ARTICOLI del Vista PRINCIPALE 50 Vista VIDEOS Vista MOLLE AIUTO del Vista

La famiglia comprende male la fonte aperta, si lascia prendere dal panico, & cita il ¦ errato€ di Personâ

La fonte aperta è supposta per essere un senso di facilitazione delle edizioni autorizzanti e di compartecipazione il vostro software/musica/video/altro soddisfare con le masse - liberamente e magnanimously. Il problema è, che cosa accade quando qualche cosa di fonte aperta è trovato essere la violazione (possibile) di a di alcuni diritti altri? Che cosa accade ai relativi derivati? Giusto imballano sul negozio e trovano il qualcos'altro, o sono legalmente responsabili delle loro azioni? In che cosa sembra sospesa trasformarsi in in una cassa del limite su questa edizione, stiamo circa per scoprire.

Una famiglia di Texan ora sta citando Mobile del Virgin per usando una foto della loro figlia, Alison Chang, in una campagna di annuncio - il fermo è, esso è stato liberato dal photographer sopra Flickr sotto Attribuzione creativa dei terreni comunali autorizzi e quello è da dove il Mobile del Virgin ha ottenuto la foto. Il problema è, la ragazza descritta nella foto non ha avuta idea che la sua foto stesse usanda - o quello è stata liberata sotto l'autorizzazione creativa dei terreni comunali.

Mentre il caso attualmente si leva in piedi, il Changs sta citando consumatori degli impianti aperti di fonte e non del partito originale responsabile del rilascio del lavoro come materia grezza aperta senza un adeguato forma di consenso di mezzi.

Ottiene più complicato di quello. Le apparenze nei mezzi hanno bisogno di una forma di consenso di mezzi, ma inviare una foto in linea non tecnicamente. Almeno, non ancora - è questa altra edizione in gioco? Così in questo caso, un photographer invia una foto in linea, completamente all'interno dei loro diritti e rilasci foto in se come lavoro aperto di fonte. Allora il lavoro aperto di fonte (e non la persona reale) è usato in un'apparenza di mezzi - che cosa allora sta regolando? Perchè la famiglia sta citando il Virgin mobile e non il photographer? (ed il loro avvocato) completamente capiscono il concetto della fonte aperta e di autorizzare creativo dei terreni comunali? Gli utilizzatori finali della materia grezza aperta hanno un obbligo legale di accertarsi che il materiale che usano sia stato liberato in modo pulito ed interamente legalmente come fonte aperta in primo luogo? Appena quanto lontano uno deve andare?

Ancora non confondergli abbastanza per? Bene, il Mobile del Virgin ha aggiunto l'insulto alla ferita, intitolante la foto in loro pubblicità con che importi - più o meno - un insulto a Alison Chang. È la domanda di se l'argomento di fotografia di d di fonte aperta' può essere usato contro il suo auto un'edizione legale o morale? Does releasing a photo to the public under a lax license let it be used by anyone for any purpose, even when “hurting” the original producer/subject?

This is quite the legal tangle, and we’re betting it’ll be settled out of court – but even if it is, it’s certain to come up later in one court case or another. We’re not lawyers, but this is clearly a case that poses quite the risk to open source, attempting to redefine just how “open” it really is. Here’s a re-cap of the issues at stake:

Are “consumers” of open source legally liable for using “dirty” open source’d code? Do they have a legal requirement to verify its validity before using it?
Will legal consent forms be required for simply posting photos online? What about “personal” sites like Flickr, MySpace, and Facebook?
Just how global is an open source copyright? In this case, Virgin Mobile Australia is charged with breaking a US copyright.
Previous court cases have ruled that bloggers are journalists in their own right. Does the freedom of press protect online photo-journalism, too?¹

It’s unlikely that all of these issues will actually appear in a court of law, but it certainly is possible. The first and second are very likely to appear, and have far-reaching effects; whereas the latter two are stretching it a bit, but anything is likely when money is involved. Creative Commons has an optional “country” setting that determines, in the case of a legal dispute, which country’s laws and jurisdictions shall apply. We have no details at the moment which setting was specified, but the default is USA, and that’s where the photographer and subject both resided. The Creative Commons license is recognized by law in both the United States and Australia.

Should it actually be ruled that Virgin Mobile is guilty as charged, a huge online panic in the open source community will likely ensue. At the moment, most big open source projects perform a cursory check on any code/content submitted for possible legal violations (and, let’s be honest, for plausible deniability more than anything else). But in some cases (read: Wikipdia) it’s almost impossible to practically do so, thanks to the enormous volume of content being constantly contributed and the difficutly of vigorously checking it for legal trespasses. What happens when you can no longer simply trust the EULA that ships with a particularly code library? Or when the content you grab off of Wikipedia (technically licensed under the GFDL) isn’t as open source as it claims to be? And most importantly, that using such “dirty” materials makes you, in the eyes of the law, guilty of content/idea theft?

If any ruling of this sort were to be passed with an actual verdict on the open source angle, it would instantly destroy the entire spirit of open source. No one would be able to trust any open source project or the other, destroying one of the most important benefits of using an open source license the first place: being able to instantly convey the rights a consumer has or doesnâ€™t by simply telling them it’s “GPL” or “BSD” or whatever. You’d need something tantamount to a chain of custody for each and every modification/copy, telling people exactly where each bit of code or content came from and what grounds you had to use it, and no project would be safe without a lawyer of its own. In a word, it’d be the death of open source… In the United States, that is; because the rest of the world (for the most part) is blissfully immune to many of the issues outlined in this post.

Not only does the United States system of copyrights and software patents have to be rewritten to prevent ridiculous things like this taking a toll on the entire open source industry, but also a legally-recognized free software “Bill of Rights” needs to be drafted to ensure that lawsuits like this one donâ€™t jeopardize everything that the online community has been working on for decades. Just like the current Bill of Rights defines basic freedoms for US Citizens that no law can overrule (the Patriot Act excluded because GWB says so), free software needs a similar document to set down its (proverbial) foot and ensure that open source lives on â€“ freely, as it was meant to be.

It’s important to note that the Creative Commons license that the photo was released under was not marked as non-commercial, and that Virgin Mobile fully complied with the letter of the Creative Commons license, by properly citing the Flickr page the photo was grabbed from at the bottom of their advertisement. As far as Virgin Mobile is concerned, they didn’t really do anything wrong. It is no wonder most magazines still insist on getting explicit legal permission before including anything in their issues, even if the EULA/copyright is clearly indicated on the site/source!
This might just be a case of a family trying to get rich quick; and if it is, it’s quite unfortunate that the entire spirit of open source has to be put on trial for a couple of bucks and a 16-year-old emotional teenager’s injured self image. If itâ€™s not, itâ€™s still a damn shame.