Berne Act did not intend to take away author's right to dedicate works to the public domain, which they had (by default) under the 1976 Act. [edit] Section 203 of the Copyright Act

Although there is support in the statutes for allowing work to be dedicated to the public domain, there cannot be an unlimited right to dedicate work to the public domain because of a quirk of U.S. copyright law which grants the author of a work the right to cancel "the exclusive or nonexclusive grant of a transfer or license of copyright or of any right under a copyright" thirty-five years later, unless the work was originally a work for hire. [3] It is unsettled how this section would mesh with a purported public domain dedication. Any of these interpretations are possible: •

No effect. Any holder of a copyright can release it to the public domain. This interpretation is probably wrong, because then an author would lose the right to his "termination right," which in practical terms means a

royalty. To prevent paying the royalty, a comic book company could release the copyright to the public domain but hold onto the trademark, which would suffice to prevent knock-off comics from being made. Because the Captain America case (Marvel v. Simon) showed that this termination right cannot be alienated before death, this interpretation is almost certainly wrongSome effect. An author may release his own work into the public domain, and a company holding a work for hire may release his work into the public domain. But a company which has purchased a copyright from an author (as was the case with most of the "Golden Age" comic book writers) cannot. Although the distinction of allowing an author to release his own work is not explicit in the statute, it may not be literally inconsistent (it is not a "transfer" or a "license," and it arguably is not a

•

grant of a right under copyright), and this reading is necessary to comply with the 1990 Act discussed above, as well as the case law discussed below. Strong effect. Only a company holding a work for hire can release the work into the public domain. Because of the references to "shareware" (above) and "programmers" (below), and the fact that many software companies in the 1980s were quite small (and thus did not have employees), this reading seems inconsistent with the intent of Congress.

[edit] Case law Another form of support comes from the seminal case Computer Associates Int'l v. Altai, 982 F.2d 693. This case set the standard for determining copyright infringement of computer software and is still followed today. Moreover, it was decided by the Second Circuit appellate court, which is famous for handing down some of the most wellreasoned American copyright decisions. In this case, it discusses the public domain. (c) Elements Taken from the Public Domain Closely related to the non-protectability of scenes a faire, is material found in the public domain. Such material is free for the taking and cannot be appropriated by a single author even though it is included in a copyrighted work. ... We see no reason to make an exception to this rule for elements of a computer program that have entered the public domain by virtue of freely accessible program exchanges and the like. See 3 Nimmer Section 13.03 [F] ; see also Brown Bag Software, slip op. at 3732 (affirming the district court’s finding that “‘[p]laintiffs may not claim copyright protection of an . . . expression that is, if not standard, then commonplace in the computer software industry.’“). Thus, a court must also filter out this material from the allegedly infringed program before it makes the final inquiry in its substantial similarity analysis.

This decision holds that computer software may enter the public domain through "freely accessible program exchanges and the like," or by becoming "commonplace in the computer industry." Relying only on this decision, it is unclear whether an author can dedicate his work to the public domain simply by labeling it as such, or whether dedication to the public domain requires widespread dissemination. This could make a distinction in a CyberPatrol-like case, where a software program is released, leading to litigation, and as part of a settlement the author assigns his copyright. If the author has the power to release his work into the public domain, there would be no way for the new owner to stop the circulation of the program. A court may look on an attempt to abuse the public domain in this way with disfavor, particularly if the program has not been widely disseminated. Either way, a fair reading is that an author may choose to release a computer program to the public domain if he can arrange for it to become popular and widely disseminated.

[edit] Treatise analysis The treatise cited (Nimmer), holds in its most recent edition: 13.03[F][4] It is axiomatic that material in the public domain is not protected by copyright, even when incorporated into a copyrighted work. ... An enormous amount of public domain software exists in the computer industry, perhaps to a much greater extent than is true of other fields. Nationwide computer "bulletin boards" permit users to share and distribute programs. In addition, computer programming texts may contain examples of actual code that programmers are encouraged to copy. Programmers often will build existing public domain software into their works. The courts thus must be careful to limit protection only to those elements of the program that represent the author's original work.

Although Computer Associates only mentioned the issue in passing, Nimmer observes that the public domain is particularly rich and valuable for computer programs. He seems to say that a computer program author who wishes to release his work into the public domain may either include it in a book as example code or post it on a "bulletin board" and encourage sharing and distribution. (Nimmer is the treatise most widely cited in copyright opinions, and is generally authoritative.)

[edit] Non-equivalence of licenses For various reasons, including the uncertainty in international law, the fear of liability suits, and of course the not-quite-settled state of U.S. law, licenses have become popular as a substitute for dedicating work to the public domain. Such a license would grant permission for all of the acts which are restricted by copyright law. Such a license is

sometimes called a "public-domain equivalent license," which is somewhat of a misnomer. There are several ways in which this license does not substitute for a true public domain release. [edit] Revocability where no consideration

A "bare license" unsupported by consideration is (theoretically) revocable at will. A license, generally in the law, is permission to do something that would ordinarily be a trespass. For example, when a friend is invited to a home for coffee, the friend has a license to remain in the house. The friend can be kicked out of the house at any time. However, if the friend has paid money and signed a contract to live in the house for a month, he has the right to stay. Revocability is not a problem in practice for two reasons. Entities which release software (such as M.I.T. and the University of California) are generally disinclined to be obnoxious. Second, there are certain legal defenses which could be raised, such as an "implied license by legal estoppel," if the original license purported to be perpetual, or the flimsier defense of equitable estoppel otherwise. However, most licenses, even the "public-domain equivalent" licenses, do not purport to be perpetual. The M.I.T license, for example, does not. A "bare license" of free software has been revoked in the past. Simply because a friendly entity released a program under a license does not mean that the friendly entity will continue to hold the copyright in the future. In the well-known CyberPatrol case, the defendants settled in part by transferring the offending program to a hostile party. The hostile party immediately revoked the GPL license of the program. (As a general rule, licenses are revocable, and the GPL does not purport to be perpetual.) His solution is to rely on 17 USC 205(e), which holds: (e) Priority Between Conflicting Transfer of Ownership and Nonexclusive License. — A nonexclusive license, whether recorded or not, prevails over a conflicting transfer of copyright ownership if the license is evidenced by a written instrument signed by the owner of the rights licensed or such owner’s duly authorized agent, and if — (1) the license was taken before execution of the transfer; or (2) the license was taken in good faith before recordation of the transfer and without notice of it.

To do so, someone signs a license to a friendly party, like the FSF, which, in his theory, preserves the GPL license to the world forever. (He observes that under other federal law, this can be done electronically, despite the language saying "written instrument signed.") It is certainly possible that Eben Moglen's interpretation would be upheld in court, but the case would be far from a slam-dunk, especially in a case like CyberPatrol where the new copyright holder has good reason to want the license revoked. The problem with Eben Moglen's interpretation comes from the unique construction of the GPL. The GPL purports to grant a new license from the original grantor, rather than

each succeeding author of a program granting a sub-license to the next. By the very terms of the statute, however, licenses from the original licensor are only protected if the license was granted before executing the transfer. (New licenses from the original licensor are not allowed, because the original licensor no longer holds the copyright to the work.) Therefore, further distribution of a GPL program is significantly limited after GPL is revoked. To be precise, the current holders of the program are authorized to modify and distribute the software, if they hold a "written instrument signed by the [former] owner," but the recipients of the software may not further redistribute it. [edit] Verbiage

The license will usually contain language perpetuating itself, of several kinds of wording. It can be unclear what license applies to what part of the work, increasing the likelihood that provisions pertaining to certain parts of the work will be breached. Outside the context of computer software, it may not even be possible to use a license due to excess verbiage. Magazine publishers might acquiesce to an author's request of putting a public domain notice on, say, a magazine article, but not allow several column inches to be filled with license boilerplate. [edit] Privity problems

An unfortunate problem with proliferating licenses is privity. In short, when a user has rights under a sub-license, they come only from the person who sub-licensed the work to him. It does not matter on what terms that person licensed the work. For instance, the original person may have paid money to receive extra commercialization rights. The book Open Source Licensing by Lawrence Rosen explains that virtually all open-source licenses use a "sub-licensing" model, where each user's rights come from the person who gave him that copy. The GPL is one of the very few that purports to issue rights from the original licensor. It is well-settled that work in the public domain keeps that status, even after being embedded in a copyrighted work. (See Nimmer above.) So that work can be extracted and used in another work. But if a liberally-licensed work has been included in a software program with a draconian license, it is not possible to legally extract the liberally-licensed work from the program, unless the license is an unusual one which purports not to sublicense. All of the user's rights flow from the license under which he received the program; it is irrelevant whether the previous person was subject to a more lenient license. Instead the user must find the original, liberally-licensed work and take from that. For example, the original 4.4BSD lite release was missing several important files and would not run directly. Suppose that the developers who made the software work chose to release the software under a harsher license which imposes restrictions against commercialization, rather than preserving the original license. Now suppose 10 years later someone wants to use some code from BSD in a commercial program. It might be impossible to track down an original copy of 4.4BSD lite, but strictly speaking they are not permitted to take even original BSD code out of the modern version.

[edit] Moral rights

Main article: Moral rights Under section 6bis of the Berne copyright treaty, authors have so-called moral rights which are inalienable. These rights give an author the right of attribution (even in parts copied under "fair use") and the right not to have his work defaced. More generally, the civil law moral rights are the disclosure right, paternity right, integrity right, retraction right, retirement right and the right to the honor. The U.S., generally speaking, rejects the notion of inalienable moral rights. Other countries, notably France, forbid authors signing away their moral rights in advance. "Public domain equivalent licenses" are not at all equivalent in some countries outside the United States because authors cannot write language into their licenses that would guarantee users that they would not be sued in the future by the author. Contributors to controversial works, like Linda Lovelace, have repudiated their earlier views as they grew older. It is not enough for an author to give assurances that he approves of any use of his work, because he may change his mind and sue. Even inside the United States, there may be a Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. problem with a mere license. A work's being in the public domain prevents former copyright holders from asserting related actions under the Lanham Act or state law. A mere license would not necessarily cut off these related actions unless the license were written very carefully. Moral rights do not cause difficulty with computer software licenses, because civil law countries have made special statutory exceptions where, absent agreement to the contrary, an author may not object to the modification of a software work by a grantee who has acquired the right to adapt the work. (Source: French Copyright Law revision of July 3, 1985, art. 46. See Ginsburg, Reforms and Innovations Regarding Authors' and Performers' Rights in France: Commentary on the Law of July 3, 1985, 10 Colum.-VLA J.L. & Arts 83, 90 (1985))

[edit] Patent With regards to patents, on the other hand, public use or publishing the details of an invention before applying for a patent will generally place an invention in the public domain and (in theory) prevent its subsequent patenting by anyone – - an effective disclaimer. For example, a chemistry journal publishing a formula prevents patenting the formula by anyone. This tactic was commonly used by Bell Labs. The famous Bell Labs Technical Journal was sent free of charge to the library of the U.S. Patent Office to establish a base of prior art without the inconvenience, cost, and hassle of filing patent applications for inventions of no immediate monetary value. (Unix was famously described in this journal.) This is sometimes called "defensive disclosure" - one way to make sure you are not later accused of infringing a patent on your own invention. There

is an exception to this rule, however: in U.S. (not European) law, an inventor may file a patent claim up to one year after publishing a description (but not, of course, if someone else published or used it first). In practice, patent examiners only consider other patents and the books they have in their library for prior art, largely because the patent office has an elaborate classification system for inventions. This means that an increasing number of issued patents may be invalid, based upon prior art that was not brought to the examiner's attention. Once a patent is issued, it is very expensive to invalidate. Publishing a description on a website as a pre-emptive disclosure does very little in a practical sense to release an invention to the public domain; it might still be considered "patentable", although erroneously. However, anyone aware of an omitted prior art citation in an issued patent may submit it to the US Patent Office and request a "reexamination" of the patent during the enforceable period of the patent (i.e., its life plus statute of limitions). This may result in loss of some or all of the patent protection of the invention, or it may backfire and actually strengthen the claims. An applicant may also choose to file a Statutory Invention Registration, which has the same effect as a patent for prior art purposes. These SIRs are relatively expensive. These are used strategically by large companies to prevent competitors from obtaining a patent. Section 102(c) says that an invention that has been "abandoned" cannot be patented. There is precious little case-law on this point. It is largely a dead letter. If an inventor has an issued patent, there are several ways to release it to the public domain (other than simply letting it expire). First, he can fail to pay the maintenance fee the next time it is due, about every four years. Alternatively he can file a terminal disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321 for a reasonable fee. The regulations explicitly say that the "patentee may disclaim or dedicate to the public the entire term, or any terminal part of the term, of the patent granted. Such disclaimer is binding upon the grantee and its successors or assigns." Usually this is used during the application process to protect another patent from a "double patenting" invalidation. Lastly, he may grant a patent license to the world, although the issue of revocability may raise its head again.

[edit] Trade secret If guarded properly, trade secrets are forever. A business may keep the formula to CocaCola a secret. However, once it is disclosed to the public, the former secret enters public domain, although an invention using the former secret may still be patentable in the United States if it is not barred by statute (including the on-sale bar)[4]. Some businesses choose to protect products, processes, and information by guarding them as trade secrets, rather than patenting them. Hershey Foods, Inc., for example, does not patent some of its processes, such as the recipe for Reese's, but rather maintains them as trade secrets, to prevent competitors from easily duplicating or learning from their invention disclosures.

One risk, however, is that anyone may reverse engineer a product and thus discover (and copy and publish) all of its secrets, to the extent they are not protected by other laws (e.g., patent, contract).

[edit] Trademark Main article: Genericized trademark A trademark registration is renewable. If a trademark owner wishes to do so, he may maintain a registration indefinitely by paying renewal fees, using the trademark and defending the registration. However, a trademark or brand can become unenforceable if it becomes the generic term for a particular type of product or service -- a process called "genericide." If a mark undergoes genericide, people are using the term generically, not as a trademark to exclusively identify the particular source of the product or service. One famous example is "thermos" in the United States. Because trademarks are registered with governments, some countries or trademark registries may recognize a mark, while others may have determined that it is generic and not protectable as a trademark in that registry. For example, the drug "salicylic acid" (2acetoxybenzoic acid) is better known as aspirin in the United States -- a generic term. In Canada, however, "aspirin" is still a trademark of the German company Bayer. Bayer lost the trademark after World War I, when the mark was sold to an American firm. So many copycat products entered the marketplace during the war that it was deemed generic just three years later.[6] Terms can be deemed "generic" in two ways. First, any potential mark can be deemed "generic" by a trademark registry, that refuses to register it. In this instance, the term has no secondary meaning that helps consumers identify the source of the product; the term serves no function as a "mark". Second, a mark, already in use, may be deemed generic by a court or registry after the mark is challenged as generic--this is known as "genericide". In this instance, the term previously had a secondary meaning, but lost its source-identifying function. To avoid "genericide", a trademark owner must balance between trying to dominate the market, and dominating their market to such an extent that their product name defines the market. A manufacturer who invents an amazing breakthrough product which cannot be succinctly described in plain English (for example, a vacuum-insulated drinking flask) will likely find its product described by the trademark ("Thermos"). If the product continues to dominate the market, eventually the trademark will become generic ("thermos"). However, "genericide" is not an inevitable process. In the late 1980s "Nintendo" was becoming synonymous with home video game consoles but Nintendo was able to reverse this process through marketing campaigns. Xerox was also successful in avoiding its

name becoming synonymous with the act of photocopying (although, in some languages (Russian) and countries (like India), it became generic). Trademarks currently thought to be in danger of being generic include Jello, Band-Aid, Rollerblading, Google, Spam, Hoover, and Sheetrock. Google vigorously defends its trademark rights. Although Hormel has resigned itself to genericide [5], it still fights attempts by other companies to register "spam" as a trademark in relation to computer products [6]. When a trademark becomes generic, it is as if the mark were in the public domain. Trademarks which have been genericized in particular places include: Escalator, Trampoline, Raisin Bran, Linoleum, Dry Ice, Shredded Wheat (generic in US), Mimeograph, Yo-Yo, Kerosene, Cornflakes, Cube Steak, Lanolin, and High Octane, (Source: Xerox ad, reprinted in Copyright, Patent, Trademark, ..., by Paul Goldstein, 5th ed., p. 245) as well as Aspirin (generic in the United States, but not in Canada), Allen wrench, Beaver Board, Masonite, Coke, Pablum, Styrofoam, Heroin, Bikini, Chyron, Weedwhacker, Kleenex, Linux (generic in Australia) and Zipper.

[edit] Domain name People may buy and sell domain names. Sometimes, people advertise them as their own "intellectual property". In early 2000, the record-breaker domain name "business.com" was sold for $8 million. A domain name never enters public domain. If nobody owns it, it simply doesn't exist. Top level domains, such as .com, are controlled by the ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers). A domain name is sometimes described as a lease, but this has only a shred of truth in it. In fact it is much closer to a trademark. While a leaseholder of, say, real estate cannot be ejected from the property by anybody (except the government, in rare cases), domain names are subject to cybersquatting suits and trademark suits.

[edit] Public domain and the Internet The term "public domain" is often poorly understood and has created significant legal controversy. Historically, most parties attempting to address public domain issues fell into two camps: 1. Businesses and organizations who could devote staff to resolving legal conflicts through negotiation and the court system.

2. Individuals and organizations using materials covered by the fair use doctrine, reducing the need for substantial governmental or corporate resources to track down individual offenders. With the advent of the Internet, however, it became possible for anybody with access to this worldwide network to "post" copyrighted or otherwise-licensed materials freely and easily. This aggravated an already established but false belief that, if something is available through a free source, it must be public domain. Once such material was available on the net, it could be perfectly copied among thousands or even millions of computers very quickly and essentially without cost.

[edit] Freely obtained does not mean free to republish These factors have reinforced the false notion that "freely obtained" means "public domain". One could argue that the Internet is a publicly-available domain, not licensed or controlled by any individual, company, or government; therefore, everything on the Internet is public domain. This specious argument ignores the fact that licensing rights are not dependent on the means of distribution or consumer acquisition. (If someone gives a person stolen merchandise, it is still stolen, even if the receiving party was not aware of it.) Chasing down copyright violations based on the idea that information is inherently free has become a primary focus of industries whose financial structure is based on their control of the distribution of such media. Though this is legally correct, public support for these companies' efforts is significantly undermined by the belief that they are receiving their "just deserts" for decades of price-gouging for licensed media. Ironically, this puts many creators of such work, like musicians and authors, on both sides of the issue, since they have frequently fought media distributors over inadequate compensation for their work, but depend on distributors' revenues for that compensation.

[edit] (Almost) everything written down is copyrighted Another complication is that publishing exclusively on the Internet has become extremely popular. According to U.S. law, at least, an author's original works are covered by copyright, even without a formal notice incorporated into the work. But such laws were passed at a time when the focus was on materials that could not be as easily and cheaply reproduced as digital media, nor did they comprehend the ultimate impossibility of determining which set of electronic bits is original. Technically, any Internet posting (such as blogs or emails) could be considered copyrighted material unless explicitly stated otherwise.

The distribution of many types of Internet postings (particularly Usenet articles and messages sent to electronic mailing lists) inherently involves duplication. The act of posting such a work can therefore be taken to imply consent to a certain amount of copying, as dictated by the technical details of the manner of distribution. However, it does not necessarily imply total waiver of copyright.

[edit] Furthering the public domain with the Internet Many people are using the Internet to contribute to the public domain, or make works in the public domain more accessible to more people. For example, Project Gutenberg and LibriVox coordinate the efforts of people who transcribe works in the public domain into electronic form. Some projects exist for the sole purpose of making material available into the public domain or under no-cost licences. Note that there are many works that are not part of the public domain, but for which the owner of some proprietary rights has chosen not to enforce those rights, or to grant some subset of those rights to the public. See, for example, the Free Software Foundation which creates copyrighted software and licenses it without charge to the public for most uses under a class of license called "copyleft", forbidding only proprietary redistribution. Wikipedia does much the same thing with its content under the GNU Free Documentation License. Sometimes such work is inadvertently referred to as "public domain" in colloquial speech. Note also that while some works (especially musical works) may be in the public domain, U.S. law considers performances or (some) transcriptions of those works to be derivative works, potentially subject to their own copyrights. Similarly, a film adaptation of a public-domain story (such as a fairy tale or a classic work of literature) may itself be copyrightable.

Open source From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search It has been suggested that Open source culture be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)

For other uses, see Open source (disambiguation). [edit] History The "open source" label came out of a strategy session[3] held at Palo Alto, California, in reaction to Netscape's January 1998 announcement of a source code release for Navigator. The group of individuals at the session included Christine Peterson who suggested "open source" and also included Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, Jon Hall,

Sam Ockman, and Eric S. Raymond. They used the opportunity before the release of Navigator's source code to free themselves of the ideological and confrontational connotations of the term free software. Netscape licensed and released their code as open source under the name of Mozilla. The term was given a big boost at an event organized in April 1998 by technology publisher Tim O'Reilly. Originally titled the "Freeware Summit" and later known as the "Open Source Summit"[4], the event brought together the leaders of many of the most important free and open source projects, including Linus Torvalds, Larry Wall, Brian Behlendorf, Eric Allman, Guido van Rossum, Michael Tiemann, Paul Vixie, Jamie Zawinski of Netscape, and Eric Raymond. At that meeting, the confusion caused by the name "free software" was brought up. Tiemann argued for "sourceware" as a new term, while Raymond argued for "open source." The assembled developers took a vote, and the winner was announced at a press conference that evening. This milestone may be commonly seen as the birth of the open source movement. However, earlier researchers with access to the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET) used a process called Request for Comments, which is similar to open standards, to develop telecommunication network protocols. Characterized by contemporary open source work, this collaborative process led to the birth of the Internet in 1969. An early use of open source was in the 1950s, when IBM distributed operating systems in source format and the SHARE user group was formed to facilitate the exchange of source code. The Open Source Initiative formed in February 1998 by Eric S. Raymond and Bruce Perens. With about 20 years of evidence from case histories of closed development versus open development already provided by the Internet, the OSI continued to present the 'open source' case to commercial businesses. They sought to bring a higher profile to the practical benefits of freely available source code, and they wanted to bring major software businesses and other high-tech industries into open source. Bruce Perens adapted Debian's Free Software Guidelines to make the Open Source Definition. [5] Critics have said that the term "open source" fosters an ambiguity of a different kind, in that it confuses the mere availability of the source with the freedom to use, modify, and redistribute it. Developers have used the term Free/Open-Source Software (FOSS), or Free/Libre/Open-Source Software (FLOSS), consequently, to describe open-source software that is freely available and free of charge.

[edit] Markets Software is not the only field affected by open source; many fields of study and social and political views have been affected by the growth of the concept of open source. Advocates in one field will often support the expansion of open source in other fields, including Linus Torvalds who is quoted as saying, "the future is open source everything."

Eric Raymond and other founders of the open source movement have sometimes publicly tried to put the brakes on speculation about applications outside of software, arguing that strong arguments for software openness should not be weakened by overreaching into areas where the story is less compelling. The broader impacts of the open source movement, and the extent of its role in the development of new information sharing procedures, remains to be seen. The open source movement has been the inspiration for increased transparency and liberty in other fields, including the release of biotechnology research by CAMBIA, Wikipedia, and other projects. The open-source concept has also been applied to media other than computer programs, e.g., by Creative Commons. It also constitutes an example of user innovation (see for example the book Democratizing Innovation). Often, open source is an expression where it simply means that a system is available to all who wish to work on it. Most economists would agree that open source candidates have a public goods aspect to them. In general, this suggests that the original work involves a great deal of time, money, and effort. However, the cost of reproducing the work is very low so that additional users may be added at zero or near zero cost - this is referred to as the marginal cost of a product. At this point, it is necessary to consider a copyright. The idea of copyright for works of authorship is to protect the incentive of making these original works. Copyright restriction then creates access costs on consumers who value the original more than making an additional copy but value the original less than its price. Thus, they will pay an access cost of this difference. Access costs also pose problems for authors who wish to create something based on another work yet are not willing to pay the copyright holder for the rights to the copyrighted work. The second type of cost incurred with a copyright system is the cost of administration and enforcement of the copyright. The idea of open source is then to eliminate the access costs of the consumer and the creator by reducing the restrictions of copyright. This will lead to creation of additional works, which build upon previous work and add to greater social benefit. Additionally, some proponents argue that open source also relieves society of the administration and enforcement costs of copyright. Organizations such as Creative Commons have websites where individuals can file for alternative "licenses", or levels of restriction, for their works. These self-made protections free the general society of the costs of policing copyright infringement. Thus, on several fronts, there is an efficiency argument to be made on behalf of open sourced goods. Others argue that open sourced goods create an environment where new products will not be developed due to a loss in monetary incentive for the creation of new goods. However, history has shown that corporations with large profits often take over smaller emerging technologies to intentionally destroy or slow development of the product. This leads technologies created by open source groups and educational institutions to continue development where the product or technology would otherwise be absorbed.

A counterargument against the "loss of monetary incentive" is that there are other incentives that motivate open source developers to create new information goods[6]. First, making ones product publicly available allows others to test and improve that product, thus also benefiting the original creator, who gains feedback, experience and a better product. Moreover, the creator gains in reputation by producing quality products[7], and this reputation may indirectly be turned into monetary advantage, as when open-source developers are paid for consultancy about the software they have expertise in. Finally, one should not a priori dismiss the incentive of altruism, i.e. the good feelings created by an activity that benefits the community, which is also at the basis of charity giving and volunteer work.

[edit] Computer hardware •

Open source hardware — hardware whose initial specification, usually in a software format, are published and made available to the public, enabling anyone to copy, modify and redistribute the hardware and source code without paying royalties or fees. Open source hardware evolves through community cooperation. These communities are composed of individual hardware/software developers, hobbyists, as well as very large companies. Examples of open source hardware initiatives are: o Sun Microsystem'

o

s OpenSPARC T1 Multicore processor. Sun has released it under GPL. Arduino, a microcontroll er platform for hobbyists, artists and designers.

•

Open design — which involves applying open source methodologies to the design of artifacts and systems in the physical world. Very nascent but has huge potential.

•

Teaching - which involves applying the concepts of open source to instruction using a shared web space as a platform to improve upon learning, organizational, and management challenges. An example of an Open Source Courseware is the Java Education & Development Initiative (JEDI).

Open source principles can also be applied to technical areas other than computer software, such as: digital communication protocols and data storage formats (for instance the Indian development simputer); and industrial tools such as the open source machine tool project the Multimachine.

[edit] Society and culture •

Open source as applied to culture defines a culture in which fixations are made generally available. Participants in such an open source culture are able to modify those products, if

[edit] Media Open source journalism — referred to the standard journalistic techniques of news gathering and fact checking, and reflected a similar term that was in use from 1992 in military intelligence circles, open source intelligence. It is now commonly used to describe forms of innovative publishing of online journalism, rather than the sourcing of news stories by a professional journalist. In the Dec 25, 2006 issue of TIME magazine this is referred to as user created content and listed alongside more traditional open source projects such as Linux. Weblogs, or blogs, are another significant platform for open source culture. Blogs consist of periodic, reverse chronologically ordered posts, using a technology that makes webpages easily updatable with no understanding of design, code, or file transfer required. While corporations, political campaigns and other formal institutions have begun using these tools to distribute information, many blogs are used by individuals for personal expression, political organizing, and socializing. Some, such as LiveJournal or WordPress, utilize open source software that is open to the public and can be modified by users to fit their own tastes. Whether the code is open or not, this format represents a nimble tool for people to borrow and re-present culture; whereas traditional websites made the illegal reproduction of culture difficult to regulate, the mutability of blogs makes "open sourcing" even more uncontrollable since it allows a larger portion of the population to replicate material more quickly in the public sphere. Messageboards are another platform for open source culture. Messageboards (also known as discussion boards or forums), are places online where people with similar interests can congregate and post messages for the community to read and respond to. Messageboards sometimes have moderators who enforce community standards of etiquette such as banning users who are spammers. Other common board features are private messages (where users can send messages to one another) as well as chat (a way to have a real time conversation online) and image uploading. Some messageboards use phpBB, which is a free open source package. Where blogs are more about individual expression and tend to revolve around their authors, messageboards are about creating a conversation amongst

its users where information can be shared freely and quickly. Messageboards are a way to remove intermediaries from everyday life - for instance, instead of relying on commercials and other forms of advertising, one can ask other users for frank reviews of a product, movie or CD. By removing the cultural middlemen, messageboards help speed the flow of information and exchange of ideas. OpenDocument is an open document file format for saving and exchanging editable office documents such as text documents (including memos, reports, and books), spreadsheets, charts, and presentations. Organizations and individuals that store their data in an open format such as OpenDocument avoid being locked in to a single software vendor, leaving them free to switch software if their current vendor goes out of business, raises their prices, changes their software, or changes their licensing terms to something less favorable. Open source movie production is either an open call system in which a changing crew and cast collaborate in movie production, a system in which the end result is made available for re-use by others or in which exclusively open source products are used in the production. The 2006 movie Elephants Dream is said to be the "world's first open movie"[15], created entirely using open source technology. An open source documentary film has a production process allowing the open contributions of archival material, footage, and other filmic elements, both in unedited and edited form. By doing so, on-line contributors become part of the process of creating the film, helping to influence the editorial and visual material to be used in the documentary, as well as its thematic development. The first open source documentary film, "The American Revolution" [16]," which will examine the role that WBCN-FM in Boston played in the cultural, social and political changes locally and nationally from 1968 to 1974, is currently in production by the production company, Lichtenstein Creative Media. Open Source Filmmaking refers to a form of filmmaking that takes a method of idea formation from open source software, but in this case the 'source' for a film maker is raw unedited footage rather than programming code. It can also refer to a method of filmmaking where the process of creation is 'open' i.e. a disparate group of contributors, at different times contribute to the final piece. Open-IPTV is IPTV that is not limited to one recording studio, production studio, or cast. Open-IPTV uses the internet or other means to pool efforts and resources together to create an online community that all contributes to a show.

[edit] Education Within the academic community, there is discussion about expanding what could be called the "intellectual commons" (analogous to the creative commons). Proponents of this view have hailed the Connexions Project at Rice University, OpenCourseWare project at MIT, Eugene Thacker's article on "Open Source DNA", the "Open Source

Cultural Database", openwebschool, and Wikipedia as examples of applying open source outside the realm of computer software. Open source curricula are instructional resources whose digital source can be freely used, distributed and modified. Another strand to the academic community is in the area of research. Many funded research projects produce software as part of their work. There is an increasing interest in making the outputs of such projects available under an open source license. In the UK the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) has developed a policy on open source software. JISC also funds a development service called OSS Watch which acts as an advisory service for higher and further education institutions wishing to use, contribute to and develop open source software.

[edit] Innovation communities The principle of sharing predates the open source movement; for example, the free sharing of information has been institutionalized in the scientific enterprise since at least the 19th century. Open source principles have always been part of the scientific community. The sociologist Robert K. Merton described the four basic elements of the community - universalism (an international perspective), communism (sharing information), disinterestedness (removing one's personal views from the scientific inquiry) and organized skepticism (requirements of proof and review) that accurately describe the scientific community today. These principles are, in part, complemented by US law's focus on protecting expression and method but not the ideas themselves. There is also a tradition of publishing research results to the scientific community instead of keeping all such knowledge proprietary. One of the recent initiatives in scientific publishing has been open access - the idea that research should be published in such a way that it is free and available to the public. There are currently many open access journals where the information is available for free online, however most journals do charge a fee (either to users or libraries for access). The Budapest Open Access Initiative is an international effort with the goal of making all research articles available for free on the internet. The National Institutes of Health has recently proposed a policy on "Enhanced Public Access to NIH Research Information." This policy would provide a free, searchable resource of NIH-funded results to the public and with other international repositories six months after its initial publication. The NIH's move is an important one because there is significant amount of public funding in scientific research. Many of the questions have yet to be answered - the balancing of profit vs. public access, and ensuring that desirable standards and incentives do not diminish with a shift to open access. Benjamin Franklin was an early contributor eventually donating all his inventions including the Franklin stove, bifocals and the lightning rod to the public domain after successfully profiting off their sales and patents. At Bootstrap Austin, an open source community, entrepreneurs provide negotiated products/services at no cost to the group. The entrepreneur benefits by gaining reputation

in the community, experience and an improved product. The community is at once a customer and Evangelist for the product/service. The entrepreneur monetizes their product or service outside the Bootstrap community. New NGO communities are starting to use the open source technology as a tool. One example is the Open Source Youth Network started in 2007 in Lisboa by ISCA [1] members.

[edit] Arts and recreation Copyright protection is used in the performing arts and even in athletic activities. Groups have attempted to protect such practices from being fettered by copyright.[2]

[edit] Criticism Critics of "open source" publishing cite the need for direct compensation for the work of creation. For example, the act of writing a book, building a complex piece of software, or producing a motion picture can take a substantial number of person-hours. Retaining intellectual property rights over such works greatly increases the feasibility of obtaining financial compensation which covers the labor costs. Proponents argue that without this compensation, many socially desirable and useful works would never be created in the first place. Some critics draw distinctions between areas where open source collaborations have successfully created useful products, such as general-purpose software, and areas where they see compensation as more important and collaboration as less important, such as highly specialized complex software projects, entertainment, or news. Another criticism of the open source movement is that these projects are not really as self-organizing as their proponents claim. This argument holds that open source projects succeed only when they have a strong central manager, even if that manager is a volunteer. The article Open Source Projects Manage Themselves? Dream On. by Chuck Connell explains this viewpoint. Eric Raymond responded to this criticism here, and Chuck Connell answered here. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) opposes the term "open source" and the professed pragmatism of the open source movement, as they fear that the free software ideals of freedom and community are threatened by compromising on the FSF's idealistic standards for software freedom.[17]

Open source describes the principles and methodologies to promote open access to the production and design process for various goods, products and resources. The term is most commonly applied to the source code of software that is made available to the general public with either relaxed or non-existent intellectual property restrictions. This

allows users to create user-generated software content through either incremental individual effort, or collaboration. Some consider open source as one of various possible design approaches, while others consider it a critical strategic element of their operations. Before open source became widely adopted, developers and producers used a variety of phrases to describe the concept; the term open source gained popularity with the rise of the Internet and its enabling of diverse production models, communication paths, and interactive communities.[1] Subsequently, open source software became the most prominent face of open source practices. The open source model can allow for the concurrent use of different agendas and approaches in production, in contrast with more centralized models of development such as those typically used in commercial software companies.[2] "Open source" as applied to culture defines a culture in which fixations are made generally available. Participants in such a culture are able to modify those products and redistribute them back into the community.

Graphics software

Reallusion Effect3D Studio graphics software allows anyone, from beginners to experienced designers, the ability to create professional 3D animated graphics. Add dramatic effects to your projects with simple drag-and-drop options available from the content galleries. Choose from hundreds of backgrounds, 3D objects, rendering effects, material settings, lighting and animation effects. You can also manually adjust settings & parameters to achieve the exact effect for each graphic you are looking for. Trial Download