The Open Source Software Paradigm

The Colour of Copyright

Over the past decade, numerous computer-assisted retrosynthesis reaction prediction methods have been reported in the chemical literature, several of which are also shared as open-source code. Reports of integrating these modern open-source retrosynthetic prediction techniques into the chemical education classroom, however, is largely absent. This article describes our efforts to teach a computer-assisted retrosynthesis workshop series using open-source reaction prediction software and methods. In addition to three workshops on selected open-source reaction prediction methods, the series included workshops on Python programming and introductory cheminformatics using the RDKit cheminformatics toolkit. A pre and post survey was distributed to better understand participant familiarity and workshop outcomes. Participants indicated that they had minimal experience with cheminformatics, and open-source retrosynthesis software, however after the workshop series they indicated increased familiarity, interest, and desire to pursue additional training related to open-source retrosynthesis software and methods. We conclude this article with our experiences and ideas for future improvements. The workshop materials and code are available with an open source license, and educators are encouraged to adapt and improve the lessons (https://github.com/UA-Libraries-Research-Data-Services/retrosynthesis).

Problems setting. Legal restrictions in working with open sources often concern intellectual property, and the possibility of establishing such restrictions is an important problem. The Berkeley Protocol states that investigators should be aware of any intellectual property permissions they may need to lawfully publish, distribute, and/or otherwise use the information they gather during the investigation. Analysis of recent researches and publications. The use of information from open sources is subject to both legal and technical restrictions, such as third-party rights and platform rights, the validity of the license granted to the platform providing access, the technical requirements of the platforms, the purpose of use of the works, etc. The application of many OSINT methods may encounter legal restrictions, so these restrictions require systematization, additional analysis and description in accordance with the state of technology development. Purpose of the research is to describe and systematize the main legal risks associated with intellectual property when using information from open sources. Article’s main body. To achieve the goal of the article, the following widespread methods of OSINT are considered: text and data mining, image analysis, video analysis, audio analysis, face recognition, geolocation, improvement and use of open-source software products. Conclusions and prospects for development. The following risks of OSINT activities are identified according to the probability of their occurrence: – high degree: violation of copyright of its owner due to the difficulty of identifying that owner and the difficulty of managing the distribution of information in the global network; use of works or products (even from authoritative or familiar resources for the user) that violate the intellectual property rights of third parties; violation of intellectual property rights in one country without violation of the same rights in another country due to the lack of international unified laws; violation of platform license terms due to differences in such licenses and careless reading; violation of the license terms of the open source product due to differences in such licenses or incorrect (compared to the license) interpretation of the term “open source” by the user; ignoring the collection of permissions from a large number of parties involved; – medium degree: violation of the copyright of its owner due to the use of pirated works; violation of commercial secret rights; – low degree: violation of trademarks rights of faces; violation of patent rights for products used for a particular investigation due to lack of knowledge of such rights. To reduce such risks, the most obvious are the following actions: unification of national laws; implementation of special legal regimes for the use of information from open sources at the national and/or international levels; unification of license agreements of large platforms on a voluntary basis; training researchers in intellectual property issues; intensifying the implementation of technological solutions of intellectual property rights management, such as blockchain, encryption of works and watermarks; and noncommercial use of intellectual property rights, without going beyond the scope corresponding to the intended purpose.

∗ LLB (University of Asmara), LLM (Cornell University), JSD candidate, Cornell Law School. 1 Copyright law is generally categorised into economic and moral rights of authors. Almost all countries of the world today protect the economic rights of authors. Certain countries, for instance the US, have a very limited moral rights concept. One of the challenges that creators of works of authorship suffer in this age of technology is that it has become so easy and cheap to reproduce works of authorship. The cost of producing a song is much more than burning it on a CD. In addition, the intangibility of the property rights in creative works also allows the non-rivalrous consumption of the good. This non-rivalrous character does not deter the buyer of an original CD from allowing his or her friend to make a copy of it. Both the original and copy CDs can be consumed at the same time without reducing the value of the original CD for the original buyer. 2 John Stuart Mill, the grand philosopher of liberalism, explained how intellectual property rights can incentivise creations. He emphasised the need for granting authors a limited time monopoly for their creations. The debate about whether granting authors limited monopoly rights serves as an incentive for creativity is as prevalent today as it was in the 1800s (Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy (2002), p. 9, available at http://www.iprcommission.org/papers/pdfs/final_report/Ch1final.pdf (accessed 8 September 2010)). However, it is not necessarily true to assume that people invest time and effort to create works because of the incentives granted to them by copyright laws. The Creative Commons is a non-profit organisation that is dedicated to making access to information easy. For instance, the movement with Mozilla Firefox and other open source software is one of them. For further discussion on the works of the Creative Commons movement, see http://creativecommons.org/about/ (accessed 3 June 2010). Contemporary copyright law grants limited monopoly of protection in the sense that the copyright holder does not have absolute rights. The term of protection is limited in time. It is also limited for certain forms of exploitations that fall within the general exceptions of copyright laws. See, for instance, section 102 of the 17 USC (United States Code). 3 Historically, in the 1950s there was a prevalent view that the rationale for intellectual property rights protection was mainly to protect against retaliation from foreign governments. For instance,

The Move to the Middle: Convergence of the Open-Source and Proprietary Software Industries

Open Source Software (OSS) is software products available to the public, with its source code to study, change, and improves its design. Open Source Software Development (OSSD) is the process by which open source software is developed within the confines of software engineering life-cycle methods. However when open source used for commercial purpose, then an open source license is required. Open source software is very often developed in a public and collaborative manner. The quality assurance principle under open source software development is an approach to improve software product quality against traditional methods and techniques. Despite the fact that the open source developments have seen remarkable successful in recent years, there are a number of product quality issues and challenges facing the open source development model. Many industries and business sectors are following or using OSSD, since they realize the benefits, but they do have some reservations concerning quality assurance in the form of program code quality, maintenance of the code and its quality, over the life-cycle of the product and third party usage. This paper reviews the literature of the process of the latest quality assurance, under open source software development methods and techniques. The result from this review is to show the process of quality assurance of open source software and that how it can affect the overall quality assurance principal.

Open-source software abbreviated as OSS is computer software that is available with source code and is provided under a software license that permits users to study, change, and improve the software. For the commercial software the source code and certain other rights are normally reserved for copyright holders,i.e. the company who developes the software. A group of people in a collaborative manner often developes the Open source software, not under the roof of a large organization. This strategy makes open source software cheap, reliable and modifiable if needed. In this context we shall discuss mainly the features of Open Source Software, differences of open source and free software and open source software movement in Indian perspective.

While information technologies present organizations with opportunities to become more competitive, unsettled social norms and lagging legislation guiding the use of these technologies present organizations and individuals with ethical dilemmas. This paper presents two studies investigating the relationship between intellectual property and privacy attitudes, Machiavellianism and Ethical Ideology, and working in R&D and computer literacy in the form of programming experience. In Study 1, Machiavellians believed it was more acceptable to ignore the intellectual property and privacy rights of others. Programmers and R&D workers considered violating intellectual property rights more acceptable. Programmers did not consider violating privacy rights more acceptable, but R&D workers did. Finally, there was an interaction between Machiavellianism, programming and R&D. Machiavellians who also had programming experience or worked in R&D found violations of intellectual property much more acceptable. The effect of Machiavellianism on attitudes toward violations of privacy was enhanced by working in R&D, but not by programming experience. In Study 2, idealists believed it was less acceptable to ignore the intellectual property and privacy rights of others. Relativists found it more acceptable to violate intellectual property rights, though they did not consider it more acceptable to violate privacy rights. Those with programming experience were more accepting of intellectual property rights violations, but not of privacy violations. Finally, programming experience moderated the relationship between idealism, relativism and attitudes toward these unethical information practices. Implications for diminishing unethical behavior among Machiavellians, Relativists, programmers and those in R&D are discussed.

Open source software is becoming increasingly prominent, and the economic structure of open-source development is changing. In recent years, firms motivated by revenues from software services markets have become the primary contributors to open-source development. In this paper we study the role of services in open source software development and explore the choice between open source and proprietary software. Specifically, our economic model jointly analyzes the investment and pricing decisions of the originators of software and of subsequent open-source contributors. We find that if a contributor is efficient in software development, the originator should adopt an open-source strategy, allowing the contributor to offer higher total quality and capture the higher end of the market while the originator focuses on providing software services to lower end consumers. Conversely, if the contributor is not efficient in development, the originator should adopt a proprietary software development strategy, gaining revenue from software sales and squeezing the contributor out of the services market. In certain cases an increase in originator development efficiency can result in increased contributor profits. Finally, we find that, somewhat counterintuitively, an increase in contributor development efficiency can reduce overall social welfare.

Intellectual property rights are legal rights that protect intellectual assets, which hold signifi cant value for individuals and even greater importance for the economy and society as a whole. Liability insurance against the infringement of intellectual property (IP) rights is becoming increasingly relevant as a mechanism for managing unforeseen risks arising from third-party proprietary claims and from unauthorized use of intellectual property rights. This paper fi rst examines the nature and scope of various intellectual property rights, alongside the advantages of liability insurance in cases of infringement of such rights. It then explores what may constitute the subject-matter of insurance coverage, based on the nature of intellectual property rights, general insurance principles, and contractual frameworks. The aim is to distinguish this specifi c type of liability insurance within the broader context of IP protection. Finally, the paper examines the scope of insurance coverage in relation to specifi c costs incurred when the insured appears as a defendant in legal proceedings, as well as when the insured takes actions to protect and enforce their intellectual property rights.

In this paper relativistic ethical theories are handled in relation to intellectual property rights (IPRs). Different cultural traditions are a descriptive fact, and many such traditions—past and present—will be presented. It will be shown that the current Western versions of IPRs are offered as the only viable options in negotiations in international organisations such as the World Trade organization (WTO) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) as well as in uni-, bi- and other multilateral negotiations by most Western countries. Free and open source software (F/OSS) and IPR systems similar to it are offered as a possibilities to respect the local traditions, although any local traditions are encouraged to be tried as options to the cultural homogenisation which the international treaties offer instead.

From a legal perspective, analyze the connotation and logical relationship of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts, point out the Legal dilemma in protecting Emei martial arts intellectual property rights, and then propose solu-tions to the problems. The study believes that the intellectual property rights of Emei martial arts refer to the intellectual property rights based on the intellec-tual achievements and commercial logos of Emei martial arts. The legal dilemma in the protection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts mainly manifests as follows: the identity of the rights subject of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts and the intangible cultural heritage of Emei martial arts is the root cause of the conflict between public and private interests; to some extent, the sports nature of the intellectual property rights of Emei martial arts has influenced the legal recognition of this part of Emei martial arts intel-lectual property rights in the academic community; the inadequacy of the legal system is the fundamental reason why the intellectual property rights of Emei martial arts are difficult to obtain comprehensive protection. Based on this, the study proposes that technological innovation is a logical prerequisite for the protection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts. It can be achieved by extracting the classic techniques of Emei martial arts, constructing repre-sentative martial arts routines, and creating Emei martial arts competition pro-jects; The improvement of the legal system is the legal foundation for the pro-tection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts. In this process, it is necessary to particularly strengthen the important position and role of the Sports Law in the protection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts, and improve the basic position and auxiliary function of relevant intellectual property laws in the protection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts; The enrichment of theory is a powerful argument for the protection of in-tellectual property rights in Emei martial arts. Strengthening theory must be combined with the characteristics of sports, in order to build a solid legal foun-dation for the protection of the object of rights. In addition, the protection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts should focus on benefits, which requires balancing public and private interests and promoting the realization of public welfare through private rights protection

Dominance in the market gives businesses many advantages, enabling them to change business dynamics and influence customer choices. This dominance, while used improperly, can damage clients via way of means of stifling competition and innovation. The distinct rights that intellectual property rights deliver authors and inventors over their works, on the alternative hand, lead them to critical equipment for selling innovation. Abuse of dominance and Intellectual Property rights are associated while dominant corporations make the most of their intellectual property rights to stifle competition. This article attempts to examines the feasible reasons of the subject matter, which includes inflated licensing charges, unwarranted litigation, and patent hold-up tactics. The interplay among abuse of dominance with intellectual property rights (IPR) marks a pivotal factor withinside the improvement of competition law. This article captures the essence of this complicated connection and affords a window into its complicated dynamics. It further attempts to emphasise the critical factor of convergence among those fields: the sensitive stability among selling innovation and retaining marketplace opposition receives disenchanted while dominant groups use their intellectual property rights to impede competition. Such abuse of IPR might also additionally take many unique forms, from extortionate licensing charges to pointless court cases meant to save your competition from coming into the marketplace. Case studies that function an examples from across the globe provide important insights into the rational consequences of intellectual property rights violations. The difficulties in finding the appropriate stability are demonstrated by notable instances such as the legal actions related to Qualcomm's SEP and Microsoft's antitrust actions in the EU. Emerging technologies in the virtual age, like as biotechnology and artificial intelligence, raises new concerns about supremacy and intellectual property rights. One example of an increasing burden in 5G technology is Standard-essential patents (SEPs). Using well-known case studies and international regulatory reactions, this article also attempts to provide a brief discussion of the issues and headaches associated with the abuse of dominance within the framework of intellectual property rights. Strict regulatory scrutiny is necessary to prevent dominant marketplace contributors from engaging in anti-competitive behaviour. The conflict between preventing anti-competitive behaviour and promoting innovation through intellectual property rights safety is a fundamental dilemma. Finding a balance between the two needs is essential if one is to sell innovation and keep markets competitive. In this regard, the author attempts to highlight how crucial it is to handle the junction between rights to intellectual property and abuse of dominance in an appropriate manner. It draws attention to the necessity of prudent legislation that preserves innovative incentives while maintaining sincere competition. In order to fully utilize intellectual property rights for the goodness of society, it is imperative to achieve this delicate balance. In a global economic system that is rapidly changing, legislators, lawyers, corporations, and students must all comprehend and navigate the intricate relationship between abuse of power and intellectual property rights. This article lays the groundwork for additional investigation and debate in the article by offering a concise yet comprehensive synopsis of the key traits and problems in this intricate field.

Open Source vs. Proprietary Software: Competition and Compatibility

The article examines existing models of free and open-source software licensing worldwide. In particular, software is classified according to the type of distribution licence, while the difference between the concepts of ‘free software’ and ‘open-source software’, their ideological foundations and key features are highlighted. Within the framework of the paper, all free and open-source licences are classified into two key groups – permissive and copyleft. The main features of these groups are defined, and the most widely used licences of each type are analysed. The basis for determining the prevalence of specific free and open-source licences was current statistical data. The state of free and open-source software licensing in the EU is outlined. Special attention is also paid to public domain agreements under the public domain doctrines of the USA and Ukraine, and their relation to free and open-source software. The current legislation of Ukraine regulating free and open-source software licences is analysed. In particular, the legal nature of free and open licenses and their varieties is examined in the context of the existing legal structures of ‘public licence’, ‘licence’, and ‘licence agreement’. Furthermore, attention is given to the Recommendations of the Ministry of Economy, Leisure, and Agriculture regarding the application of free public licences for the use of copyright and related rights, which, for the first time in Ukraine, provide a definition of free public licences. To study the practical application and recognition of free and open-source software licences, relevant judicial practice is analysed. The conclusions emphasise the need for further legislative consolidation and regulation of free and open-source software licences, particularly copyleft licences, which, although operating within the framework of classical copyright, due to their specific nature, do not fully fall under the traditional provisions on public licences.