Appendix: Report of NCCV Working Group on Software Ownership

David H. Carey

• 1. Issues
• 2. Goals
• 3. Process
• 4. Some Concluding Suggestions
• Reference

As a preliminary to future research, the group identified the issues listed in Section 1 below. The group proceeded on the assumption that these issues are best explored with explicit reference to whatever goals – both social and individual – for which the ownership of software may be intended. Section 2 lists a number of these goals, without attempting either to be complete or even consistent. (In fact, a possible problem for future research is to determine which of these goals are mutually compatible, and to what extent.) Section 3 includes some observations about the process of inquiry in which the group was engaged during the conference. Section 4 concludes with some suggestions for further investigation.

This report aims at a widely inclusive representation of diverse views expressed in the working group. It does not aim to present a consensus, a majority view, or even the position of any single individual.

1. Issues

1.1. Ownership

“To own” means different things in different contexts (Becker, 1977). The verb does not have a single core concept but rather a complex of meanings. In questions of software ownership, four clusters of issues are to be investigated: Who? What? How? and Why? The following is a partial list in outline form.

• 1.2. who: persons
• 1.2.1. motivation
• 1.2.1.1. money
• 1.2.1.2. status
• 1.2.1.3. power
• 1.2.1.4. recognition
• 1.2.1.5. self-preservation
• 1.2.1.2.5.1. organizational
• 1.2.1.2.5.2. individual
• 1.2.2. access
• 1.2.3. responsibility
• 1.2.4. liability
• 1.3. what: objects
• 1.3.1. ideas
• 1.3.2. media
• 1.3.3. expression
• 1.3.4. “look & feel”
• 1.3.5. function
• 1.3.6. design
• 1.3.7. algorithm
• 1.3.8. data (information)
• 1.3.9. code
• 1.3.9.1. source
• 1.3.9.2. object
• 1.4. how: modes
• 1.4.1. acquisition
• 1.4.1.1. inventing
• 1.4.1.2. discovering
• 1.4.2. transfer
• 1.4.2.1. licensing
• 1.4.2.2. purchasing
• 1.4.2.3. contracting
• 1.4.2.4. entrusting (confidentiality)
• 1.4.3. conditions:
• 1.4.3.1. degree of openness or secrecy
• 1.4.3.2. fee-based or free of charge (cost)
• 1.4.3.3. other constraints or restrictions
• 1.5. why: see “Goals”

2. Goals

As noted above, these issues are best explored with explicit reference to the goals for which the ownership of software may be intended. The following is a partial list in outline form.

• 2.1. Social
• 2.1.1. information
• 2.1.1.1. preservation
• 2.1.1.2. dissemination
• 2.1.1.2.1. (but not software proliferation as an end in itself?)
• 2.1.2. education
• 2.1.3. thriving economy
• 2.1.4. just distribution
• 2.1.4.1. Power
• 2.1.4.2. goods
• 2.1.5. equal access
• 2.1.6. democracy
• 2.1.7. will to cooperate (perhaps as a necessary condition for any other social goals)
• 2.1.8. stability
• 2.1.9. creation and maximization of resources and potentials
• 2.1.10. sciences
• 2.1.11. “useful arts”
• 2.1.12. life
• 2.1.13. happiness, good of humanity
• 2.2. Personal
• 2.2.1. credit
• 2.2.2. control
• 2.2.3. autonomy
• 2.2.4. enrichment
• 2.2.5. fulfillment (happiness)
• 2.2.6. empowerment
• 2.2.7. health, life
• 2.2.8. fun
• 2.2.9. privacy

Back to the top

Go to: Process

Home > Research Resources > Software Ownership & Intellectual Property Rights > Appendix: Report of NCCV Working Group on Software Ownership

HOME | IN THE NEWS | RESEARCH RESOURCES
TEACHING RESOURCES | STUDENT RESOURCES
LINKS | THE GALLERY | STAFF

The Research Center on Computing & Society
at Southern Connecticut State University
501 Crescent Street • New Haven, CT 06515
Director: (203) 392-6790 • e-mail: webmaster@computerethics.org

© 2000 – 2007 – Research Center on Computing & Society