One thing I haven't yet written much about in my blog is intellectual property issues. I do, in fact care deeply, and think frequently about them.

Part of my interest in intellectual property issues (the whole range, from patents, to copyright) stems from my interest and fascination with the law. Part of it comes from my interest and knowledge about technology, and how technology has, for many reasons, changed the equations about intellectual property, and made the whole set of issues quite a bit more complex than they used to be. And lastly (but far from least), my interest in intellectual property issues comes from my interest in the common benefit, collective creativity, and common good of all human beings.

In this post, I'll start with open source software, it's position in the intellectual property realm, and why I think supporting and using open source software is so important. Part II will focus on copyright and copyleft, and new ways of distributing creative content (writing, music, art, video, etc.) and the benefits I think we'll gain from it. Part III will focus on patents, and why I think they are evil (really, I do.)

Many of you know what open source software is already. For those who don't there is a great wikipedia article on it (and, why not, I wrote a primer on it for the nonprofit sector.) What open source software introduced into the world is the idea that you can make software better by having it open to scrutiny, collaboratively developed, and freely accessible. What it has also showed, over time, is that it can be a more economical way for people to take advantage of technology.

Microsoft, and other traditional software makers, make money from packaging and distributing their software in a form that is unreadable, unscrutinizable, and costly. They have elaborate EULAs (end user license agreements) which limit the ways that end users can use their software (you mean you thought you owned that copy of Microsoft Office? Sorry to tell you, you don't.) The money traditional software makers make on their products goes to two places: their investors, and back into more development (to make more money.)

Open source software makers (everyone from IBM and Red Hat, publicly traded corporations, to individual software developers) primarily make their money by selling services and consulting that goes with the software they give away. You can always get the software free, but if you need or want support, it's available at a fee.  Some (especially Linux distributions) do actually sell their software packaged (but free versions are available). Some open source software is developed by non-profit organizations (the Mozilla Foundation, for example,) which get some funding from fundraising and grants.

There is plenty of evidence, now that open source software has been around for a while, that it is possible to make money at developing open source software. I doubt, honestly, that a new Microsoft will emerge from the open source field. But there are plenty of mortgages are being paid, families being fed, and retirements being funded.

And what happens to the code? In the case of traditional software vendors, the code stays secret, stays with them, and no one except them (or select partners) ever sees it. In the case of open source software, it stays in public view, downloadable, and modifyable by anyone with the expertise and interest.

I think it's pretty obvious why this is more in the common good. Third world countries are getting on the open source bandwagon big time. Why? Because they can implement open source cheaply, using less expensive hardware. I've been saying that nonprofit organizations should do the same, much for the same reasons, as well as the additional reason that they support a system of software development that benefits the common good, which, for most nonprofits, is what they exist to do.

In some senses, the whole set of intellectual property issues right at this moment comes down to that one question: who will benefit? As we heap more and more dollars on people who already have more than enough, we are also putting in place more and more structures (patents, copyright extensions, regulations like DMCA) that keep the copyright holders in control (who, by and large are large and wealthy corporations) and then can limit access and use of the software available and keep prices high.

Lest you think I'm a purist - I'm actually not. I don't think all closed-source software is evil, and I think that there is no reason that there can't be a healthy mix of open source and closed-source software in the marketplace. Heck, this blog was written on a Macintosh (which, in some ways is an interesting mix - an open source core of BSD-Unix, with a closed-source GUI, and I'm using the open-source browser Firefox.) But many traditional software makers (unlike Apple, which seems to mostly feel fine coexisting with it) see open source software as a threat, and would like it to go away.

What's most important, is that I do think that we should, as individuals and organizations, think carefully and make careful decisions about the software we use - right now, it has more impact than we might think.