Open Source Policy

The development of a new generation of cyberinfrastructure promises to increase and facilitate globally distributed scientific collaboration as well as access to scientific research via computer networks. But the potential for such access and collaboration is subject to concerns regarding the intellectual property rights that will be associated with networked data and with networked collaborative activity. Intellectual property regimes are generally problematic in the practice of science, because scientific research typically assumes practices of openness that may be hampered or obstructed by intellectual property rights. These difficulties are likely to be exacerbated in the context of networked collaboration, where the development and use of intellectual resources will likely be distributed among many researchers in a variety of physical locations, often spanning national boundaries. Such issues may be addressed by a combination of public and private approaches, including amendment of U.S.

While “open” normally has connotations of public goods, the idea of “open”–ness has been used for decades as a competitive strategy by firms in the computers and communications industries. Phrases like “open standard,” “open source” and more recently “open innovation” have been used to refer to these strategies.

What do they have in common? Which ones really are “open”? What does “open” mean, anyway?

The author discusses the issues faced in the creation and adoption of cyberinfrastructure, contrasting firm strategies for three types of “open”–ness in the context of their respective business models.

Has the vision proffered for "Open Source 2007" been realized? Will 2010 mark continued progress in the collaborative development of applications software—perhaps one of the most potent tools for addressing the challenging trends confronting IT in higher education?

Open source software and the community source movement are raising questions for administrators about whether and when to adopt or devote resources to software development projects, provoking questions of sustainability, future directions, and total cost of ownership. This research bulletin frames the issues an institution should consider with respect to adding community source products to the portfolio of software, infrastructure, and services that constitute the IT environment.

Paul Courant, Professor of Economics and former Provost at the University of Michigan, has agreed to lead a study in collaboration with Ithaka. Michael Carter, a consultant with decades of experience in academic computing and instructional technologies with major universities and leading companies in the technology sector, is also assisting in this effort. The goal of the OOSS study is to evaluate the landscape and market environment for open source software (OSS) created by and for the higher education community, to assess the need for an organization to promote the support and adoption of these OSS projects, and to define this organization's mission and service model, should we determine that such an organization is desirable.