A minor's right to Copyright .

              When it come to the rights vested in the minor by the constitution under Article 1 Section 8  , the minor stands on the same footing as any other in this country. Since we are specifically addressing the rights in  copyright, a Minor may claim  benefits  of copyright and register the copyright material to safe guard the  right for future disputes ,same as any other person, but when it comes to using the value connected to the copyright the minor's rights are subject to the commercial law including but not limited to contract law. Although  it must be clearly understood that as long as the contract is beneficial to the minor ( such as those contracts entered into for the purpose relating to basics of life) such a contract entered into by the minor himself is binding on all parties concerned including the minor.

               Now will this basic theory change for a emancipated minor? A emancipated minor is one who through the legal process obtains a court order to end the rights and responsibilities that the child's parent owe to the child such as financial support for the child and decision making authority over the child. 

                 In my opinion it does to the extent that parents might not have a say in the minor's granted beneficium. The minor is responsible for all actions- rights , responsibilities and liabilities. States differ in their laws regarding the conferring of status of emancipation .

                 

 

Information for beginners-Open Source Software and their licenses

          In the present day technical world there is loads of information available which is protected by Intellectual Property(IP) mainly under the umbrella of copyright, which enjoins others from using those products of IP without permission, which when given ,are under long lengthy licenses and agreements. Even in such world there exists the world of open sources, were people may own software but let others use it, improve it and distribute it without much reservations. BUT all this is done under the protection of the varied types of licenses which are out in the open source realm.

           It is of common practice in many companies to use Open Source Software for development of their own brands and products. The Open Source Software is either embedded into software itself or can be used as it is. In case it is embedded then a proper license should accompany it or at least pointed to where it can be found. The Open Source Software can either be held by one person, institution or it could be public domain.
           

           Since the topic of discussion is Open Source Software understanding the uniformly excepted definition will help us understand the licensing aspect of this concept. According to the Open Source Initiative website- “Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria” ... must be for “Free Redistribution”, the software must include the “source code”, “the license” for the Open Source Software “must allow for modification and derived works”, “the license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code” “although the license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software”, the software or its correlative license “will not discriminate against any person or groups or against any fields of endeavor” and “should have redistribution right attached to it which will not need any additional licenses for such use”, the license should not be “product specific”, “should not be restrictive in use of other software” and lastly should be “technologically neutral” (http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd). If the software and its license adhere to these requirements then that particular software and its license would be termed as an Open Source Software and license.
            

           Before we can understand about the various licenses we need to understand the different terms which accompany Open Source Software. The Open-source software (OSS) is computer software that is available in source code form. Source code –which is basically how the software can be read by human -usually comes in the complied ready to run version. Compiled means the source code has to run through a special program called a compiler that translates the source code into a form that the computer can understand which is in Binary language. It is extremely difficult to modify the compiled version of most applications and nearly impossible to see exactly how the developer created different parts of the program. Most commercial software manufacturers see this as an advantage that keeps other companies from copying their code and using it in a competing product. It also gives them control over the quality and features found in a particular product.
          

             Although companies develop software on their own for their specific purposes they also appreciate the use of Open Source Software. The reason behind this is that the cost of use of Open Source Software is way cheaper than those of proprietary nature. Plus in most cases they perform equal or better than proprietary software’s. When the companies use the proprietary software from the vendors they are dependent on the vendors for the support and maintenance. This doesn’t happen in case of the Open Source Software’s.
                 

              Now that we have discussed the what’s and how’s of the Open Source Software we can now head towards understanding the licensing of these Open Source Software.

             
             Open Source Software like proprietary software are licensed, but these licenses are different in its nature. “Open source licenses range from (i) restrictive, requiring that the original source code and any derivative works must remain open source with a broad interpretation of what constitutes a derivative work, which may lead unwary users to expose their proprietary software programs to unintended open source distribution requirements (e.g., the GNU General Public License (GPL)), to
(ii) less restrictive, providing that software that merely interacts with published interfaces does not create derivative works subject to open source distribution terms (e.g., the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL)), to
(iii) permissive, providing full access to the original source code with few, if any, restrictions on the manner in which derivative works may be distributed (e.g., MIT/BSD/Apache)”.

            One of the most common and earliest of licenses is the GNU GPL (which is now in its third version) license and is authored by Free Software Foundation. The GPL is the first and foremost copy left license, which means that derived works can only be distributed under the same license terms and is treated as a viral license. GPL license is considered as one of the restrictive license types. Since the GPL was first of its kind it laid out the frame work as to what needs to be included in an Open Source Software license. These terms are,
1. The freedom to run the program for any purpose.
2. The freedom to study how the program works and adapt it to your needs.
3. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
4. The freedom to improve the program and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits.

         
         There are other licenses which are popular with for profits corporations such as the
1. Apache License, 2.0
2. BSD licenses
3. GNU Library or "Lesser" General Public License (LGPL) v3
4. MIT license
5. NASA Open Source Agreement 1.3
6. Artistic license 2.0
7. Academic Free License

           
           Out of these license Apache License, 2.0 , BSD licenses, GNU Library or "Lesser" General Public License (LGPL), MIT license, are most popular and most widely used license. Whereas NASA Open Source Agreement 1.3 is a special purpose license given by NASA. The Artistic license is treated as miscellaneous license and the Academic license has been replaced by more popular licenses.
           

           The Apache License has gone through various versions and is currently on version 2.0 and is authored by the Apache Software Foundation. The Apache License requires preservation of the copyright notice and disclaimer, and allows use of the source code for the development of proprietary software as well as free and Open Source Software. The Apache License allows the user of the software the freedom to use the software for any purpose, to distribute it, to modify it, and to distribute modified versions of the software, under the terms of the license. The Apache License does not require modified versions of the software to be distributed using the same license and is compatible with GNU GPL version 3.

           BSD license was originally owned by the Regents of the University of California because BSD was first written at the University of California, Berkeley. The first version of the license was revised, and the resulting licenses are more properly called modified BSD licenses. Like all the licenses listed above the BSD licenses is an open source license and has certain characteristics attached to it like freedom to redistribute the software, in binary or source form, as long as the copyright, conditions and disclaimer are present and there cannot be any use of the name of the originating organization, or contributors, to promote derivatives of the software, without written consent. Further more if a licensee adhere to the above requirement then one is free to modify copy and redistribute BSD-licensed software in either source or binary form as you see fit and is not required to return code or patches to the upstream BSD-licensed software. Furthermore the user is free to change the license, or charge for derivatives, of the software, be it commercial or proprietary. Most service providers prefer this type of license.
             

          What makes GNU Library or "Lesser" General Public License version 3.0 (LGPLv3) different from the GPL license is that LGPL permits use of the library in proprietary programs; whereas the GPL only permits the use of the library in free software programs , simply speaking Lesser GPL was designed as a compromise between the strong-copyleft GNU General Public License or GPL and permissive licenses such as the BSD licenses. The LGPL is primarily used for software libraries rather than executable programs, although it is also used by some stand-alone applications, most notably Mozilla and OpenOffice.org . The main point which differentiates LGPL from the GPL is that the LGPL can be linked to (in the case of a library, 'used by') a non-(L)GPLed program, regardless of whether it is free software or proprietary software.

        
           Coming to MIT License is authored by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and is used by the MIT X Consortium . It allows its user the free right to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt the work and only requirement is proper copyright notice and license shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the software.

       
             NASA Open Source Agreement 1.3 is owned by The United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration which has been realizing some software for use by public in commercial as well as non commercial ventures. This is done with the expectation that the open sourced NASA software will maximize awareness and impact of NASA research, particularly in support of NASA's education mission.

        
             The Artistic License was originally written by Larry Wall but is now owned by The Perl Foundation. The Artistic license like other licenses has gone through various stages of evolution and is currently on version 2.0.It allows the software to be copied, modified, distributed, and/or redistributed. The intent is that the Copyright Holder maintains some artistic control over the development of the Package while still keeping the Package available as open source and free software. Although the license allows the modification it does not allow distribution of such modified version.

       
            The Academic Free License (AFL) is a permissive free software license written in 2002 by Lawrence E. Rosen. The license grants the licensee the right to reproduce the Original Work in copies; to prepare derivative works ("Derivative Works") based upon the Original Work; to distribute copies of the Original Work and Derivative Works to the public; to perform the Original Work publicly; and to display the Original Work publicly. The main thing which differentiates this license from the likes is that the AFL is itself copyrighted. Unlike other license the AFL clearly mentions which Intellectual Property will be granted and which shall be retained. AFL too has gone through various version and is currently on version 3.0.

           Usually when free software is allowed to be downloaded the corresponding license is always available with it. If this is not the case then there are two sources where one can find information regarding the type of licenses which are in use with similar types of software – the Open Source Initiative and the Source Forge. These two websites provide information regarding the licenses but source forge also provides the user with reliable free software downloads.

         Although Open Source Software is considered to be a software engineering phenomenon, not only social phenomenon it is not with out its disadvantage. One main problem that most user come across while using these free software is with regard to software support. The open source system depends upon the internet community to support the problems/bugs when they arise. Some time these aren’t addressed and the user may end up paying some one to fix the bugs when they arise.

         Since the technology keeps on evolving there is a need for some one to constantly change it, but with regard to the open source if the initial programmers lose interest in making these changes then the software dies and the user again needs to pay some one to address it to the changing needs.

        
          Another disadvantage of using open source software is with regard to the infringement of intellectual property rights of the holders. “The typical open source project contains contributions from many people. It is almost impossible to audit the entire code base for violations of previous license conditions. This creates many opportunities for contributors to introduce infringing code. Thus this risk in the development process is largely borne by licensees. Contributors do not vouch for the integrity of the code they contribute to the project; in fact, the opposite is true -- the standard open-source license is designed to be very protective of the contributor. The typical license agreement does not include any intellectual property representations, or indemnities in favor of the licensee; instead, it contains a broad disclaimer of all warranties that benefits the licensor/contributors.”
               

           It also has to be borne in mind that the none of the licenses give any warranty as to quality or fitness of the software, each licensee must accept the risk that the software contains fatal errors, viruses or other problems that may have downstream financial consequences, in other words the software come in “AS IS” form.

           Proprietary Companies which use Open Source Software in their software or as support software also need to consider the problems associated with creating derivative works. “Some open source license forms, such as the GPL, require licensees to provide free copies of their derivative works in source code form for others to use, modify and redistribute in accordance with the terms of the license agreement for the unmodified program”. This is advantageous to the free software community because it ensures that no for-profit company take credit for the code but not so to the for profit companies.
    

               Most of the time the license may require that the contributing copyright holders be mentioned in the source code, but some times doing so is not feasible since the final software may have multiple contributors and mentioning them would only clutter the software.
                 

              There is another major problem in the open source licensing. It is very difficult to monitor and enforce these licenses against any violation and relating copy right infringements. This is because the licensor may not even know who the licensees are. Since these licenses are put forth as an invitation to adopt and use, which are usually subject to the terms of the respective licenses. These open source licenses do not require notification or other affirmative action to be taken by licensees that would notify the licensor of the fact that the licensee has entered into the contract. In addition, most of these licenses permit and even encourage the free sub licensing of the licensor’s work to other licensees, whose connection to the original licensee can become tenuous as the licensed work moves through multiple generations of licensing before ending up with a particular user.
            

             So until recent past the violators would go scot free even after they had been constant violating the terms of the licenses. But that scenario has now changed. That is why Verizon, Cisco Systems, Bell Microproducts, Super Micro Computer, Monsoon Multimedia, Xterasys Corp, High-Gain Antennas, and Extreme Networks have all been sued by Free Software Foundation (FSF) for Open Source Software license violations and in most cases the defendants settled the matter for an undisclosed sum of money.
             

            One of the important cases from late August 2008 goes to prove the point that the infringement of open source license do have repercussion and that the companies do need to respect the licenses. “In Jacobsen v. Katzer, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit confirmed the enforceability of open source licenses and also addressed the remedies available to open source licensors.
                

            The case involves Robert Jacobsen, a leading member of the Java Model Railroad Interface Project (JMRI), an online open source community that develops model train software. Jacobsen accused Matthew Katzer, CEO and chairman of the board of directors of Kamind Associates, Inc., of copyright infringement because Katzer’s company included the JMRI software in its software but failed to comply with the attribution requirements of the Artistic License, an open source license.
               

             The court made it clear that when OSS licenses place conditions on the use and copying of software, the holder of the copyright on the software may pursue a claim for copyright infringement. The court specifically rejected the notion that the software’s distribution free-of-charge affected the analysis. It concluded that, if a license is limited in scope and the licensee acts outside the scope of the license, the copyright holder has a claim for infringement along with a claim for breach of contract. The terms of the license at issue – the Perl Artistic License – set conditions on the use and copying of the software, which it found the defendant had breached. According to the court, that breach constituted copyright infringement

          The open source community has now become aware of these frequent violations by the corporation and have become more vigilant with regard to use and enforcement various licenses.
            

               The Open Source Software and licensing play a very important part in the growth of the software industry. Since enforcement of these licenses has become a possibility, companies may now be encouraged to use and contribute more towards the software without having to worry that their work may be compromised by others. There are also suggestions that the licensing patterns should be changed to accommodate changing scenarios and legal requirements. When this will be done is matter of time and initiative on the part of the software developers and programmer and organizations like free software foundation.


- Thanks to various online sources which helped me write this article.

to spank or not to spank....a child?

           PARENT- a word which we have all heard in our lives and may even be one . But what does the term parent mean.....does it mean procreating and bring into the world a living being or does it mean giving life and nurturing it into a well developed human being? In my humble understanding it is the later. With becoming a parent comes the duties and responsibility to take care of this human being . The duties entail the parents to provide with the basics of life and according the status in life all the comforts required and the responsibilities entail the parents to instill in the children values such as patience , respect, obedience etc. 

          How does a parent instill these values ? Does the parent use physical force like spanking on the well cushioned bottom or does the parent give the child time out or does the parent reason with a child or does the parent let the child be the way it is  hoping that the child learns its lesson through its experience in life. Well each parent reacts differently to manner in which the child behaves and as long as the reaction in constant through out the child's formative years it should be effective.

          There is a general disagreement about what is permissible form of discipline both amongst the general population and amongst the legal systems. According to The American Bar Association Family Legal Guide, "Parents have the legal authority to discipline or punish their children appropriately. They may not, however, use cruel methods or excessive force; that constitutes child abuse". Now definition of child abuse is mentioned in each and every state statute but to take an example of such definition from Illinois statute  -Abuse” means physical abuse, harassment, intimidation of a dependent, interference with personal liberty or willful deprivation but does not include reasonable direction of a minor child by a parent or person in loco parentis. -750 ILCS 60/103(1).
           There have been some precedents in this field to refer to like- State v. Matavale, (Hawaii),Sweaney v. Ada County, Idaho,Commonwealth v. Rubeck. Each have their own version of what is permitted in their respective jurisdiction and what is considered to be an abuse.

            So the law in contest says parents can punish a child . Now coming to people - each person is entitled to his or her thoughts but in my opinion some time spanking coupled with explanation for such action should be perfectly OK, although mostly time outs in most circumstances have the same effect as spanking ( that is if your child is sensitive to it).But one should always remember that a child is a child is a child and  should allow some leeway in their growth and mental development.

How far will copyright go?

      I started to learn about copyright law in my Undergrad, the interest grew a bit when my father neared the completion of his first book, and it peeked when I started my Masters. I have always wondered how far will copyright go in protecting the rights of the creator. Will it cross the boundaries of commonsense in the near future to accommodate absurd innovation of borrowed work or will it stay within the realm of what the forefathers envisioned and the legislators demarcated?

      Going back to the history of copyright protection, the history is literally littered with works which are great, in their essence and message. But, due to numerous reasons, may not have gained prominence in the world of art and literature,  but nonetheless the significance of the creation cannot be denied. The reason why there was no need for copyright and its correlative protection at  this time might have been because ,there was no mass marketing publishers and printers so there was no need for the authors to ask for protection of their work . Then came the printing press which brought with it the possibility of making more money for those who wanted to publish and those who wanted to print. Which brought about the possibility that others could make money out of using some ones else work- so there came Copyright protection .

       With the growth of publishing technology the process of counterfeiting has also changed. Not only has technology lead to the populace understanding what their rights are , it also propagated  people to create new mediums of promoting and protecting novel forms of intellectual creations. Some of these creations have been treated as outlandish and incongruous but all the same since it is created out of human intellectual ability it is respected and protected. 

       Some time even these duncical creation are taken to the limits of insulting absurdity and are still protected  since they seem to have achieved the status of a intellectual creation. I wonder should they  be protected. At this time  I belong to the section which believes in protecting the proper form of art , and believe that these creations should be restricted to a limited sections rather than displayed to the world in general . I hope you realize that I am talking about creations of creativity from the works that have been in public knowledge and public domain for a very long time.

The very first time

Experience are memorialized two ways - one by the spoken words which tends to dilute over time or by the way of written words. I have had memories and ideas for so long that I feel the need to put them into words so that I can remember them the way they were supposed to be remembered and I can see the manner in which I have grown and matured.