I think there's a distinction in the cited article that a lot of the people replying to this post may be missing. The author's definition of "Open Source" does not match what most of us would call "Open Source." Here's a quote from the article:
"Management can determine if they want to make an Open Source project available to the public or keep it private."
The author writes this article from the position that "Open Source" simply means writing software using standards-based, collaborative development methods...even if the source is never made available to the public or even the end user.
I think the author describes a lot of good practices for writing software, but what he describes has nothing to do with what most of us would consider "open source" (and certainly not with the official OSI definition). The practices described could easily be used (and are used) by corporations to develop proprietary closed-source software.
What qualifies as hosting your own content? I.E. Say I run a web server on my DSL line (which is true), and I do something like host a mirror of controversial material. Who is the service provider in this case, me or my ISP? It would seem to me I am, and that my ISP wouldn't come into the picture, because my agreement with them says it's my line and I can do with it what I want, and anything that says 'lawyer' on it will be forwarded in my general direction.
Interesting point. I would almost agree, but I really can't see how your ISP could get out of all legal responsibility. I imagine you would have primary legal responsibility for the content of the site in question. However, let's say that you are court-ordered to take down the site, and you refuse. The next step would probably be to order the ISP to pull the plug on your connection. I can't see how the ISP would be completely immune of any legal requirement to follow that order. No matter what is in the service agreement, I would think that the provider (once notified of the offense) holds some legal responsibility if it refuses to pull the plug.
In addition, I have trouble believing that your DSL agreement says that the line is yours and you are free to do with it anything you want. I don't think I've ever seen a service agreement of any kind that doesn't include clauses that 1) stipulate that you will not use the service in any of a whole list of inappropriate fashions, and 2) allow the provider to immediately disconnect the service if you violate any part of the agreement. Also, most residential agreements specifically prohibit running servers, although that clause is rarely enforced.
Slashdot Mirror
I think there's a distinction in the cited article that a lot of the people replying to this post may be missing. The author's definition of "Open Source" does not match what most of us would call "Open Source." Here's a quote from the article:
The author writes this article from the position that "Open Source" simply means writing software using standards-based, collaborative development methods...even if the source is never made available to the public or even the end user.
I think the author describes a lot of good practices for writing software, but what he describes has nothing to do with what most of us would consider "open source" (and certainly not with the official OSI definition). The practices described could easily be used (and are used) by corporations to develop proprietary closed-source software.
What qualifies as hosting your own content? I.E. Say I run a web server on my DSL line (which is true), and I do something like host a mirror of controversial material. Who is the service provider in this case, me or my ISP? It would seem to me I am, and that my ISP wouldn't come into the picture, because my agreement with them says it's my line and I can do with it what I want, and anything that says 'lawyer' on it will be forwarded in my general direction.
Interesting point. I would almost agree, but I really can't see how your ISP could get out of all legal responsibility. I imagine you would have primary legal responsibility for the content of the site in question. However, let's say that you are court-ordered to take down the site, and you refuse. The next step would probably be to order the ISP to pull the plug on your connection. I can't see how the ISP would be completely immune of any legal requirement to follow that order. No matter what is in the service agreement, I would think that the provider (once notified of the offense) holds some legal responsibility if it refuses to pull the plug.
In addition, I have trouble believing that your DSL agreement says that the line is yours and you are free to do with it anything you want. I don't think I've ever seen a service agreement of any kind that doesn't include clauses that 1) stipulate that you will not use the service in any of a whole list of inappropriate fashions, and 2) allow the provider to immediately disconnect the service if you violate any part of the agreement. Also, most residential agreements specifically prohibit running servers, although that clause is rarely enforced.