Copyright vs Open Source

Dec 11, 2009 16:05

I once had a Java Instructor who taught the class that good coding requires: "Building on the shoulders of Giants". That means to take what has already been built or created, and to build something even better on top of it. This is how Linux, a free alternative to Windows was created. Everyone shared. No one was concerned with: "Don't copy that!", or "That's mine!". Only two year olds know the true meaning of greed. Those of us who are adults know that when someone copies you, you should take it as a compliment. There is no such thing as a copyright on an idea. That is what the internet is made of: ideas. There is so much information. Why can't it be free for all of us? I think the law should be that if you put anything on the internet, it is considered free for the taking. If you want to hoard something, keep it in your closet where no one can see it.
If you concerned that no one will buy your work or product that you wish to keep copyrighted, you are in error. The more people who are exposed to the work, the more likely that they are to BUY it, because they like it so much.
If we are all so concerned with originality--in a world of six billion people (who isn't going to come up with the same idea?), then we will get nowhere as a race. Gutenberg copied the wine press idea to make his first printing press. Where would we be without that invention? In the dark ages. Of course, by all means, I'm not asking you to plagiarize someone else's work and call it you own. That's just announcing to the world that you are completely, idiotically stupid. I'm saying: if you must copy and idea, give the originator credit, and make dang sure that your idea/invention/art/writing "builds on the shoulders of the one you admire most".

open source, copyright, original

Previous post Next post
Up