I just re-read over Snurb's Blog RE:facebook. Axel Bruns, thank you for saying everything I wanted to, and more.
"Perhaps it's just poor or lazy design; perhaps the flatness of the site's social structure is somehow driven by the deeply entrenched neo-con views that some claim exist amongst Facebook's founders - a libertarian vision of sociality centred around highly independent individuals rather than around strong communities bound by consensually developed, ever-evolving social protocols? Whatever it is, it's starting to lose its lustre."
To read more: http://snurb.info/node/801
Does anyone actually like facebook?
ETA:
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Comment, baby!
I'm not going to lie, I'm a little embarrassed about my lack of comments.
Was I so boring that no one read what I have to say?
Send in... the clowns...
Was I so boring that no one read what I have to say?
Send in... the clowns...
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Cyberrape, Cannibalism & Crime: The ‘dark side’ of Virtual Communities
I think it is quite obvious by now, that I really liked Week 6’s reading; I still manage to find bits in Flew’s chapter that I can relate to in my blogs. I want to take this opportunity to expand on what I said in April 16th post about deviant communities…
In his chapter, Flew briefly mentions the psychology of internet users. This allows him to mention the dangers of ‘internet addiction’ (2007, 69). This captured my attention, because I live with two other students who play about 7-8 hours of World of Warcraft everyday. At first this shocked me – however it is now the least of my disturbing discoveries in relation to the ‘dark side’ of online culture.
[Now, I just wanted to insert a disclaimer here: I am not a sick or twisted person. But Flew’s subtle comments triggered my interest in such areas. We all talk about online communities in terms of social networking or common interest – but what about those that are morally unacceptable? This is what I have honed in on from my earlier entry on Voyeurism.]
Just as I log onto the forum of my favourite band every couple of days, someone in another part of the world logs onto a Neo Nazi White Supremacists website, or shares child pornography online. Please don’t get me wrong – this deviant behaviour is by no means a creation of the internet. However, it is undeniable that the web creates new avenues for these people to interact and encourage immoral behaviour.
At the risk of sounding like I am caught up in a moral panic, I really do believe the internet is desensitizing us. Take the example Flew used, where legions of like-minded individuals began popping up on the internet during the 2004 trial of Amirn Miewes – the German cannibal who murdered and partially consumed his victim for sexual pleasure (2007, 69). He notes that cannibalism precedes the internet, but the fact remains… We now have a global channel enabling, and dare I say enticing, similar fetishes.
As a law and media/communications student, I find this all oddly fascinated (remember the disclaimer!). I think for years we have taken for granted the term “…what happens behind closed doors”, and perhaps now with the expansion of online communities we must face up to ugly facts. Having said this, in contrast you could argue the internet is a safe option that allows sexual predators and other deviants to “virtually” commit their dirty deeds, vicariously protecting the livelihoods of others and not breaking the law. I’m torn. I suppose it all depends on the psychology of the deviant in question.
Again, sending me off on another tangent, Flew discussed briefly the concept of cyberspace rape (2007, 70) which I have since followed up. This is what I discovered:
“Last month, two Belgian publications reported that the Brussels police have begun an investigation into a citizen's allegations of rape -- in Second Life.”
Read more on this here: http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/sexdrive/2007/05/sexdrive_0504
Furthermore, the Four Corners transcript discusses the symbolical and psychological damage electronic violation can have on a person. In terms of current legal framework, I couldn’t find any revelent to Australia. I suppose there is none; after all, it is just a game. Though perhaps this is a new legal area that emerging law students should aware of?
Never the less, I can’t help but wonder, what is the world coming to?
References:
Flew, Terry. (2005). Virtual Cultures in Flew, Terry, New Media : an introduction, Melbourne: OUP, pp.61-82.
Fullerton, T. 2007. ABC Four Corners: "You only live twice" [Transcript]http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s1876134.htm (accessed May 12, 2008)
In his chapter, Flew briefly mentions the psychology of internet users. This allows him to mention the dangers of ‘internet addiction’ (2007, 69). This captured my attention, because I live with two other students who play about 7-8 hours of World of Warcraft everyday. At first this shocked me – however it is now the least of my disturbing discoveries in relation to the ‘dark side’ of online culture.
[Now, I just wanted to insert a disclaimer here: I am not a sick or twisted person. But Flew’s subtle comments triggered my interest in such areas. We all talk about online communities in terms of social networking or common interest – but what about those that are morally unacceptable? This is what I have honed in on from my earlier entry on Voyeurism.]
Just as I log onto the forum of my favourite band every couple of days, someone in another part of the world logs onto a Neo Nazi White Supremacists website, or shares child pornography online. Please don’t get me wrong – this deviant behaviour is by no means a creation of the internet. However, it is undeniable that the web creates new avenues for these people to interact and encourage immoral behaviour.
At the risk of sounding like I am caught up in a moral panic, I really do believe the internet is desensitizing us. Take the example Flew used, where legions of like-minded individuals began popping up on the internet during the 2004 trial of Amirn Miewes – the German cannibal who murdered and partially consumed his victim for sexual pleasure (2007, 69). He notes that cannibalism precedes the internet, but the fact remains… We now have a global channel enabling, and dare I say enticing, similar fetishes.
As a law and media/communications student, I find this all oddly fascinated (remember the disclaimer!). I think for years we have taken for granted the term “…what happens behind closed doors”, and perhaps now with the expansion of online communities we must face up to ugly facts. Having said this, in contrast you could argue the internet is a safe option that allows sexual predators and other deviants to “virtually” commit their dirty deeds, vicariously protecting the livelihoods of others and not breaking the law. I’m torn. I suppose it all depends on the psychology of the deviant in question.
Again, sending me off on another tangent, Flew discussed briefly the concept of cyberspace rape (2007, 70) which I have since followed up. This is what I discovered:
“Last month, two Belgian publications reported that the Brussels police have begun an investigation into a citizen's allegations of rape -- in Second Life.”
Read more on this here: http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/sexdrive/2007/05/sexdrive_0504
Furthermore, the Four Corners transcript discusses the symbolical and psychological damage electronic violation can have on a person. In terms of current legal framework, I couldn’t find any revelent to Australia. I suppose there is none; after all, it is just a game. Though perhaps this is a new legal area that emerging law students should aware of?
Never the less, I can’t help but wonder, what is the world coming to?
References:
Flew, Terry. (2005). Virtual Cultures in Flew, Terry, New Media : an introduction, Melbourne: OUP, pp.61-82.
Fullerton, T. 2007. ABC Four Corners: "You only live twice" [Transcript]http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s1876134.htm (accessed May 12, 2008)
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
…You want the truth? YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
I want to take this opportunity to once again discuss the topic of ‘citizen journalism’, taking into account the insight I gained from further reading. At first glance I think it’s fantastic, more power to the people! However, the more I read, the more I sympathise with industry professionals. Now I'm questioning whether citizen journalism is a good thing after all…
I’m sure citizen journalism emerged as a result of many factors, though I am of the view that two major aspects converged to allowed it to become so successful. First, I think it was the growing ‘distaste’ for the media industry at large. I mean, there is no denying that it rests in a hierarchical structure and runs according to politics. The second major factor was the development of the internet – and therefore vicariously, the knowledge-based economy. Journalists prospered when information was scarce, sources were highly sort after and few and far between. Since the internet came along though, we all have the resources. Now all that’s needed is the initiative (which many people seem to have).
(Side note: The interesting thing about citizen journalism, is that it encourages feedback and participation – both necessary aspects of our democracy. Now, I’m no longer a huge fan of CJ but I think it will be interesting to see if, for future generations, it increases youth consumption of news and politics).
I find it interesting that in many cases, a citizen journalist is portrayed as the ‘good’ guy – leaving journalists and the traditional media industry as ‘baddies’. I used to fall into this category, however with two friends up to their necks in journalism studies at uni (I study law, and they are just as busy writing as I am reading case after case) I wonder where the justice is? I’m all for hearing “the truth”, but when did we depart from placing emphasis on the aspect of professionalism? Do credentials mean nothing anymore? My tertiary education is extremely important to me, so I can understand the frustration, and dare I say offence, that media professionals deal with when someone unqualified steps in to take the reigns. It’s a mere mockery.
Having said this, a lot of journalists are still confident that their industry will persevere; that the very idea of citizen journalism will die, or is already dead. These people argue that although it is interesting and quite popular, CJ lacks the editorial strength and general ethics that journalism [more often times than not] portrays. They suggest that only trained journalists can manage this effectively. From my own observations, journalism is still a very popular course studied in universities, which suggests that the need for journalists is not declining. I for one still find myself watching the news on television and reading the newspaper in the morning, so regardless of the weightless economy, for me traditional news forms are still relevant.
I read a very interesting article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “The Good, The Bad and the Web 2.0” which offered opposing opinions between academics in relation to Web 2.0; the tool that allows any internet user to become a “journalist”. Sometimes identified as the democratisation of information, Web 2.0 fails to preserve “talent” in the industry.
I am still in awe of this quote, which I think hits the nail on the head:
“We've lost truth and interest in the objectivity of mainstream media because of our self-infatuation with the subjectivity of our own messages. It's what, in "Cult of the Amateur," I call digital narcissism. A flattened media is a personalized, chaotic media without that essential epistemological anchor of truth. The impartiality of the authoritative, accountable expert is replaced by murkiness of the anonymous amateur. When everyone claims to be an author, there can be no art, no reliable information, no audience.” – Andrew Keen (2007).
I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. I started this week’s focus with sympathy for the ‘underdog’ – the citizen journalist. But now I am of the view that the pyjama-clad wise guy blogger isn’t so fantastic. The egotism that suggests some people need not go to university astounds me. The emphasis on amateur journalism and a move away from qualifications/credentials appalls me. And quite simply, the lack of preservation of true art… the talent and passion of some journalists being pushed aside for online clutter disappoints me.
References
Barry, D. 2008. Wilde’s Evenings: the Rewards of Citizen Journalism. Media and Culture 11 (1)http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0804/09-barry.php (accessed May 13, 2008).I’m sure citizen journalism emerged as a result of many factors, though I am of the view that two major aspects converged to allowed it to become so successful. First, I think it was the growing ‘distaste’ for the media industry at large. I mean, there is no denying that it rests in a hierarchical structure and runs according to politics. The second major factor was the development of the internet – and therefore vicariously, the knowledge-based economy. Journalists prospered when information was scarce, sources were highly sort after and few and far between. Since the internet came along though, we all have the resources. Now all that’s needed is the initiative (which many people seem to have).
(Side note: The interesting thing about citizen journalism, is that it encourages feedback and participation – both necessary aspects of our democracy. Now, I’m no longer a huge fan of CJ but I think it will be interesting to see if, for future generations, it increases youth consumption of news and politics).
I find it interesting that in many cases, a citizen journalist is portrayed as the ‘good’ guy – leaving journalists and the traditional media industry as ‘baddies’. I used to fall into this category, however with two friends up to their necks in journalism studies at uni (I study law, and they are just as busy writing as I am reading case after case) I wonder where the justice is? I’m all for hearing “the truth”, but when did we depart from placing emphasis on the aspect of professionalism? Do credentials mean nothing anymore? My tertiary education is extremely important to me, so I can understand the frustration, and dare I say offence, that media professionals deal with when someone unqualified steps in to take the reigns. It’s a mere mockery.
Having said this, a lot of journalists are still confident that their industry will persevere; that the very idea of citizen journalism will die, or is already dead. These people argue that although it is interesting and quite popular, CJ lacks the editorial strength and general ethics that journalism [more often times than not] portrays. They suggest that only trained journalists can manage this effectively. From my own observations, journalism is still a very popular course studied in universities, which suggests that the need for journalists is not declining. I for one still find myself watching the news on television and reading the newspaper in the morning, so regardless of the weightless economy, for me traditional news forms are still relevant.
I read a very interesting article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “The Good, The Bad and the Web 2.0” which offered opposing opinions between academics in relation to Web 2.0; the tool that allows any internet user to become a “journalist”. Sometimes identified as the democratisation of information, Web 2.0 fails to preserve “talent” in the industry.
I am still in awe of this quote, which I think hits the nail on the head:
“We've lost truth and interest in the objectivity of mainstream media because of our self-infatuation with the subjectivity of our own messages. It's what, in "Cult of the Amateur," I call digital narcissism. A flattened media is a personalized, chaotic media without that essential epistemological anchor of truth. The impartiality of the authoritative, accountable expert is replaced by murkiness of the anonymous amateur. When everyone claims to be an author, there can be no art, no reliable information, no audience.” – Andrew Keen (2007).
I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. I started this week’s focus with sympathy for the ‘underdog’ – the citizen journalist. But now I am of the view that the pyjama-clad wise guy blogger isn’t so fantastic. The egotism that suggests some people need not go to university astounds me. The emphasis on amateur journalism and a move away from qualifications/credentials appalls me. And quite simply, the lack of preservation of true art… the talent and passion of some journalists being pushed aside for online clutter disappoints me.
References
Flew, Terry. 2005. Virtual Cultures in Flew, Terry, New Media : an introduction, Melbourne: OUP, pp.61-82.
Keen, A and Weinberger, D. 2007. The Good, The Bad and The ‘Web 2.0’. Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB118461274162567845-lMyQjAxMDE3ODE0ODYxMTgyWj.html (accessed May 13, 2008)
Mallasch, K. 2007. Journalism Hope: Four Classes of Citizen Journalists. http://www.journalismhope.com/node/28 (accessed May 13, 2008)
Wikipedia. 2008. Citizen Journalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_journalism (accessed May 1, 2008).
Saturday, May 10, 2008
To Govern, or not to Govern?
Not to sound like a broken record, but I want to once again concentrate on Terry Flew’s Virtual Cultures reading from this week. (I can’t get enough of this chapter, it discusses so many aspects of the virtual “community”, and in such depth). I am particularly interested in the legal and political issues involved with computer mediated communication (CMC) so that’s what I aim to narrow in on.
An important aspect of CMC to effectively enable democratic participation in virtual aspects of life. In fact, these days the internet is a tool often used in political activism, and these communities are flourishing due to the DIY ethos involved (Flew 2007, 62). What I mean is, if used correctly, the internet can be a powerful political motivator and anyone can use it to campaign – regardless of things like funding (Flew 2007, 65). As an avid popular culture fanatic, I am going to illustrate my point, by discussing the Electronic Frontiers Foundation (EFF) and Grateful Dead’s high profile ex-bassist, John Perry Barlow. If you have any interest in privacy laws and free speech then this is the post for you!
When I started the blog, I was asked to visit the EFF and as a law student, I found it quite interesting. For those of you that don’t know, it was established in regard to a growing need for online civil liberties. So if you feel you’re being unfairly prosecuted for something technological, then they will provide legal funds and assist you in the court process. In my view, the EFF upholds online privacy, personal freedom and strives to promote fair use (EFF.org 2008). I was surprised to find that an ex-member of Grateful Dead and self confessed anarchist was on the board of the directors, so I did some research. I’ve since discovered that Barlow is a widely respected academic who strongly opposes internet governance. Who’d even heard of such a thing? This really opened my eyes. I had no prior knowledge of any of this!
From what I understand, it is important that we have governance online –I suppose in the form of gatekeepers or moderators– though it should be independent of Government. What Barlow argues is that with Government comes bureaucracy, and inevitably, commercialism (Jayaka, 2008). It’s a complex topic to go into, however he makes a valid point. The internet is too precious to become a political instrument and we the puppets. Rather, we need our freedom online and it is worth fighting for.
I found Barlow’s words of wisdom fascinating and he has inspired me to continue exploring this issue. He is, however, without controversy. Look what he has to say about Intellectual Property Rights:
“I don't believe in intellectual property. The whole term is a recent invention. Copyright was never meant to be a form of property; it was a temporary licence on a monopoly to express. You didn't hear the term intellectual property more than 25 years ago. This is the invention of large organisations that are trying to own creativity as though it were real estate or steel or some other kind of physical stuff.” -John Perry Barlow (Jayakar, 2008)
Above all, he claims it’s about creating a new cyberspace economy; sharing rather than ownership, which will limit restriction.
...But who knows if this will happen and what the repercussions will be?
Referencing:
Davis, A. 2005. Planet:Jackson Hole Online. Interview: John Perry Barlow, Wyoming's Estimated Prophet http://www.planetjh.com/news/A_100072.aspx (accessed May 9, 2008).
Electronic Frontier Foundation. 2008. http://www.eff.org/ (accessed May 9, 2008).
Flew, Terry. 2005. Virtual Cultures in Flew, Terry, New Media : an introduction, Melbourne: OUP, pp.61-82.
Jayakar, R. 2008. Business Today: "What stops free flow of information is dangerous". http://www.india-today.com/btoday/20001206/interview.html(accessed May 9, 2008).
Wikipedia. 2008. John Perry Barlow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Perry_Barlow (accessed May 1, 2008).
An important aspect of CMC to effectively enable democratic participation in virtual aspects of life. In fact, these days the internet is a tool often used in political activism, and these communities are flourishing due to the DIY ethos involved (Flew 2007, 62). What I mean is, if used correctly, the internet can be a powerful political motivator and anyone can use it to campaign – regardless of things like funding (Flew 2007, 65). As an avid popular culture fanatic, I am going to illustrate my point, by discussing the Electronic Frontiers Foundation (EFF) and Grateful Dead’s high profile ex-bassist, John Perry Barlow. If you have any interest in privacy laws and free speech then this is the post for you!
When I started the blog, I was asked to visit the EFF and as a law student, I found it quite interesting. For those of you that don’t know, it was established in regard to a growing need for online civil liberties. So if you feel you’re being unfairly prosecuted for something technological, then they will provide legal funds and assist you in the court process. In my view, the EFF upholds online privacy, personal freedom and strives to promote fair use (EFF.org 2008). I was surprised to find that an ex-member of Grateful Dead and self confessed anarchist was on the board of the directors, so I did some research. I’ve since discovered that Barlow is a widely respected academic who strongly opposes internet governance. Who’d even heard of such a thing? This really opened my eyes. I had no prior knowledge of any of this!
From what I understand, it is important that we have governance online –I suppose in the form of gatekeepers or moderators– though it should be independent of Government. What Barlow argues is that with Government comes bureaucracy, and inevitably, commercialism (Jayaka, 2008). It’s a complex topic to go into, however he makes a valid point. The internet is too precious to become a political instrument and we the puppets. Rather, we need our freedom online and it is worth fighting for.
I found Barlow’s words of wisdom fascinating and he has inspired me to continue exploring this issue. He is, however, without controversy. Look what he has to say about Intellectual Property Rights:
“I don't believe in intellectual property. The whole term is a recent invention. Copyright was never meant to be a form of property; it was a temporary licence on a monopoly to express. You didn't hear the term intellectual property more than 25 years ago. This is the invention of large organisations that are trying to own creativity as though it were real estate or steel or some other kind of physical stuff.” -John Perry Barlow (Jayakar, 2008)
Above all, he claims it’s about creating a new cyberspace economy; sharing rather than ownership, which will limit restriction.
...But who knows if this will happen and what the repercussions will be?
Referencing:
Davis, A. 2005. Planet:Jackson Hole Online. Interview: John Perry Barlow, Wyoming's Estimated Prophet http://www.planetjh.com/news/A_100072.aspx (accessed May 9, 2008).
Electronic Frontier Foundation. 2008. http://www.eff.org/ (accessed May 9, 2008).
Flew, Terry. 2005. Virtual Cultures in Flew, Terry, New Media : an introduction, Melbourne: OUP, pp.61-82.
Jayakar, R. 2008. Business Today: "What stops free flow of information is dangerous". http://www.india-today.com/btoday/20001206/interview.html(accessed May 9, 2008).
Wikipedia. 2008. John Perry Barlow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Perry_Barlow (accessed May 1, 2008).
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Citizen Journalism
What is citizen journalism?
In relation to this topic, I keep coming across the term "pro-am" which before I go any further is important to discuss. This of course refers to the gradual shift that is taking place from the 'professional' to merely the enthusiastic amateur -- writing at a professional standard. Citizen journalism is a common example. We've seen how the internet (and more specifically, Web 2.0) has given everyone a voice.
These days, anybody can set up a blog, pull in some readers and hey presto! Suddenly you are a professional citizen journalist/blogger. Now, this is liberating in many ways... It's a revolution for the people. It's been described as a bottum-up reorganisation of the industry. We, as citizens, decide what we read and what is reported; there is more information on obscure topics and many contrasting opinion pieces. In general, news and current affairs become a part of 'civic' space like never before.
So then what is the problem with citizen journalism? Why can't we endulge in the choice of reading from both worlds -- the professional industry as well as the online pro-am?
The news industry has always survived it's economic, social (think 'moral panic'), political and technological hardships -- In other words, it has continued to re-invent itself or adapt in the face of change. So considering the rise in what can also be known as “participatory journalism” and “user-driven journalism”, should they be worried now? Technically, yes. Over the last few years, it has become abundantly clear that political and heirarchical influences have affected the flow of news and information. With the rise of citizen jounalism, this happens less and less.
It's important to remember, however, that not everyone owns a blog... and not everyone reads the news online. What would my grandparents do without their 6 o'clock news everynight?
What I am trying to get at is that, regardless of an increase in information and opinion, people will always want to find news and current affairs (on a "professional level") in specific times, at specific places. Whether that be in the newspaper of a morning, or a a bulletin during the day.
I think specifically what I want to look at from here is how grassroots citizen journalism can co-exist with professional journalism.
References:
Axel Bruns http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0804/10-burns.php
http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/proameconomy
http://www.hypergene.net/blog/weblog.php?id=P327
http://www.journalismhope.com/node/28
In relation to this topic, I keep coming across the term "pro-am" which before I go any further is important to discuss. This of course refers to the gradual shift that is taking place from the 'professional' to merely the enthusiastic amateur -- writing at a professional standard. Citizen journalism is a common example. We've seen how the internet (and more specifically, Web 2.0) has given everyone a voice.
These days, anybody can set up a blog, pull in some readers and hey presto! Suddenly you are a professional citizen journalist/blogger. Now, this is liberating in many ways... It's a revolution for the people. It's been described as a bottum-up reorganisation of the industry. We, as citizens, decide what we read and what is reported; there is more information on obscure topics and many contrasting opinion pieces. In general, news and current affairs become a part of 'civic' space like never before.
So then what is the problem with citizen journalism? Why can't we endulge in the choice of reading from both worlds -- the professional industry as well as the online pro-am?
The news industry has always survived it's economic, social (think 'moral panic'), political and technological hardships -- In other words, it has continued to re-invent itself or adapt in the face of change. So considering the rise in what can also be known as “participatory journalism” and “user-driven journalism”, should they be worried now? Technically, yes. Over the last few years, it has become abundantly clear that political and heirarchical influences have affected the flow of news and information. With the rise of citizen jounalism, this happens less and less.
It's important to remember, however, that not everyone owns a blog... and not everyone reads the news online. What would my grandparents do without their 6 o'clock news everynight?
What I am trying to get at is that, regardless of an increase in information and opinion, people will always want to find news and current affairs (on a "professional level") in specific times, at specific places. Whether that be in the newspaper of a morning, or a a bulletin during the day.
I think specifically what I want to look at from here is how grassroots citizen journalism can co-exist with professional journalism.
References:
Axel Bruns http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0804/10-burns.php
http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/proameconomy
http://www.hypergene.net/blog/weblog.php?id=P327
http://www.journalismhope.com/node/28
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Open Source Software
I didn't go the tute today, how embarrassment, but I will make what I can of the lab materials:
Are ALL the applications collaborative? Do they all involve DIY?
From what I gather, the vast majority of open source software users will never look at the source. (This is merely a personal opinion.) I'd also say that not everything involves DIY, though it is possible... Basically, you decide your own level of involvement.
I brainstormed that:
- famous open source examples are linux and firefox. It was spun out of a corporate entity, and everyone uses it, even nontechnical users.
-Emacs: more estoric application. It's a text editor mostly used by programmers and other power users, and most installations of it are heavily customized because it actively invites that feedback
From a legal perspective, there are two main schools of open source licencing/copyright. There is the GPL - GNU public licence. This says that a) you can't sell the code for profit b) you must provide the source code to any end users if you modify and distribute it. There's the BSD licence, which has it's roots in the Berkely Standard Distribution of unix (not *legally* unix, it must be noted, but unix in the sense that it's a unix-flavoured and compatible system. AT&T own the trademark "UNIX"). It says that the code under it is free, do whatever you want... BSD licenced code can be taken, changed, and sold for a profit under a different licence -- it's simply considered polite to contribute your code back to the project.
I suppose the lesson in all this ambiguity is, GO TO YOUR TUTORIALS.
References:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)