The “Open Source as Culture” essay really expressed a different perspective in comparison to the essay “Our Intermediary is Our Destiny.” Rather than proclaim how necessary copyright laws are, this essay seemed to support and promote a society or culture without copyright when it comes to software. “Software is special, though. It’s not just expression. It is functional. It’s not just information. It’s action. In some ways, the inclusion of software among the copyrightable forms of creativity has complicated and challenged the intellectual-property tradition.” This statement in some way shows that in order to create something “new”, the “old” has to be the basis to work from and copyrights impedes this from occurring. Throughout, I found myself agreeing with Stallman who felt that copyrights on software’s didn’t allow him to improve the software and devices. Using someone’s codes could lead to the development of better software that could correct or update areas that were overlooked in the first place. The terms and ideas of sharing and building were fittingly touched on. Seeing as we al make up society, working together leads to building together which will affect and benefit all. When it comes to software, having access to codes would lead to unending developments. What stands in the way is the need for credit for everything we’ve done. Granted, being acknowledged for hard work always feels good. However, contributing to an overall difference doesn’t merit credit of each individual. “While copyrights acknowledge the interests of the public, it omits the voice of the public itself.” Freedoms of speech and creativity get loss in the world of copyright. It’s not unlikely that more than one person can have the same or similar idea. But once copyrights are involved, the creativity tends to get loss and rather what’s focused on is the pursuit of a lawsuit.
Open Source as Culture