Expertiza_Wiki - User contributions [en]

CSC 379:Week 5, Group 5

2007-08-03T17:24:35Z

Slatchle: /* What are some shortcomings of traditional methods of accident reporting when applied to complex systems like software systems? */

=Software Safety: Accident Models - Systems Theory vs. Chain of Events=
'''Skim through the following paper (focus on sections 1, 2.3, and 3, skip figures and tables) entitled [http://sunnyday.mit.edu/papers/tdsc.pdf "A Systems-Theoretic Approach to Safety in Software-Intensive Systems"] by Nancy G. Leveson, a Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at MIT, then answer the following questions:'''

The majority of the content you need to form an informed response to the above questions is included in the paper. Bring in outside resources and topics discussed in class lectures as appropriate to support your response.

==What are some shortcomings of traditional methods of accident reporting when applied to complex systems like software systems?==
*Event-chain models tend to stop once something to blame is found. "reports stopped after assigning blame—usually to the operators who interacted with the software—and never got to the root of why the accident occurred"
*Event chain models were not designed to handle complex systems such as software. "in dealing with software in safety-critical systems is the result of inappropriately attempting to extend the techniques that were successful in simpler, electromechanical systems and were based on models of accident causation that no longer apply"
**Software can be very complex

==How does the STAMP model improve accident prevention efforts? Explain some general concepts of the model.==
"Systems theory allows more complex relationships between events to be considered"

"Accident models based on systems theory consider accidents as arising from the interactions among system components and usually do not specify single causal variables or factors"

The STAMP model provides more information in terms of how to prevent future accidents rather then trying to place blame.

Hazard analysis using STAMP rather then traditional methods can prevent accidents from happening in software based systems

==Why was the Milstar satellite damaged although the components of the Inertial Navigation Unit (INU) operated correctly with respect to the instructions, including constraints, and data provided? Why would use of the STAMP model more thoroughly prevent problems such as those that occurred with the INU compared to traditional accident reporting?==

==What are some appropriate applications of the STAMP model (both current and past)? Explain.==

==What are some ethical concerns of assigning blame for accidents?==

==Relevant Class Website Links==
* [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/safety/ http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/safety/]

CSC 379:Week 5, Group 5

2007-08-02T23:12:31Z

Slatchle: /* Software Safety: Accident Models - Systems Theory vs. Chain of Events */

=Software Safety: Accident Models - Systems Theory vs. Chain of Events=
'''Skim through the following paper (focus on sections 1, 2.3, and 3, skip figures and tables) entitled [http://sunnyday.mit.edu/papers/tdsc.pdf "A Systems-Theoretic Approach to Safety in Software-Intensive Systems"] by Nancy G. Leveson, a Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at MIT, then answer the following questions:'''

The majority of the content you need to form an informed response to the above questions is included in the paper. Bring in outside resources and topics discussed in class lectures as appropriate to support your response.

==What are some shortcomings of traditional methods of accident reporting when applied to complex systems like software systems?==
*Event-chain models tend to stop once something to blame is found. "reports stopped after assigning blame—usually to the operators who interacted with the software—and never got to the root of why the accident occurred"
*Event chain models were not designed to handle complex systems such as software. "in dealing with software in safety-critical systems is the result of inappropriately attempting to extend the techniques that were successful in simpler, electromechanical systems and were based on models of accident causation that no longer apply"

"In the simpler systems of the past, where all the interactions between components could be predicted and handled, component failure was the primary cause of accidents. In today’s complex systems, made possible by the use of software, this is no longer the case."

==How does the STAMP model improve accident prevention efforts? Explain some general concepts of the model.==
"Systems theory allows more complex relationships between events to be considered"

"Accident models based on systems theory consider accidents as arising from the interactions among system components and usually do not specify single causal variables or factors"

The STAMP model provides more information in terms of how to prevent future accidents rather then trying to place blame.

Hazard analysis using STAMP rather then traditional methods can prevent accidents from happening in software based systems

==Why was the Milstar satellite damaged although the components of the Inertial Navigation Unit (INU) operated correctly with respect to the instructions, including constraints, and data provided? Why would use of the STAMP model more thoroughly prevent problems such as those that occurred with the INU compared to traditional accident reporting?==

==What are some appropriate applications of the STAMP model (both current and past)? Explain.==

==What are some ethical concerns of assigning blame for accidents?==

==Relevant Class Website Links==
* [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/safety/ http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/safety/]

CSC 379:Week 5, Group 5

2007-08-02T23:12:19Z

Slatchle: /* What are some ethical concerns of assigning blame for accidents? */

=Software Safety: Accident Models - Systems Theory vs. Chain of Events=
'''Skim through the following paper (focus on sections 1, 2.3, and 3, skip figures and tables) entitled [http://sunnyday.mit.edu/papers/tdsc.pdf "A Systems-Theoretic Approach to Safety in Software-Intensive Systems"] by Nancy G. Leveson, a Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at MIT, then answer the following questions:'''

==What are some shortcomings of traditional methods of accident reporting when applied to complex systems like software systems?==
*Event-chain models tend to stop once something to blame is found. "reports stopped after assigning blame—usually to the operators who interacted with the software—and never got to the root of why the accident occurred"
*Event chain models were not designed to handle complex systems such as software. "in dealing with software in safety-critical systems is the result of inappropriately attempting to extend the techniques that were successful in simpler, electromechanical systems and were based on models of accident causation that no longer apply"

"In the simpler systems of the past, where all the interactions between components could be predicted and handled, component failure was the primary cause of accidents. In today’s complex systems, made possible by the use of software, this is no longer the case."

==How does the STAMP model improve accident prevention efforts? Explain some general concepts of the model.==
"Systems theory allows more complex relationships between events to be considered"

"Accident models based on systems theory consider accidents as arising from the interactions among system components and usually do not specify single causal variables or factors"

The STAMP model provides more information in terms of how to prevent future accidents rather then trying to place blame.

Hazard analysis using STAMP rather then traditional methods can prevent accidents from happening in software based systems

==Why was the Milstar satellite damaged although the components of the Inertial Navigation Unit (INU) operated correctly with respect to the instructions, including constraints, and data provided? Why would use of the STAMP model more thoroughly prevent problems such as those that occurred with the INU compared to traditional accident reporting?==

==What are some appropriate applications of the STAMP model (both current and past)? Explain.==

==What are some ethical concerns of assigning blame for accidents?==

==Relevant Class Website Links==
* [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/safety/ http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/safety/]

CSC 379:Week 5, Group 5

2007-08-02T23:11:14Z

Slatchle: /* What are some shortcomings of traditional methods of accident reporting when applied to complex systems like software systems? */

=Software Safety: Accident Models - Systems Theory vs. Chain of Events=
'''Skim through the following paper (focus on sections 1, 2.3, and 3, skip figures and tables) entitled [http://sunnyday.mit.edu/papers/tdsc.pdf "A Systems-Theoretic Approach to Safety in Software-Intensive Systems"] by Nancy G. Leveson, a Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at MIT, then answer the following questions:'''

==What are some shortcomings of traditional methods of accident reporting when applied to complex systems like software systems?==
*Event-chain models tend to stop once something to blame is found. "reports stopped after assigning blame—usually to the operators who interacted with the software—and never got to the root of why the accident occurred"
*Event chain models were not designed to handle complex systems such as software. "in dealing with software in safety-critical systems is the result of inappropriately attempting to extend the techniques that were successful in simpler, electromechanical systems and were based on models of accident causation that no longer apply"

"In the simpler systems of the past, where all the interactions between components could be predicted and handled, component failure was the primary cause of accidents. In today’s complex systems, made possible by the use of software, this is no longer the case."

==How does the STAMP model improve accident prevention efforts? Explain some general concepts of the model.==
"Systems theory allows more complex relationships between events to be considered"

"Accident models based on systems theory consider accidents as arising from the interactions among system components and usually do not specify single causal variables or factors"

The STAMP model provides more information in terms of how to prevent future accidents rather then trying to place blame.

Hazard analysis using STAMP rather then traditional methods can prevent accidents from happening in software based systems

==Why was the Milstar satellite damaged although the components of the Inertial Navigation Unit (INU) operated correctly with respect to the instructions, including constraints, and data provided? Why would use of the STAMP model more thoroughly prevent problems such as those that occurred with the INU compared to traditional accident reporting?==

==What are some appropriate applications of the STAMP model (both current and past)? Explain.==

==What are some ethical concerns of assigning blame for accidents?==

The majority of the content you need to form an informed response to the above questions is included in the paper. Bring in outside resources and topics discussed in class lectures as appropriate to support your response.

==Relevant Class Website Links==
* [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/safety/ http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/safety/]

CSC 379:Week 5, Group 5

2007-08-02T23:01:36Z

Slatchle: /* What are some shortcomings of traditional methods of accident reporting when applied to complex systems like software systems? */

=Software Safety: Accident Models - Systems Theory vs. Chain of Events=
'''Skim through the following paper (focus on sections 1, 2.3, and 3, skip figures and tables) entitled [http://sunnyday.mit.edu/papers/tdsc.pdf "A Systems-Theoretic Approach to Safety in Software-Intensive Systems"] by Nancy G. Leveson, a Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at MIT, then answer the following questions:'''

==What are some shortcomings of traditional methods of accident reporting when applied to complex systems like software systems?==
*Event-chain models tend to stop once something to blame is found. "reports stopped after assigning blame—usually to the operators who interacted with the software—and never got to the root of why the accident occurred"

"in dealing with software in safety-critical systems is the result of inappropriately attempting to extend the techniques that were successful in simpler, electromechanical
systems and were based on models of accident causation that no longer apply"

"In the simpler systems of the past, where all the interactions between components could be predicted and handled, component failure was the primary cause of accidents. In today’s complex systems, made possible by the use of software, this is no longer the case."

==How does the STAMP model improve accident prevention efforts? Explain some general concepts of the model.==
"Systems theory allows more complex relationships between events to be considered"

"Accident models based on systems theory consider accidents as arising from the interactions among system components and usually do not specify single causal variables or factors"

The STAMP model provides more information in terms of how to prevent future accidents rather then trying to place blame.

Hazard analysis using STAMP rather then traditional methods can prevent accidents from happening in software based systems

==Why was the Milstar satellite damaged although the components of the Inertial Navigation Unit (INU) operated correctly with respect to the instructions, including constraints, and data provided? Why would use of the STAMP model more thoroughly prevent problems such as those that occurred with the INU compared to traditional accident reporting?==

==What are some appropriate applications of the STAMP model (both current and past)? Explain.==

==What are some ethical concerns of assigning blame for accidents?==

The majority of the content you need to form an informed response to the above questions is included in the paper. Bring in outside resources and topics discussed in class lectures as appropriate to support your response.

==Relevant Class Website Links==
* [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/safety/ http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/safety/]

CSC 379:Week 5, Group 5

2007-08-02T23:01:25Z

Slatchle: /* What are some shortcomings of traditional methods of accident reporting when applied to complex systems like software systems? */

=Software Safety: Accident Models - Systems Theory vs. Chain of Events=
'''Skim through the following paper (focus on sections 1, 2.3, and 3, skip figures and tables) entitled [http://sunnyday.mit.edu/papers/tdsc.pdf "A Systems-Theoretic Approach to Safety in Software-Intensive Systems"] by Nancy G. Leveson, a Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at MIT, then answer the following questions:'''

==What are some shortcomings of traditional methods of accident reporting when applied to complex systems like software systems?==
*event-chain models tend to stop once something to blame is found. "reports stopped after assigning blame—usually to the operators who interacted with the software—and never got to the root of why the accident occurred"

"in dealing with software in safety-critical systems is the result of inappropriately attempting to extend the techniques that were successful in simpler, electromechanical
systems and were based on models of accident causation that no longer apply"

"In the simpler systems of the past, where all the interactions between components could be predicted and handled, component failure was the primary cause of accidents. In today’s complex systems, made possible by the use of software, this is no longer the case."

==How does the STAMP model improve accident prevention efforts? Explain some general concepts of the model.==
"Systems theory allows more complex relationships between events to be considered"

"Accident models based on systems theory consider accidents as arising from the interactions among system components and usually do not specify single causal variables or factors"

The STAMP model provides more information in terms of how to prevent future accidents rather then trying to place blame.

Hazard analysis using STAMP rather then traditional methods can prevent accidents from happening in software based systems

==Why was the Milstar satellite damaged although the components of the Inertial Navigation Unit (INU) operated correctly with respect to the instructions, including constraints, and data provided? Why would use of the STAMP model more thoroughly prevent problems such as those that occurred with the INU compared to traditional accident reporting?==

==What are some appropriate applications of the STAMP model (both current and past)? Explain.==

==What are some ethical concerns of assigning blame for accidents?==

The majority of the content you need to form an informed response to the above questions is included in the paper. Bring in outside resources and topics discussed in class lectures as appropriate to support your response.

==Relevant Class Website Links==
* [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/safety/ http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/safety/]

CSC 379:Week 5, Group 5

2007-08-02T23:00:24Z

Slatchle: /* What are some shortcomings of traditional methods of accident reporting when applied to complex systems like software systems? */

=Software Safety: Accident Models - Systems Theory vs. Chain of Events=
'''Skim through the following paper (focus on sections 1, 2.3, and 3, skip figures and tables) entitled [http://sunnyday.mit.edu/papers/tdsc.pdf "A Systems-Theoretic Approach to Safety in Software-Intensive Systems"] by Nancy G. Leveson, a Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at MIT, then answer the following questions:'''

==What are some shortcomings of traditional methods of accident reporting when applied to complex systems like software systems?==
*event-chain models tend to stop once something to blame is found
**fault tree analysis
**event tree analysis
**failure modes

*Blame - "reports stopped after assigning blame—usually to the operators who interacted with the software—and never got to the root of why the accident occurred"

"in dealing with software in safety-critical systems is the result of inappropriately attempting to extend the techniques that were successful in simpler, electromechanical
systems and were based on models of accident causation that no longer apply"

"In the simpler systems of the past, where all the interactions between components could be predicted and handled, component failure was the primary cause of accidents. In today’s complex systems, made possible by the use of software, this is no longer the case."

==How does the STAMP model improve accident prevention efforts? Explain some general concepts of the model.==
"Systems theory allows more complex relationships between events to be considered"

"Accident models based on systems theory consider accidents as arising from the interactions among system components and usually do not specify single causal variables or factors"

The STAMP model provides more information in terms of how to prevent future accidents rather then trying to place blame.

Hazard analysis using STAMP rather then traditional methods can prevent accidents from happening in software based systems

==Why was the Milstar satellite damaged although the components of the Inertial Navigation Unit (INU) operated correctly with respect to the instructions, including constraints, and data provided? Why would use of the STAMP model more thoroughly prevent problems such as those that occurred with the INU compared to traditional accident reporting?==

==What are some appropriate applications of the STAMP model (both current and past)? Explain.==

==What are some ethical concerns of assigning blame for accidents?==

The majority of the content you need to form an informed response to the above questions is included in the paper. Bring in outside resources and topics discussed in class lectures as appropriate to support your response.

==Relevant Class Website Links==
* [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/safety/ http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/safety/]

CSC 379:Week 5, Group 5

2007-08-02T22:58:09Z

Slatchle: /* How does the STAMP model improve accident prevention efforts? Explain some general concepts of the model. */

=Software Safety: Accident Models - Systems Theory vs. Chain of Events=
'''Skim through the following paper (focus on sections 1, 2.3, and 3, skip figures and tables) entitled [http://sunnyday.mit.edu/papers/tdsc.pdf "A Systems-Theoretic Approach to Safety in Software-Intensive Systems"] by Nancy G. Leveson, a Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at MIT, then answer the following questions:'''

==What are some shortcomings of traditional methods of accident reporting when applied to complex systems like software systems?==
*Blame - "reports stopped after assigning blame—usually to the operators who interacted with the software—and never got to the root of why the accident occurred"

"in dealing with software in safety-critical systems is the result of inappropriately attempting to extend the techniques that were successful in simpler, electromechanical
systems and were based on models of accident causation that no longer apply"

"In the simpler systems of the past, where all the interactions between components could be predicted and handled, component failure was the primary cause of accidents. In today’s complex systems, made possible by the use of software, this is no longer the case."

==How does the STAMP model improve accident prevention efforts? Explain some general concepts of the model.==
"Systems theory allows more complex relationships between events to be considered"

"Accident models based on systems theory consider accidents as arising from the interactions among system components and usually do not specify single causal variables or factors"

The STAMP model provides more information in terms of how to prevent future accidents rather then trying to place blame.

Hazard analysis using STAMP rather then traditional methods can prevent accidents from happening in software based systems

==Why was the Milstar satellite damaged although the components of the Inertial Navigation Unit (INU) operated correctly with respect to the instructions, including constraints, and data provided? Why would use of the STAMP model more thoroughly prevent problems such as those that occurred with the INU compared to traditional accident reporting?==

==What are some appropriate applications of the STAMP model (both current and past)? Explain.==

==What are some ethical concerns of assigning blame for accidents?==

The majority of the content you need to form an informed response to the above questions is included in the paper. Bring in outside resources and topics discussed in class lectures as appropriate to support your response.

==Relevant Class Website Links==
* [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/safety/ http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/safety/]

CSC 379:Week 5, Group 5

2007-08-02T22:53:38Z

Slatchle: /* How does the STAMP model improve accident prevention efforts? Explain some general concepts of the model. */

=Software Safety: Accident Models - Systems Theory vs. Chain of Events=
'''Skim through the following paper (focus on sections 1, 2.3, and 3, skip figures and tables) entitled [http://sunnyday.mit.edu/papers/tdsc.pdf "A Systems-Theoretic Approach to Safety in Software-Intensive Systems"] by Nancy G. Leveson, a Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at MIT, then answer the following questions:'''

==What are some shortcomings of traditional methods of accident reporting when applied to complex systems like software systems?==
*Blame - "reports stopped after assigning blame—usually to the operators who interacted with the software—and never got to the root of why the accident occurred"

"in dealing with software in safety-critical systems is the result of inappropriately attempting to extend the techniques that were successful in simpler, electromechanical
systems and were based on models of accident causation that no longer apply"

"In the simpler systems of the past, where all the interactions between components could be predicted and handled, component failure was the primary cause of accidents. In today’s complex systems, made possible by the use of software, this is no longer the case."

==How does the STAMP model improve accident prevention efforts? Explain some general concepts of the model.==
"Systems theory allows more complex relationships between events to be considered"

"Accident models based on systems theory consider accidents as arising from the interactions among system components and usually do not specify single causal variables or factors"

The STAMP model provides more information in terms of how to prevent future accidents rather then trying to place blame.

==Why was the Milstar satellite damaged although the components of the Inertial Navigation Unit (INU) operated correctly with respect to the instructions, including constraints, and data provided? Why would use of the STAMP model more thoroughly prevent problems such as those that occurred with the INU compared to traditional accident reporting?==

==What are some appropriate applications of the STAMP model (both current and past)? Explain.==

==What are some ethical concerns of assigning blame for accidents?==

The majority of the content you need to form an informed response to the above questions is included in the paper. Bring in outside resources and topics discussed in class lectures as appropriate to support your response.

==Relevant Class Website Links==
* [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/safety/ http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/safety/]

CSC 379:Week 5, Group 5

2007-08-02T22:53:22Z

Slatchle: /* How does the STAMP model improve accident prevention efforts? Explain some general concepts of the model. */

=Software Safety: Accident Models - Systems Theory vs. Chain of Events=
'''Skim through the following paper (focus on sections 1, 2.3, and 3, skip figures and tables) entitled [http://sunnyday.mit.edu/papers/tdsc.pdf "A Systems-Theoretic Approach to Safety in Software-Intensive Systems"] by Nancy G. Leveson, a Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at MIT, then answer the following questions:'''

==What are some shortcomings of traditional methods of accident reporting when applied to complex systems like software systems?==
*Blame - "reports stopped after assigning blame—usually to the operators who interacted with the software—and never got to the root of why the accident occurred"

"in dealing with software in safety-critical systems is the result of inappropriately attempting to extend the techniques that were successful in simpler, electromechanical
systems and were based on models of accident causation that no longer apply"

"In the simpler systems of the past, where all the interactions between components could be predicted and handled, component failure was the primary cause of accidents. In today’s complex systems, made possible by the use of software, this is no longer the case."

==How does the STAMP model improve accident prevention efforts? Explain some general concepts of the model.==
"Systems theory allows more complex relationships between events to be considered"

"Accident models based on systems theory consider accidents as arising from the interactions among system components and usually do not specify single causal variables or factors"

The STAMP model provides more information in terms of how to prevent future accidents rather then trying to place blame

==Why was the Milstar satellite damaged although the components of the Inertial Navigation Unit (INU) operated correctly with respect to the instructions, including constraints, and data provided? Why would use of the STAMP model more thoroughly prevent problems such as those that occurred with the INU compared to traditional accident reporting?==

==What are some appropriate applications of the STAMP model (both current and past)? Explain.==

==What are some ethical concerns of assigning blame for accidents?==

The majority of the content you need to form an informed response to the above questions is included in the paper. Bring in outside resources and topics discussed in class lectures as appropriate to support your response.

==Relevant Class Website Links==
* [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/safety/ http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/safety/]

CSC 379:Week 5, Group 5

2007-08-02T22:49:15Z

Slatchle: /* How does the STAMP model improve accident prevention efforts? Explain some general concepts of the model. */

=Software Safety: Accident Models - Systems Theory vs. Chain of Events=
'''Skim through the following paper (focus on sections 1, 2.3, and 3, skip figures and tables) entitled [http://sunnyday.mit.edu/papers/tdsc.pdf "A Systems-Theoretic Approach to Safety in Software-Intensive Systems"] by Nancy G. Leveson, a Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at MIT, then answer the following questions:'''

==What are some shortcomings of traditional methods of accident reporting when applied to complex systems like software systems?==
*Blame - "reports stopped after assigning blame—usually to the operators who interacted with the software—and never got to the root of why the accident occurred"

"in dealing with software in safety-critical systems is the result of inappropriately attempting to extend the techniques that were successful in simpler, electromechanical
systems and were based on models of accident causation that no longer apply"

"In the simpler systems of the past, where all the interactions between components could be predicted and handled, component failure was the primary cause of accidents. In today’s complex systems, made possible by the use of software, this is no longer the case."

==How does the STAMP model improve accident prevention efforts? Explain some general concepts of the model.==
"Systems theory allows more complex relationships between events to be considered"

"Accident models based on systems theory consider accidents as arising from the interactions among system components and usually do not specify single causal variables or factors"

==Why was the Milstar satellite damaged although the components of the Inertial Navigation Unit (INU) operated correctly with respect to the instructions, including constraints, and data provided? Why would use of the STAMP model more thoroughly prevent problems such as those that occurred with the INU compared to traditional accident reporting?==

==What are some appropriate applications of the STAMP model (both current and past)? Explain.==

==What are some ethical concerns of assigning blame for accidents?==

The majority of the content you need to form an informed response to the above questions is included in the paper. Bring in outside resources and topics discussed in class lectures as appropriate to support your response.

==Relevant Class Website Links==
* [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/safety/ http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/safety/]

CSC 379:Week 5, Group 5

2007-08-02T22:49:02Z

Slatchle: /* What are some shortcomings of traditional methods of accident reporting when applied to complex systems like software systems? */

=Software Safety: Accident Models - Systems Theory vs. Chain of Events=
'''Skim through the following paper (focus on sections 1, 2.3, and 3, skip figures and tables) entitled [http://sunnyday.mit.edu/papers/tdsc.pdf "A Systems-Theoretic Approach to Safety in Software-Intensive Systems"] by Nancy G. Leveson, a Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at MIT, then answer the following questions:'''

==What are some shortcomings of traditional methods of accident reporting when applied to complex systems like software systems?==
*Blame - "reports stopped after assigning blame—usually to the operators who interacted with the software—and never got to the root of why the accident occurred"

"in dealing with software in safety-critical systems is the result of inappropriately attempting to extend the techniques that were successful in simpler, electromechanical
systems and were based on models of accident causation that no longer apply"

"In the simpler systems of the past, where all the interactions between components could be predicted and handled, component failure was the primary cause of accidents. In today’s complex systems, made possible by the use of software, this is no longer the case."

==How does the STAMP model improve accident prevention efforts? Explain some general concepts of the model.==
"Systems theory allows more complex relationships between events to be considered"

"Accident models based on systems theory consider accidents as arising from the interactions among system components and usually do not specify single causal variables or factors"

"In the simpler systems of the past, where all the interactions between components could be predicted and handled, component failure was the primary cause of accidents. In today’s complex systems, made possible by the use of software, this is no longer the case."

==Why was the Milstar satellite damaged although the components of the Inertial Navigation Unit (INU) operated correctly with respect to the instructions, including constraints, and data provided? Why would use of the STAMP model more thoroughly prevent problems such as those that occurred with the INU compared to traditional accident reporting?==

==What are some appropriate applications of the STAMP model (both current and past)? Explain.==

==What are some ethical concerns of assigning blame for accidents?==

The majority of the content you need to form an informed response to the above questions is included in the paper. Bring in outside resources and topics discussed in class lectures as appropriate to support your response.

==Relevant Class Website Links==
* [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/safety/ http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/safety/]

CSC 379:Week 5, Group 5

2007-08-02T22:48:30Z

Slatchle: /* How does the STAMP model improve accident prevention efforts? Explain some general concepts of the model. */

=Software Safety: Accident Models - Systems Theory vs. Chain of Events=
'''Skim through the following paper (focus on sections 1, 2.3, and 3, skip figures and tables) entitled [http://sunnyday.mit.edu/papers/tdsc.pdf "A Systems-Theoretic Approach to Safety in Software-Intensive Systems"] by Nancy G. Leveson, a Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at MIT, then answer the following questions:'''

==What are some shortcomings of traditional methods of accident reporting when applied to complex systems like software systems?==
*Blame - "reports stopped after assigning blame—usually to the operators who interacted with the software—and never got to the root of why the accident occurred"

"in dealing with software in safety-critical systems is the result of inappropriately attempting to extend the techniques that were successful in simpler, electromechanical
systems and were based on models of accident causation that no longer apply"

==How does the STAMP model improve accident prevention efforts? Explain some general concepts of the model.==
"Systems theory allows more complex relationships between events to be considered"

"Accident models based on systems theory consider accidents as arising from the interactions among system components and usually do not specify single causal variables or factors"

"In the simpler systems of the past, where all the interactions between components could be predicted and handled, component failure was the primary cause of accidents. In today’s complex systems, made possible by the use of software, this is no longer the case."

==Why was the Milstar satellite damaged although the components of the Inertial Navigation Unit (INU) operated correctly with respect to the instructions, including constraints, and data provided? Why would use of the STAMP model more thoroughly prevent problems such as those that occurred with the INU compared to traditional accident reporting?==

==What are some appropriate applications of the STAMP model (both current and past)? Explain.==

==What are some ethical concerns of assigning blame for accidents?==

The majority of the content you need to form an informed response to the above questions is included in the paper. Bring in outside resources and topics discussed in class lectures as appropriate to support your response.

==Relevant Class Website Links==
* [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/safety/ http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/safety/]

CSC 379:Week 5, Group 5

2007-08-02T22:46:27Z

Slatchle: /* How does the STAMP model improve accident prevention efforts? Explain some general concepts of the model. */

=Software Safety: Accident Models - Systems Theory vs. Chain of Events=
'''Skim through the following paper (focus on sections 1, 2.3, and 3, skip figures and tables) entitled [http://sunnyday.mit.edu/papers/tdsc.pdf "A Systems-Theoretic Approach to Safety in Software-Intensive Systems"] by Nancy G. Leveson, a Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at MIT, then answer the following questions:'''

==What are some shortcomings of traditional methods of accident reporting when applied to complex systems like software systems?==
*Blame - "reports stopped after assigning blame—usually to the operators who interacted with the software—and never got to the root of why the accident occurred"

"in dealing with software in safety-critical systems is the result of inappropriately attempting to extend the techniques that were successful in simpler, electromechanical
systems and were based on models of accident causation that no longer apply"

==How does the STAMP model improve accident prevention efforts? Explain some general concepts of the model.==
"Systems theory allows more complex relationships between events to be considered"

"Accident models based on systems theory consider accidents as arising from the interactions among system components and usually do not specify single causal variables or factors"

==Why was the Milstar satellite damaged although the components of the Inertial Navigation Unit (INU) operated correctly with respect to the instructions, including constraints, and data provided? Why would use of the STAMP model more thoroughly prevent problems such as those that occurred with the INU compared to traditional accident reporting?==

==What are some appropriate applications of the STAMP model (both current and past)? Explain.==

==What are some ethical concerns of assigning blame for accidents?==

The majority of the content you need to form an informed response to the above questions is included in the paper. Bring in outside resources and topics discussed in class lectures as appropriate to support your response.

==Relevant Class Website Links==
* [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/safety/ http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/safety/]

CSC 379:Week 5, Group 5

2007-08-02T22:45:04Z

Slatchle: /* How does the STAMP model improve accident prevention efforts? Explain some general concepts of the model. */

=Software Safety: Accident Models - Systems Theory vs. Chain of Events=
'''Skim through the following paper (focus on sections 1, 2.3, and 3, skip figures and tables) entitled [http://sunnyday.mit.edu/papers/tdsc.pdf "A Systems-Theoretic Approach to Safety in Software-Intensive Systems"] by Nancy G. Leveson, a Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at MIT, then answer the following questions:'''

==What are some shortcomings of traditional methods of accident reporting when applied to complex systems like software systems?==
*Blame - "reports stopped after assigning blame—usually to the operators who interacted with the software—and never got to the root of why the accident occurred"

"in dealing with software in safety-critical systems is the result of inappropriately attempting to extend the techniques that were successful in simpler, electromechanical
systems and were based on models of accident causation that no longer apply"

==How does the STAMP model improve accident prevention efforts? Explain some general concepts of the model.==
"Systems theory allows more complex relationships between events to be considered"

==Why was the Milstar satellite damaged although the components of the Inertial Navigation Unit (INU) operated correctly with respect to the instructions, including constraints, and data provided? Why would use of the STAMP model more thoroughly prevent problems such as those that occurred with the INU compared to traditional accident reporting?==

==What are some appropriate applications of the STAMP model (both current and past)? Explain.==

==What are some ethical concerns of assigning blame for accidents?==

The majority of the content you need to form an informed response to the above questions is included in the paper. Bring in outside resources and topics discussed in class lectures as appropriate to support your response.

==Relevant Class Website Links==
* [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/safety/ http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/safety/]

CSC 379:Week 5, Group 5

2007-08-02T22:41:13Z

Slatchle: /* What are some shortcomings of traditional methods of accident reporting when applied to complex systems like software systems? */

CSC 379:Week 5, Group 5

2007-08-02T22:38:50Z

Slatchle: /* What are some shortcomings of traditional methods of accident reporting when applied to complex systems like software systems? */

CSC 379:Week 5, Group 5

2007-08-02T22:37:51Z

Slatchle: /* What are some shortcomings of traditional methods of accident reporting when applied to complex systems like software systems? */

CSC 379:Week 5, Group 5

2007-08-02T22:33:20Z

Slatchle: /* Software Safety: Accident Models - Systems Theory vs. Chain of Events */

CSC 379:Week 4, Group 2

2007-07-29T15:37:02Z

Slatchle: /* Current Laws */

=Workplace Monitoring=
The increasing prevalence of monitoring technologies in the workplace poses many ethical concerns. Existing technologies, like sniffers, can provide monitoring of employee actions on workstations and traffic on workplace networks such as email and instant messaging. Employers may also legally monitor phone conversions to a limited extent. While businesses are attempting to make sure their employees do a good job, excessive monitoring may cause harm to employees. Monitoring could be abused if personal information discovered while monitoring employees is used to discriminate against them.

'''Analyze the ethical implications of employers' use of workplace monitoring. Examine a couple new or emerging methods of workplace monitoring technology in detail.'''

==Resources==
===Relevant Class Website Links:===
* [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/social/workplace/monitoring/ http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/social/workplace/monitoring/]
* [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/privacy/e-mail/ http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/privacy/e-mail/]

==Relevant Outside Website Links:==
*[http://computer.howstuffworks.com/workplace-surveillance.htm How Stuff Works Article on Workplace Surveillance]
*[http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9027281&pageNumber=1 ComputerWorld article on workplace surveillance]
*[http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs7-work.htm Privacy Rights Clearinghouse workplace surveillance article]
*[http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/advice/20050718a1.asp Bankrate.com article on privacy in the workplace]

==Ethical implications==
More people are using computers , email, and the internet as part of there daily work activity. These tools can be used to increase the amount of work getting done, but they also make it very easy for an employer to track and record every thing you do online or read all the emails you send.

This raises an ethical question of rather this is a invasion of privacy and wrong?

from the [http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2001dltr0026.html Duke law & technology review] :

"Employee use of electronic mail (e-mail) during business hours is a common characteristic of the 21st century American workplace. According to a recent study, over 130 million workers are currently flooding recipients with 2.8 billion e-mail messages each day.1 Employers provide e-mail services to their employees as an efficient means of facilitating both intra-company communication and communication with the outside client base.2 E-mail serves to increase the efficiency of today's workplace because it is inexpensive to provide, simple to install and easy to use.3 E-mail usage also dramatically decreases the use of office-related, paper-based correspondence. However, despite these efficiencies, this technological advancement is also creating collateral problems concerning issues of employee privacy that today's legal environment appears unprepared to solve. This inadequacy in the law is primarily based on the fact that many employees do not know the extent of their privacy rights regarding their company-provided e-mail accounts. In fact, many employees operate under the false assumption that personal e-mail messages sent from work are protected from their employer's scrutiny."

===Arguments for work place monitoring===

*Activity's being done on company equipment.
*Ensure that sensitive information is not posted online.
*Employers have the right to track how employees are using company time and monitoring can increase productivity

===Arguments against work place monitoring===

*Many feel that emails and web surfing are private activities
*Monitoring will create more stress and friction between employees and employers
*That during lunch and other breaks they should be able to use internet and email for private use

A employee should be aware that technology makes it easy to track what web sites they visits, emails are saved and easy to read, and that the companys policy about work place monitoring should be known.

===Current Laws===
A [http://www.amanet.org/press/amanews/ems05.htm 2005 Electronic Monitoring & Surveillance Survey] shows that:
*76 percent monitor Website visits
*55 percent monitor email messages
*50 percent monitor computer files

With so many companies monitoring in the workplace, and the question it raises about privacy knowing what the current laws are for both employees and employers is important.

[http://www.fwlaw.com/techsurv.html Technological Surveillance in the Workplace]

[http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2001dltr0026.html MONITORING EMPLOYEE E-MAIL: EFFICIENT WORKPLACES VS. EMPLOYEE PRIVACY]

[http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs7-work.htm Employee Monitoring: Is There Privacy in the Workplace?]

==Methods of workplace monitoring==

The methods used by employers to monitor employees basically fall into two categories, computer surveillance and physical surveillance.

===Computer Surveillance===
Computer surveillance is one of the most popular forms of workplace surveillance due to the prevalence of computers and internet use in business. It utilizes monitoring software to keep track of employees' computer activities. Computer surveillance methods can be divided into two groups: internet surveillance and desktop surveillance.

'''Internet Surveillance'''

Internet surveillance involves monitoring employees' internet activities by watching, and possibly filtering, traffic that is transmitted over the company network. This can be achieved by custom hardware appliances, such as firewalls, monitoring software, or packet sniffing.

Some examples of internet surveillance:
*Email and instant messaging logging
*Logging of websites visited by users
*Blocking of certain websites
*Packet sniffing

'''Desktop Surveillance'''

Desktop surveillance consists of directly monitoring activities on an individual's computer by way of monitoring software that is installed on it. This surveillance potentially allows direct monitoring of the screen, logging of keystrokes, logging of idle time, and logging of browsing habits.

===Physical Surveillance===
Physical surveillance in the workplace is generally carried out through closed-circuit camera monitoring and recording, as well as phone monitoring and recording. In workplaces with access control cards, the time and location of each use of an employee's access card can be logged.

CSC 379:Week 4, Group 2

2007-07-29T15:30:26Z

Slatchle: /* Current Laws */

=Workplace Monitoring=
The increasing prevalence of monitoring technologies in the workplace poses many ethical concerns. Existing technologies, like sniffers, can provide monitoring of employee actions on workstations and traffic on workplace networks such as email and instant messaging. Employers may also legally monitor phone conversions to a limited extent. While businesses are attempting to make sure their employees do a good job, excessive monitoring may cause harm to employees. Monitoring could be abused if personal information discovered while monitoring employees is used to discriminate against them.

'''Analyze the ethical implications of employers' use of workplace monitoring. Examine a couple new or emerging methods of workplace monitoring technology in detail.'''

==Resources==
===Relevant Class Website Links:===
* [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/social/workplace/monitoring/ http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/social/workplace/monitoring/]
* [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/privacy/e-mail/ http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/privacy/e-mail/]

==Relevant Outside Website Links:==
*[http://computer.howstuffworks.com/workplace-surveillance.htm How Stuff Works Article on Workplace Surveillance]
*[http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9027281&pageNumber=1 ComputerWorld article on workplace surveillance]
*[http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs7-work.htm Privacy Rights Clearinghouse workplace surveillance article]
*[http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/advice/20050718a1.asp Bankrate.com article on privacy in the workplace]

==Ethical implications==
More people are using computers , email, and the internet as part of there daily work activity. These tools can be used to increase the amount of work getting done, but they also make it very easy for an employer to track and record every thing you do online or read all the emails you send.

This raises an ethical question of rather this is a invasion of privacy and wrong?

from the [http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2001dltr0026.html Duke law & technology review] :

"Employee use of electronic mail (e-mail) during business hours is a common characteristic of the 21st century American workplace. According to a recent study, over 130 million workers are currently flooding recipients with 2.8 billion e-mail messages each day.1 Employers provide e-mail services to their employees as an efficient means of facilitating both intra-company communication and communication with the outside client base.2 E-mail serves to increase the efficiency of today's workplace because it is inexpensive to provide, simple to install and easy to use.3 E-mail usage also dramatically decreases the use of office-related, paper-based correspondence. However, despite these efficiencies, this technological advancement is also creating collateral problems concerning issues of employee privacy that today's legal environment appears unprepared to solve. This inadequacy in the law is primarily based on the fact that many employees do not know the extent of their privacy rights regarding their company-provided e-mail accounts. In fact, many employees operate under the false assumption that personal e-mail messages sent from work are protected from their employer's scrutiny."

===Arguments for work place monitoring===

*Activity's being done on company equipment.
*Ensure that sensitive information is not posted online.
*Employers have the right to track how employees are using company time and monitoring can increase productivity

===Arguments against work place monitoring===

*Many feel that emails and web surfing are private activities
*Monitoring will create more stress and friction between employees and employers
*That during lunch and other breaks they should be able to use internet and email for private use

A employee should be aware that technology makes it easy to track what web sites they visits, emails are saved and easy to read, and that the companys policy about work place monitoring should be known.

===Current Laws===
A [http://www.amanet.org/press/amanews/ems05.htm 2005 Electronic Monitoring & Surveillance Survey] shows that:
*76 percent monitor Website visits
*55 percent monitor email messages
*50 percent monitor computer files

With so many companies monitoring in the workplace, and the question it raises about privacy knowing what the current laws are for both employees and employers is important.

==Methods of workplace monitoring==

The methods used by employers to monitor employees basically fall into two categories, computer surveillance and physical surveillance.

===Computer Surveillance===
Computer surveillance is one of the most popular forms of workplace surveillance due to the prevalence of computers and internet use in business. It utilizes monitoring software to keep track of employees' computer activities. Computer surveillance methods can be divided into two groups: internet surveillance and desktop surveillance.

'''Internet Surveillance'''

Internet surveillance involves monitoring employees' internet activities by watching, and possibly filtering, traffic that is transmitted over the company network. This can be achieved by custom hardware appliances, such as firewalls, monitoring software, or packet sniffing.

Some examples of internet surveillance:
*Email and instant messaging logging
*Logging of websites visited by users
*Blocking of certain websites
*Packet sniffing

'''Desktop Surveillance'''

Desktop surveillance consists of directly monitoring activities on an individual's computer by way of monitoring software that is installed on it. This surveillance potentially allows direct monitoring of the screen, logging of keystrokes, logging of idle time, and logging of browsing habits.

===Physical Surveillance===
Physical surveillance in the workplace is generally carried out through closed-circuit camera monitoring and recording, as well as phone monitoring and recording. In workplaces with access control cards, the time and location of each use of an employee's access card can be logged.

CSC 379:Week 4, Group 2

2007-07-29T15:10:10Z

Slatchle: /* Ethical implications */

=Workplace Monitoring=
The increasing prevalence of monitoring technologies in the workplace poses many ethical concerns. Existing technologies, like sniffers, can provide monitoring of employee actions on workstations and traffic on workplace networks such as email and instant messaging. Employers may also legally monitor phone conversions to a limited extent. While businesses are attempting to make sure their employees do a good job, excessive monitoring may cause harm to employees. Monitoring could be abused if personal information discovered while monitoring employees is used to discriminate against them.

'''Analyze the ethical implications of employers' use of workplace monitoring. Examine a couple new or emerging methods of workplace monitoring technology in detail.'''

==Resources==
===Relevant Class Website Links:===
* [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/social/workplace/monitoring/ http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/social/workplace/monitoring/]
* [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/privacy/e-mail/ http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/privacy/e-mail/]

==Relevant Outside Website Links:==
*[http://computer.howstuffworks.com/workplace-surveillance.htm How Stuff Works Article on Workplace Surveillance]
*[http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9027281&pageNumber=1 ComputerWorld article on workplace surveillance]
*[http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs7-work.htm Privacy Rights Clearinghouse workplace surveillance article]
*[http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/advice/20050718a1.asp Bankrate.com article on privacy in the workplace]

==Ethical implications==
More people are using computers , email, and the internet as part of there daily work activity. These tools can be used to increase the amount of work getting done, but they also make it very easy for an employer to track and record every thing you do online or read all the emails you send.

This raises an ethical question of rather this is a invasion of privacy and wrong?

from the [http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2001dltr0026.html Duke law & technology review] :

"Employee use of electronic mail (e-mail) during business hours is a common characteristic of the 21st century American workplace. According to a recent study, over 130 million workers are currently flooding recipients with 2.8 billion e-mail messages each day.1 Employers provide e-mail services to their employees as an efficient means of facilitating both intra-company communication and communication with the outside client base.2 E-mail serves to increase the efficiency of today's workplace because it is inexpensive to provide, simple to install and easy to use.3 E-mail usage also dramatically decreases the use of office-related, paper-based correspondence. However, despite these efficiencies, this technological advancement is also creating collateral problems concerning issues of employee privacy that today's legal environment appears unprepared to solve. This inadequacy in the law is primarily based on the fact that many employees do not know the extent of their privacy rights regarding their company-provided e-mail accounts. In fact, many employees operate under the false assumption that personal e-mail messages sent from work are protected from their employer's scrutiny."

===Arguments for work place monitoring===

*Activity's being done on company equipment.
*Ensure that sensitive information is not posted online.
*Employers have the right to track how employees are using company time and monitoring can increase productivity

===Arguments against work place monitoring===

*Many feel that emails and web surfing are private activities
*Monitoring will create more stress and friction between employees and employers
*That during lunch and other breaks they should be able to use internet and email for private use

A employee should be aware that technology makes it easy to track what web sites they visits, emails are saved and easy to read, and that the companys policy about work place monitoring should be known.

===Current Laws===

==Methods of workplace monitoring==

The methods used by employers to monitor employees basically fall into two categories, computer surveillance and physical surveillance.

===Computer Surveillance===
Computer surveillance is one of the most popular forms of workplace surveillance due to the prevalence of computers and internet use in business. It utilizes monitoring software to keep track of employees' computer activities. Computer surveillance methods can be divided into two groups: internet surveillance and desktop surveillance.

'''Internet Surveillance'''

Internet surveillance involves monitoring employees' internet activities by watching, and possibly filtering, traffic that is transmitted over the company network. This can be achieved by custom hardware appliances, such as firewalls, monitoring software, or packet sniffing.

Some examples of internet surveillance:
*Email and instant messaging logging
*Logging of websites visited by users
*Blocking of certain websites
*Packet sniffing

'''Desktop Surveillance'''

Desktop surveillance consists of directly monitoring activities on an individual's computer by way of monitoring software that is installed on it. This surveillance potentially allows direct monitoring of the screen, logging of keystrokes, logging of idle time, and logging of browsing habits.

===Physical Surveillance===
Physical surveillance in the workplace is generally carried out through closed-circuit camera monitoring and recording, as well as phone monitoring and recording. In workplaces with access control cards, the time and location of each use of an employee's access card can be logged.

CSC 379:Week 4, Group 2

2007-07-29T15:03:07Z

Slatchle: /* Arguments for work place monitoring */

CSC 379:Week 4, Group 2

2007-07-27T20:26:02Z

Slatchle: /* Ethical implications */

CSC 379:Week 4, Group 2

2007-07-27T20:19:44Z

Slatchle: /* Ethical implications */

CSC 379:Week 4, Group 2

2007-07-27T20:07:27Z

Slatchle: /* Ethical implications */

CSC 379:Week 4, Group 2

2007-07-27T20:02:44Z

Slatchle: /* Ethical implications */

CSC 379:Week 4, Group 2

2007-07-26T23:41:15Z

Slatchle: /* Workplace Monitoring */

CSC 379:Week 2, Group 2

2007-07-14T15:38:18Z

Slatchle: /* What are the ethical considerations for licenses like GPL that require their adoption if work licensed under it is incorporated into a parent work, with additional stipulations that include the acc

=GNU General Public License=

==Overview==
"Originally released in 1989, The [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html GNU General Public License], often called the GNU GPL for short, is a software license used by most [http://www.gnu.org GNU] programs, and by more than half of all free software packages." from the [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#GPL GNU web site] The GPL was created by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman Richard Stallman] who created the GNU project and a leader in the free software movement. Unlike more permissive licenses which place little restriction on the end use of covered products, the GPL contains specific restrictions and stipulations on GPL-licensed works. Among other things, the current GNU GPL (version 3) mandates...
#That GPL software may be sold for commercial or other profit purposes at any cost...
#That regardless of software cost, a copy of the software package's original source code must be made available for free when any binary versions of GPL software are being distributed...
#That if territorial law prohibits any of the stipulations in the GPL from being upheld, GPL software may not be distributed at all in that locality...
#That a copy of the GPL license be distributed in full with any distributed GPL works...
#That the source code of GPL-covered works may be freely compiled, copied, modified, or improved by anyone...
#That an executable program covered under the GPL may be reproduced freely by anyone...
#That any software which results from modification of GPL work, or of which GPL-covered source code is a portion, must be licensed under the GPL...
#That GPL-licensed software may not be cross-licensed by any means which would restrict the liberties and requirements set in place by the GPL (ie, by a corporate contract, or a more restrictive license)...
#That GPL-licensed software must not be run on a platform which prohibits the running of modified GPL software...
#That no warranty whatsoever be issued for GPL software...
#That works covered under any version of the GPL may be optionally covered under the newest version of the GPL as new versions of the license are released.

==Discussion Questions==

===What is the impact of GPL use?===
*A developer that wishes to release their code free and open source can do so and not worry about future changes of their code ending up in none free propriety software by releasing their code under the GPL. Others can modify and change software to meet their needs, but any thing that is derived from GPL code must again be released under the GPL.

*If a developer wishes to use some code from a GPL project in one of their own, they can not unless the new project will be licensed under the GPL. Some have criticized the GPL in acting like a virus, as it is inherently attached to anything that uses GPL code. A [http://kaybee.org:81/~kirk/GPL.html View] as to why GPL should not be used

*GPL and other open source code licenses allows for many more developers to look and and find bugs and make improvements to software than in proprietary software.
** The many different distributions of the [http://www.linux.org Linux] operating system are the most popular examples of GPL-licensed work.
** [http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/ Firefox] and [http://www.openoffice.org OpenOffice.org] are released under the [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html LGPL] or Lesser General Public License
** The above and other GPL software packages have created more competition in the market. competition in a market is a good thing for the users, it drives prices down and forces faster innovation. This could be seen as a good ethical outcome of the GPL

*An other good impact the GPL and other open source licenses have had is provided an abundance of code for educational use. I know myself and other that have used the code from GPL projects to learn, study, and see how things are done.

===What are the ethical considerations for licenses like GPL that require their adoption if work licensed under it is incorporated into a parent work, with additional stipulations that include the acceptance of the most current version of the GPL license?===

One of the most controversial aspects of the GPL is the so-called "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft copyleft]" protection which it imposes. Contrary to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright copyright], which forcibly restricts an end user's right to reproduce or modify a covered work, copyleft protection, though the term itself has no official legal meaning, refers to licensing agreements which guarantee that the right to reproduce and modify a work is preserved, often across numerous individuals, modifications, and even independent uses of a product. In essence, copyleft protection is the contractual exclusion of the common rights of copyright. While the ethical issues of copyright are often and thoroughly discussed, the issues surrounding copyleft protection are much less frequently addressed, perhaps due to its lesser prevalence. While the most [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html adamant proponents] of copyleft protection might like it depicted as the solution for a free and open software market devoid of the injustices of copyright, copyleft protection has its own set of ethical dilemmas, independent of but not less significant than its better-known counterpart. 
In the form present in the GPL license, copyleft protection stipulates that any modification of a GPL-covered work must also be covered under the GPL. However, it also stipulates that any work in which GPL-covered code is included must itself, in entirety, be licensed under the GPL. Thus, in theory, if a developer were to write a program containing several million lines of source code, and were to include a GPL-covered algorithm in ten such lines, then the entire program, not just the portion which had been previously covered by the GPL, would now be GPL software. As such, though the developer might have been planning to rely upon this product for his or her livelihood, and even though he or she independently created well over 99% of the program in question without any GPL code, he or she would now be forced to release all such code for free, and to allow for the free copying of the entire program. Thus, the GPL is ideal for initial developers of a program who wish to guarantee that their work remains free, readily improvable, and is not used for proprietary purposes in the future. For those who wish to contribute to future free software projects, too, the GPL provides a means of ensuring the intended use of software and libraries. However, in one sense, the GPL essentially renders all covered programs useless for any purposes related to profit. Though large corporations such as Red Hat have profited significantly off of GPL-licensed software, it is legitimately arguable that such profit is not from the software itself - which is freely available for download - but from the increased ease with which it can be rapidly distributed from Red Hat's installation media, or from the tech support which the company provides. Any programmer needing any guaranteed profit from a work is effectively barred from using any GPL-licensed code, as to do so would have a significantly negative impact on the author's ability to control reproduction of his or her work. Additionally, GPL projects may incorporate stipulations which require that, as the GPL is updated, the newest version of the license is automatically adopted.
 
Ethically, the implications of this copyleft phenomenon can be examined from a number of perspectives. For the end user, the right to freely redistribute and, with the right expertise, modify, improve, or customize software is a great improvement over purchasing a program and being required to use it in a limited fashion. For the developer, however, the advantages are more mixed. If the developer is starting on a project and wishes it to remain forever free to redistribute, then the GPL serves that function. Too, for the developer who wishes to improve upon a GPL project, the license ensures that his or her contribution will not be misused. For the developer implementing an existing or independent project with the help of any GPL code, though, the implications are much less positive. From this perspective, the restrictions which copyleft places on the developer are quite as restrictive as those which copyright places on the end user. While the developer of the GPL code should ethically have the right to decide how his code is used, the question becomes a bit more ambiguous when the language of the GPL is perused. Due to the conditions of the GPL, this developer is essentially given the right to forcibly dictate how another larger product is licensed if a GPL product is at all contributory. In effect, the developer who contributed the vast majority of the effort to his independent project loses the right to dictate his or her own license terms due to a perhaps trivial amount of GPL code. In such way, many have argued, the GPL dictatorially [http://www.cons.org/cracauer/gpl.html forces itself] on developers. Additionally, if the GPL code included requires the adoption of newer license versions as they become available, then the developer, in including the GPL product in his own, essentially agrees to have distribution of the overarching product controlled by an open-ended licensing agreement, the stipulations of which are only temporarily known. 
In essence, then, the GPL is an excellent for any software project released with the primary intention of benefiting the computing community. For any project in which profit is a must, however, it most likely should not be employed. The obvious, though unpleasant, solution is to The question of whether forced copyleft protection is ethical is one perhaps without a definitive answer. While the GPL developer has the right to determine how his code should be used and therefore should have the right to limit the use of his code in any proprietary project, the independent developer should likewise retain the right to determine the use of his code. However, this is not the case with the GPL. Whether this is an ethical stance depends entirely on whether the rights of the free-software or the proprietary-software developer are favored, and the question is therefore not a cut-and-dry issue with explicit right and wrong answers. The GPL, too, allows for profit, yet by requiring the release of source code, it restricts the potential to profit only to those unable or unwilling to build working working binaries of a program for themselves. It could be therefore said that the GPL does not in fact allow for profit, except from circumstances of ignorance or laziness, which few would consider ethical. If the free use of GPL code were truly the aim of the license, then some might say that more permissive terms, which allow for non-redistributable but still open-source projects, as well as for freely redistributable projects, are in order. Then, a developer could make the choice free of the duress of the current GPL conditions, and the code from the GPL would benefit end users either way, while a developer would retain the option of guaranteed profit on the use of his or her product. 
In the ideal, projects which incorporated code licensed under the GPL would give both the GPL-covered author and the independent author concurrent power to decide the license terms of a product, each over the portion of the product for which each respective individual was the author. To this aim, the LGPL, or Lesser GNU Public License, was composed. Simplistically, code licensed under the LGPL may be used in independent for-profit products without instating the requirement that the entire overarching project be distributed for free. LGPL code may be included in a project as a linked library, and while the library itself must be treated in very similar fashion to a project licensed under the GPL, the license for the remaining independent project is left much more (though not entirely) to the discretion of the independent developer. Thus, the LGPL developer, unlike the GPL developer, is not given undue power over the product of the time and effort of the proprietary developer. The LGPL therefore exists as a compromise between the high-minded ideals of the GPL and the economic realities of society, in which even software developers must earn a living. This compromise addresses many of the issues considered possibly unethical surrounding the copyleft protection of the GPL. However, the intent of the GPL, to provide free and unrestricted access to software so that all can benefit and contribute, is in many opinions far more ethical than the profiteering schemes prevalent in much of the rest of the software market.

[http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/07/linux_creator_c.html Linux Creator Calls GPLv3 Authors 'Hypocrites' As Open Source Debate Turns Nasty]

===An Examination of a Recent Related Event: The Microsoft/Novell partnership===

Recently [http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/nov06/11-02MSNovellPR.mspx Microsoft partnered with their rival Novell], the makers of Suse Linux, in an effort to optimize virtualization for each other's operating systems, among other promised features. Since Suse Linux is covered under the GNU General Public License, this raised some unique concerns. GPL licenses specify that source code is available for free and can be freely modified and redistributed (given you adhere to the other stipulations of the GPL), however, Microsoft is paying a royalty to Novell to use and modify their products. Even though legally this agreement is valid, many developers who have contributed their work to Suse over the years with the understanding that it would be covered under the GPL feel betrayed by this and consider it a breach of the agreement.

Another ethical dilemma arises when one considers that the GPL agreement included patent protection for Novell customers only if Microsoft's intellectual property was discovered in Linux. However, Novell has not yet officially acknowledged that Linux infringes on Microsoft's patents.

Some argue that an agreement to make operating systems better optimized for one another as the demand for servers to run multiple operating systems increases can only be beneficial to customers, companies and the development community as a whole.

You can read more about the announcement, reactions and criticism at these external links:
*[http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html GNU Agreement which covers all of Suse Linux]
*[http://news.com.com/Microsoft+makes+Linux+pact+with+Novell/2100-1016_3-6132119.html The Announcement]
*[http://techp.org/petition/show/1 Reaction from some GNU Software Developers]

CSC 379:Week 2, Group 2

2007-07-14T15:34:46Z

Slatchle: /* What is the impact of GPL use? */

=GNU General Public License=

==Overview==
"Originally released in 1989, The [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html GNU General Public License], often called the GNU GPL for short, is a software license used by most [http://www.gnu.org GNU] programs, and by more than half of all free software packages." from the [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#GPL GNU web site] The GPL was created by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman Richard Stallman] who created the GNU project and a leader in the free software movement. Unlike more permissive licenses which place little restriction on the end use of covered products, the GPL contains specific restrictions and stipulations on GPL-licensed works. Among other things, the current GNU GPL (version 3) mandates...
#That GPL software may be sold for commercial or other profit purposes at any cost...
#That regardless of software cost, a copy of the software package's original source code must be made available for free when any binary versions of GPL software are being distributed...
#That if territorial law prohibits any of the stipulations in the GPL from being upheld, GPL software may not be distributed at all in that locality...
#That a copy of the GPL license be distributed in full with any distributed GPL works...
#That the source code of GPL-covered works may be freely compiled, copied, modified, or improved by anyone...
#That an executable program covered under the GPL may be reproduced freely by anyone...
#That any software which results from modification of GPL work, or of which GPL-covered source code is a portion, must be licensed under the GPL...
#That GPL-licensed software may not be cross-licensed by any means which would restrict the liberties and requirements set in place by the GPL (ie, by a corporate contract, or a more restrictive license)...
#That GPL-licensed software must not be run on a platform which prohibits the running of modified GPL software...
#That no warranty whatsoever be issued for GPL software...
#That works covered under any version of the GPL may be optionally covered under the newest version of the GPL as new versions of the license are released.

==Discussion Questions==

===What is the impact of GPL use?===
*A developer that wishes to release their code free and open source can do so and not worry about future changes of their code ending up in none free propriety software by releasing their code under the GPL. Others can modify and change software to meet their needs, but any thing that is derived from GPL code must again be released under the GPL.

*If a developer wishes to use some code from a GPL project in one of their own, they can not unless the new project will be licensed under the GPL. Some have criticized the GPL in acting like a virus, as it is inherently attached to anything that uses GPL code. A [http://kaybee.org:81/~kirk/GPL.html View] as to why GPL should not be used

*GPL and other open source code licenses allows for many more developers to look and and find bugs and make improvements to software than in proprietary software.
** The many different distributions of the [http://www.linux.org Linux] operating system are the most popular examples of GPL-licensed work.
** [http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/ Firefox] and [http://www.openoffice.org OpenOffice.org] are released under the [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html LGPL] or Lesser General Public License
** The above and other GPL software packages have created more competition in the market. competition in a market is a good thing for the users, it drives prices down and forces faster innovation. This could be seen as a good ethical outcome of the GPL

*An other good impact the GPL and other open source licenses have had is provided an abundance of code for educational use. I know myself and other that have used the code from GPL projects to learn, study, and see how things are done.

===What are the ethical considerations for licenses like GPL that require their adoption if work licensed under it is incorporated into a parent work, with additional stipulations that include the acceptance of the most current version of the GPL license?===

One of the most controversial aspects of the GPL is the so-called "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft copyleft]" protection which it imposes. Contrary to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright copyright], which forcibly restricts an end user's right to reproduce or modify a covered work, copyleft protection, though the term itself has no official legal meaning, refers to licensing agreements which guarantee that the right to reproduce and modify a work is preserved, often across numerous individuals, modifications, and even independent uses of a product. In essence, copyleft protection is the contractual exclusion of the common rights of copyright. While the ethical issues of copyright are often and thoroughly discussed, the issues surrounding copyleft protection are much less frequently addressed, perhaps due to its lesser prevalence. While the most [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html adamant proponents] of copyleft protection might like it depicted as the solution for a free and open software market devoid of the injustices of copyright, copyleft protection has its own set of ethical dilemmas, independent of but not less significant than its better-known counterpart. 
In the form present in the GPL license, copyleft protection stipulates that any modification of a GPL-covered work must also be covered under the GPL. However, it also stipulates that any work in which GPL-covered code is included must itself, in entirety, be licensed under the GPL. Thus, in theory, if a developer were to write a program containing several million lines of source code, and were to include a GPL-covered algorithm in ten such lines, then the entire program, not just the portion which had been previously covered by the GPL, would now be GPL software. As such, though the developer might have been planning to rely upon this product for his or her livelihood, and even though he or she independently created well over 99% of the program in question without any GPL code, he or she would now be forced to release all such code for free, and to allow for the free copying of the entire program. Thus, the GPL is ideal for initial developers of a program who wish to guarantee that their work remains free, readily improvable, and is not used for proprietary purposes in the future. For those who wish to contribute to future free software projects, too, the GPL provides a means of ensuring the intended use of software and libraries. However, in one sense, the GPL essentially renders all covered programs useless for any purposes related to profit. Though large corporations such as Red Hat have profited significantly off of GPL-licensed software, it is legitimately arguable that such profit is not from the software itself - which is freely available for download - but from the increased ease with which it can be rapidly distributed from Red Hat's installation media, or from the tech support which the company provides. Any programmer needing any guaranteed profit from a work is effectively barred from using any GPL-licensed code, as to do so would have a significantly negative impact on the author's ability to control reproduction of his or her work. Additionally, GPL projects may incorporate stipulations which require that, as the GPL is updated, the newest version of the license is automatically adopted.
 
Ethically, the implications of this copyleft phenomenon can be examined from a number of perspectives. For the end user, the right to freely redistribute and, with the right expertise, modify, improve, or customize software is a great improvement over purchasing a program and being required to use it in a limited fashion. For the developer, however, the advantages are more mixed. If the developer is starting on a project and wishes it to remain forever free to redistribute, then the GPL serves that function. Too, for the developer who wishes to improve upon a GPL project, the license ensures that his or her contribution will not be misused. For the developer implementing an existing or independent project with the help of any GPL code, though, the implications are much less positive. From this perspective, the restrictions which copyleft places on the developer are quite as restrictive as those which copyright places on the end user. While the developer of the GPL code should ethically have the right to decide how his code is used, the question becomes a bit more ambiguous when the language of the GPL is perused. Due to the conditions of the GPL, this developer is essentially given the right to forcibly dictate how another larger product is licensed if a GPL product is at all contributory. In effect, the developer who contributed the vast majority of the effort to his independent project loses the right to dictate his or her own license terms due to a perhaps trivial amount of GPL code. In such way, many have argued, the GPL dictatorially [http://www.cons.org/cracauer/gpl.html forces itself] on developers. Additionally, if the GPL code included requires the adoption of newer license versions as they become available, then the developer, in including the GPL product in his own, essentially agrees to have distribution of the overarching product controlled by an open-ended licensing agreement, the stipulations of which are only temporarily known. 
In essence, then, the GPL is an excellent for any software project released with the primary intention of benefiting the computing community. For any project in which profit is a must, however, it most likely should not be employed. The obvious, though unpleasant, solution is to The question of whether forced copyleft protection is ethical is one perhaps without a definitive answer. While the GPL developer has the right to determine how his code should be used and therefore should have the right to limit the use of his code in any proprietary project, the independent developer should likewise retain the right to determine the use of his code. However, this is not the case with the GPL. Whether this is an ethical stance depends entirely on whether the rights of the free-software or the proprietary-software developer are favored, and the question is therefore not a cut-and-dry issue with explicit right and wrong answers. The GPL, too, allows for profit, yet by requiring the release of source code, it restricts the potential to profit only to those unable or unwilling to build working working binaries of a program for themselves. It could be therefore said that the GPL does not in fact allow for profit, except from circumstances of ignorance or laziness, which few would consider ethical. If the free use of GPL code were truly the aim of the license, then some might say that more permissive terms, which allow for non-redistributable but still open-source projects, as well as for freely redistributable projects, are in order. Then, a developer could make the choice free of the duress of the current GPL conditions, and the code from the GPL would benefit end users either way, while a developer would retain the option of guaranteed profit on the use of his or her product. 
In the ideal, projects which incorporated code licensed under the GPL would give both the GPL-covered author and the independent author concurrent power to decide the license terms of a product, each over the portion of the product for which each respective individual was the author. To this aim, the LGPL, or Lesser GNU Public License, was composed. Simplistically, code licensed under the LGPL may be used in independent for-profit products without instating the requirement that the entire overarching project be distributed for free. LGPL code may be included in a project as a linked library, and while the library itself must be treated in very similar fashion to a project licensed under the GPL, the license for the remaining independent project is left much more (though not entirely) to the discretion of the independent developer. Thus, the LGPL developer, unlike the GPL developer, is not given undue power over the product of the time and effort of the proprietary developer. The LGPL therefore exists as a compromise between the high-minded ideals of the GPL and the economic realities of society, in which even software developers must earn a living. This compromise addresses many of the issues considered possibly unethical surrounding the copyleft protection of the GPL. However, the intent of the GPL, to provide free and unrestricted access to software so that all can benefit and contribute, is in many opinions far more ethical than the profiteering schemes prevalent in much of the rest of the software market.

===An Examination of a Recent Related Event: The Microsoft/Novell partnership===

Recently [http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/nov06/11-02MSNovellPR.mspx Microsoft partnered with their rival Novell], the makers of Suse Linux, in an effort to optimize virtualization for each other's operating systems, among other promised features. Since Suse Linux is covered under the GNU General Public License, this raised some unique concerns. GPL licenses specify that source code is available for free and can be freely modified and redistributed (given you adhere to the other stipulations of the GPL), however, Microsoft is paying a royalty to Novell to use and modify their products. Even though legally this agreement is valid, many developers who have contributed their work to Suse over the years with the understanding that it would be covered under the GPL feel betrayed by this and consider it a breach of the agreement.

Another ethical dilemma arises when one considers that the GPL agreement included patent protection for Novell customers only if Microsoft's intellectual property was discovered in Linux. However, Novell has not yet officially acknowledged that Linux infringes on Microsoft's patents.

Some argue that an agreement to make operating systems better optimized for one another as the demand for servers to run multiple operating systems increases can only be beneficial to customers, companies and the development community as a whole.

You can read more about the announcement, reactions and criticism at these external links:
*[http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html GNU Agreement which covers all of Suse Linux]
*[http://news.com.com/Microsoft+makes+Linux+pact+with+Novell/2100-1016_3-6132119.html The Announcement]
*[http://techp.org/petition/show/1 Reaction from some GNU Software Developers]

CSC 379:Week 2, Group 2

2007-07-14T15:30:11Z

Slatchle: /* What is the impact of GPL use? */

=GNU General Public License=

==Overview==
"Originally released in 1989, The [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html GNU General Public License], often called the GNU GPL for short, is a software license used by most [http://www.gnu.org GNU] programs, and by more than half of all free software packages." from the [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#GPL GNU web site] The GPL was created by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman Richard Stallman] who created the GNU project and a leader in the free software movement. Unlike more permissive licenses which place little restriction on the end use of covered products, the GPL contains specific restrictions and stipulations on GPL-licensed works. Among other things, the current GNU GPL (version 3) mandates...
#That GPL software may be sold for commercial or other profit purposes at any cost...
#That regardless of software cost, a copy of the software package's original source code must be made available for free when any binary versions of GPL software are being distributed...
#That if territorial law prohibits any of the stipulations in the GPL from being upheld, GPL software may not be distributed at all in that locality...
#That a copy of the GPL license be distributed in full with any distributed GPL works...
#That the source code of GPL-covered works may be freely compiled, copied, modified, or improved by anyone...
#That an executable program covered under the GPL may be reproduced freely by anyone...
#That any software which results from modification of GPL work, or of which GPL-covered source code is a portion, must be licensed under the GPL...
#That GPL-licensed software may not be cross-licensed by any means which would restrict the liberties and requirements set in place by the GPL (ie, by a corporate contract, or a more restrictive license)...
#That GPL-licensed software must not be run on a platform which prohibits the running of modified GPL software...
#That no warranty whatsoever be issued for GPL software...
#That works covered under any version of the GPL may be optionally covered under the newest version of the GPL as new versions of the license are released.

==Discussion Questions==

===What is the impact of GPL use?===
**A developer that wishes to release their code free and open source can do so and not worry about future changes of their code ending up in none free propriety software by releasing their code under the GPL. Others can modify and change software to meet their needs, but any thing that is derived from GPL code must again be released under the GPL.
**If a developer wishes to use some code from a GPL project in one of their own, they can not unless the new project will be licensed under the GPL. Some have criticized the GPL in acting like a virus, as it is inherently attached to anything that uses GPL code. A [http://kaybee.org:81/~kirk/GPL.html View] as to why GPL should not be used
**GPL and other open source code licenses allows for many more developers to look and and find bugs and make improvements to software than in proprietary software.
*** The many different distributions of the [http://www.linux.org Linux] operating system are the most popular examples of GPL-licensed work.
*** [http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/ Firefox] and [http://www.openoffice.org OpenOffice.org] are released under the [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html LGPL] or Lesser General Public License
*** The above and other GPL software packages have created more competition in the market. competition in a market is a good thing for the users, it drives prices down and forces faster innovation. This could be seen as a good ethical outcome of the GPL

===What are the ethical considerations for licenses like GPL that require their adoption if work licensed under it is incorporated into a parent work, with additional stipulations that include the acceptance of the most current version of the GPL license?===

One of the most controversial aspects of the GPL is the so-called "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft copyleft]" protection which it imposes. Contrary to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright copyright], which forcibly restricts an end user's right to reproduce or modify a covered work, copyleft protection, though the term itself has no official legal meaning, refers to licensing agreements which guarantee that the right to reproduce and modify a work is preserved, often across numerous individuals, modifications, and even independent uses of a product. In essence, copyleft protection is the contractual exclusion of the common rights of copyright. While the ethical issues of copyright are often and thoroughly discussed, the issues surrounding copyleft protection are much less frequently addressed, perhaps due to its lesser prevalence. While the most [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html adamant proponents] of copyleft protection might like it depicted as the solution for a free and open software market devoid of the injustices of copyright, copyleft protection has its own set of ethical dilemmas, independent of but not less significant than its better-known counterpart. 
In the form present in the GPL license, copyleft protection stipulates that any modification of a GPL-covered work must also be covered under the GPL. However, it also stipulates that any work in which GPL-covered code is included must itself, in entirety, be licensed under the GPL. Thus, in theory, if a developer were to write a program containing several million lines of source code, and were to include a GPL-covered algorithm in ten such lines, then the entire program, not just the portion which had been previously covered by the GPL, would now be GPL software. As such, though the developer might have been planning to rely upon this product for his or her livelihood, and even though he or she independently created well over 99% of the program in question without any GPL code, he or she would now be forced to release all such code for free, and to allow for the free copying of the entire program. Thus, the GPL is ideal for initial developers of a program who wish to guarantee that their work remains free, readily improvable, and is not used for proprietary purposes in the future. For those who wish to contribute to future free software projects, too, the GPL provides a means of ensuring the intended use of software and libraries. However, in one sense, the GPL essentially renders all covered programs useless for any purposes related to profit. Though large corporations such as Red Hat have profited significantly off of GPL-licensed software, it is legitimately arguable that such profit is not from the software itself - which is freely available for download - but from the increased ease with which it can be rapidly distributed from Red Hat's installation media, or from the tech support which the company provides. Any programmer needing any guaranteed profit from a work is effectively barred from using any GPL-licensed code, as to do so would have a significantly negative impact on the author's ability to control reproduction of his or her work. Additionally, GPL projects may incorporate stipulations which require that, as the GPL is updated, the newest version of the license is automatically adopted.
 
Ethically, the implications of this copyleft phenomenon can be examined from a number of perspectives. For the end user, the right to freely redistribute and, with the right expertise, modify, improve, or customize software is a great improvement over purchasing a program and being required to use it in a limited fashion. For the developer, however, the advantages are more mixed. If the developer is starting on a project and wishes it to remain forever free to redistribute, then the GPL serves that function. Too, for the developer who wishes to improve upon a GPL project, the license ensures that his or her contribution will not be misused. For the developer implementing an existing or independent project with the help of any GPL code, though, the implications are much less positive. From this perspective, the restrictions which copyleft places on the developer are quite as restrictive as those which copyright places on the end user. While the developer of the GPL code should ethically have the right to decide how his code is used, the question becomes a bit more ambiguous when the language of the GPL is perused. Due to the conditions of the GPL, this developer is essentially given the right to forcibly dictate how another larger product is licensed if a GPL product is at all contributory. In effect, the developer who contributed the vast majority of the effort to his independent project loses the right to dictate his or her own license terms due to a perhaps trivial amount of GPL code. In such way, many have argued, the GPL dictatorially [http://www.cons.org/cracauer/gpl.html forces itself] on developers. Additionally, if the GPL code included requires the adoption of newer license versions as they become available, then the developer, in including the GPL product in his own, essentially agrees to have distribution of the overarching product controlled by an open-ended licensing agreement, the stipulations of which are only temporarily known. 
In essence, then, the GPL is an excellent for any software project released with the primary intention of benefiting the computing community. For any project in which profit is a must, however, it most likely should not be employed. The obvious, though unpleasant, solution is to The question of whether forced copyleft protection is ethical is one perhaps without a definitive answer. While the GPL developer has the right to determine how his code should be used and therefore should have the right to limit the use of his code in any proprietary project, the independent developer should likewise retain the right to determine the use of his code. However, this is not the case with the GPL. Whether this is an ethical stance depends entirely on whether the rights of the free-software or the proprietary-software developer are favored, and the question is therefore not a cut-and-dry issue with explicit right and wrong answers. The GPL, too, allows for profit, yet by requiring the release of source code, it restricts the potential to profit only to those unable or unwilling to build working working binaries of a program for themselves. It could be therefore said that the GPL does not in fact allow for profit, except from circumstances of ignorance or laziness, which few would consider ethical. If the free use of GPL code were truly the aim of the license, then some might say that more permissive terms, which allow for non-redistributable but still open-source projects, as well as for freely redistributable projects, are in order. Then, a developer could make the choice free of the duress of the current GPL conditions, and the code from the GPL would benefit end users either way, while a developer would retain the option of guaranteed profit on the use of his or her product. 
In the ideal, projects which incorporated code licensed under the GPL would give both the GPL-covered author and the independent author concurrent power to decide the license terms of a product, each over the portion of the product for which each respective individual was the author. To this aim, the LGPL, or Lesser GNU Public License, was composed. Simplistically, code licensed under the LGPL may be used in independent for-profit products without instating the requirement that the entire overarching project be distributed for free. LGPL code may be included in a project as a linked library, and while the library itself must be treated in very similar fashion to a project licensed under the GPL, the license for the remaining independent project is left much more (though not entirely) to the discretion of the independent developer. Thus, the LGPL developer, unlike the GPL developer, is not given undue power over the product of the time and effort of the proprietary developer. The LGPL therefore exists as a compromise between the high-minded ideals of the GPL and the economic realities of society, in which even software developers must earn a living. This compromise addresses many of the issues considered possibly unethical surrounding the copyleft protection of the GPL. However, the intent of the GPL, to provide free and unrestricted access to software so that all can benefit and contribute, is in many opinions far more ethical than the profiteering schemes prevalent in much of the rest of the software market.

===An Examination of a Recent Related Event: The Microsoft/Novell partnership===

Recently [http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/nov06/11-02MSNovellPR.mspx Microsoft partnered with their rival Novell], the makers of Suse Linux, in an effort to optimize virtualization for each other's operating systems, among other promised features. Since Suse Linux is covered under the GNU General Public License, this raised some unique concerns. GPL licenses specify that source code is available for free and can be freely modified and redistributed (given you adhere to the other stipulations of the GPL), however, Microsoft is paying a royalty to Novell to use and modify their products. Even though legally this agreement is valid, many developers who have contributed their work to Suse over the years with the understanding that it would be covered under the GPL feel betrayed by this and consider it a breach of the agreement.

Another ethical dilemma arises when one considers that the GPL agreement included patent protection for Novell customers only if Microsoft's intellectual property was discovered in Linux. However, Novell has not yet officially acknowledged that Linux infringes on Microsoft's patents.

Some argue that an agreement to make operating systems better optimized for one another as the demand for servers to run multiple operating systems increases can only be beneficial to customers, companies and the development community as a whole.

You can read more about the announcement, reactions and criticism at these external links:
*[http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html GNU Agreement which covers all of Suse Linux]
*[http://news.com.com/Microsoft+makes+Linux+pact+with+Novell/2100-1016_3-6132119.html The Announcement]
*[http://techp.org/petition/show/1 Reaction from some GNU Software Developers]

CSC 379:Week 2, Group 2

2007-07-13T16:58:06Z

Slatchle:

=GNU General Public License=

==Overview==
"The GNU General Public License is often called the GNU GPL for short; it is used by most GNU programs, and by more than half of all free software packages." from the [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#GPL GNU web site]

The GPL was created by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman Richard Stallman] who created the GNU project and a leader in the free software movement.

==Discussion Questions==

===What is the impact of GPL use?===
**A developer that wishes to release thier code free and open source can do so and not worry about future changes of their code ending up in none free propriety software by releasing their code under the GLP. Others can modify and change software to meet their needs, but any thing that is derived from GPL code must again be released under the GPL.
**If a developer wishes to use some code from a GPL project in one of thier own, they can not unless the new project will be liscened under the GPL. Some have criticized the GPL in acting like a virus as it gets attached to antying that uses GPL code. A [http://kaybee.org:81/~kirk/GPL.html View] as to why GPL should not be used
**GPL and other open source code licenses allows for many more developers to look and and find bugs and make improvements to software Then in proprietary software.
*** The many different distributions of linux is the most popular GPL example
*** Fire fox and Open Officer are releasesd under the [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html LGPL] or Lesser General Public License
===What are the ethical considerations for licenses like GPL that require their adoption if work licensed under it is incorporated into a parent work, with additional stipulations that include the acceptance of the most current version of the GPL license?===

===An Examination of a Recent Related Event: The Microsoft/Novell partnership===

Recently [http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/nov06/11-02MSNovellPR.mspx Microsoft partnered with their rival Novell], the makers of Suse Linux, in an effort to optimize virtualization for each other's operating systems, among other promised features. Since Suse Linux is covered under the GNU General Public License, this raised some unique concerns. GNU licenses cover only free programs but with this new agreement Microsoft will be paying a royalty to distribute Suse Linux Enterprise. Even though legally this agreement is valid, many developers who have contributed their work to Suse over the years with the understanding that it would be covered under the GNU feel betrayed by this and consider it a breach of the agreement.

Another ethical dilemma arises when one considers that the GPL agreement included patent protection for Novell customers only if Microsoft's intellectual property was discovered in Linux. However, Novell has not yet officially acknowledged that Linux infringes on Microsoft's patents.

Some argue that an agreement to make operating systems better optimized for one another as the demand for servers to run multiple operating systems increases can only be beneficial to customers, companies and the development community as a whole.

You can read more about the announcement, reactions and criticism at these external links:
*[http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html GNU Agreement which covers all of Suse Linux]
*[http://news.com.com/Microsoft+makes+Linux+pact+with+Novell/2100-1016_3-6132119.html The Announcement]
*[http://techp.org/petition/show/1 Reaction from some GNU Software Developers]

CSC 379:Week 2, Group 2

2007-07-13T16:54:46Z

Slatchle: /* Overview */

=GNU General Public License=

==Overview==
"The GNU General Public License is often called the GNU GPL for short; it is used by most GNU programs, and by more than half of all free software packages." from the [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#GPL GNU web site]

The GPL was created by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman Richard Stallman] who created the GNU project and a leader in the free software movement.

==Discussion Questions==

* '''What is the impact of GPL use?'''
**A developer that wishes to release thier code free and open source can do so and not worry about future changes of their code ending up in none free propriety software by releasing their code under the GLP. Others can modify and change software to meet their needs, but any thing that is derived from GPL code must again be released under the GPL.
**If a developer wishes to use some code from a GPL project in one of thier own, they can not unless the new project will be liscened under the GPL. Some have criticized the GPL in acting like a virus as it gets attached to antying that uses GPL code. A [http://kaybee.org:81/~kirk/GPL.html View] as to why GPL should not be used
**GPL and other open source code licenses allows for many more developers to look and and find bugs and make improvements to software Then in proprietary software.
*** The many different distributions of linux is the most popular GPL example
*** Fire fox and Open Officer are releasesd under the [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html LGPL] or Lesser General Public License
* '''What are the ethical considerations for licenses like GPL that require their adoption if work licensed under it is incorporated into a parent work, with additional stipulations that include the acceptance of the most current version of the GPL license?'''

==An Examination of a Recent Related Event: The Microsoft/Novell partnership==

Recently [http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/nov06/11-02MSNovellPR.mspx Microsoft partnered with their rival Novell], the makers of Suse Linux, in an effort to optimize virtualization for each other's operating systems, among other promised features. Since Suse Linux is covered under the GNU General Public License, this raised some unique concerns. GNU licenses cover only free programs but with this new agreement Microsoft will be paying a royalty to distribute Suse Linux Enterprise. Even though legally this agreement is valid, many developers who have contributed their work to Suse over the years with the understanding that it would be covered under the GNU feel betrayed by this and consider it a breach of the agreement.

Another ethical dilemma arises when one considers that the GPL agreement included patent protection for Novell customers only if Microsoft's intellectual property was discovered in Linux. However, Novell has not yet officially acknowledged that Linux infringes on Microsoft's patents.

Some argue that an agreement to make operating systems better optimized for one another as the demand for servers to run multiple operating systems increases can only be beneficial to customers, companies and the development community as a whole.

You can read more about the announcement, reactions and criticism at these external links:
*[http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html GNU Agreement which covers all of Suse Linux]
*[http://news.com.com/Microsoft+makes+Linux+pact+with+Novell/2100-1016_3-6132119.html The Announcement]
*[http://techp.org/petition/show/1 Reaction from some GNU Software Developers]

CSC 379:Week 2, Group 2

2007-07-13T16:48:11Z

Slatchle: /* Discussion Questions */

=GNU General Public License=

==Overview==

==Discussion Questions==

* '''What is the impact of GPL use?'''
**A developer that wishes to release thier code free and open source can do so and not worry about future changes of their code ending up in none free propriety software by releasing their code under the GLP. Others can modify and change software to meet their needs, but any thing that is derived from GPL code must again be released under the GPL.
**If a developer wishes to use some code from a GPL project in one of thier own, they can not unless the new project will be liscened under the GPL. Some have criticized the GPL in acting like a virus as it gets attached to antying that uses GPL code. A [http://kaybee.org:81/~kirk/GPL.html View] as to why GPL should not be used
**GPL and other open source code licenses allows for many more developers to look and and find bugs and make improvements to software Then in proprietary software.
*** The many different distributions of linux is the most popular GPL example
*** Fire fox and Open Officer are releasesd under the [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html LGPL] or Lesser General Public License
* '''What are the ethical considerations for licenses like GPL that require their adoption if work licensed under it is incorporated into a parent work, with additional stipulations that include the acceptance of the most current version of the GPL license?'''

==An Examination of a Recent Related Event: The Microsoft/Novell partnership==

Recently [http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/nov06/11-02MSNovellPR.mspx Microsoft partnered with their rival Novell], the makers of Suse Linux, in an effort to optimize virtualization for each other's operating systems, among other promised features. Since Suse Linux is covered under the GNU General Public License, this raised some unique concerns. GNU licenses cover only free programs but with this new agreement Microsoft will be paying a royalty to distribute Suse Linux Enterprise. Even though legally this agreement is valid, many developers who have contributed their work to Suse over the years with the understanding that it would be covered under the GNU feel betrayed by this and consider it a breach of the agreement.

Another ethical dilemma arises when one considers that the GPL agreement included patent protection for Novell customers only if Microsoft's intellectual property was discovered in Linux. However, Novell has not yet officially acknowledged that Linux infringes on Microsoft's patents.

Some argue that an agreement to make operating systems better optimized for one another as the demand for servers to run multiple operating systems increases can only be beneficial to customers, companies and the development community as a whole.

You can read more about the announcement, reactions and criticism at these external links:
*[http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html GNU Agreement which covers all of Suse Linux]
*[http://news.com.com/Microsoft+makes+Linux+pact+with+Novell/2100-1016_3-6132119.html The Announcement]
*[http://techp.org/petition/show/1 Reaction from some GNU Software Developers]

CSC 379:Week 2, Group 2

2007-07-13T16:41:37Z

Slatchle:

=GNU General Public License=

==Overview==

==Discussion Questions==

* '''What is the impact of GPL use?'''
**A developer that wishes to release thier code free and open source can do so and not worry about future changes of their code ending up in none free propriety software by releasing their code under the GLP. Others can modify and change software to meet their needs, but any thing that is derived from GPL code must again be realeased under the GPL.
**If a developer wishes to use some code from a GPL project in one of thier own, they can not unless the new project will be liscened under the GPL. Some have critized the GPL in acting like a virus as it gets attached to antying that uses GPL code. A [http://kaybee.org:81/~kirk/GPL.html View] as to why GPL should not be used

* '''What are the ethical considerations for licenses like GPL that require their adoption if work licensed under it is incorporated into a parent work, with additional stipulations that include the acceptance of the most current version of the GPL license?'''

==An Examination of a Recent Related Event: The Microsoft/Novell partnership==

Recently [http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/nov06/11-02MSNovellPR.mspx Microsoft partnered with their rival Novell], the makers of Suse Linux, in an effort to optimize virtualization for each other's operating systems, among other promised features. Since Suse Linux is covered under the GNU General Public License, this raised some unique concerns. GNU licenses cover only free programs but with this new agreement Microsoft will be paying a royalty to distribute Suse Linux Enterprise. Even though legally this agreement is valid, many developers who have contributed their work to Suse over the years with the understanding that it would be covered under the GNU feel betrayed by this and consider it a breach of the agreement.

Another ethical dilemma arises when one considers that the GPL agreement included patent protection for Novell customers only if Microsoft's intellectual property was discovered in Linux. However, Novell has not yet officially acknowledged that Linux infringes on Microsoft's patents.

Some argue that an agreement to make operating systems better optimized for one another as the demand for servers to run multiple operating systems increases can only be beneficial to customers, companies and the development community as a whole.

You can read more about the announcement, reactions and criticism at these external links:
*[http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html GNU Agreement which covers all of Suse Linux]
*[http://news.com.com/Microsoft+makes+Linux+pact+with+Novell/2100-1016_3-6132119.html The Announcement]
*[http://techp.org/petition/show/1 Reaction from some GNU Software Developers]

CSC 379:Week 2, Group 2

2007-07-12T22:55:24Z

Slatchle: /* Discussion Questions */

=GNU General Public License=

==Overview==

==Discussion Questions==

* '''What is the impact of GPL use?'''

* '''What are the ethical considerations for licenses like GPL that require their adoption if work licensed under it is incorporated into a parent work, with additional stipulations that include the acceptance of the most current version of the GPL license?'''

* '''What ethical considerations are highlighted by the patent sharing/protection agreement between Microsoft and Novell?'''

http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/bsdl-gpl/gpl-advantages.html

CSC 379:Week 1, Group 5

2007-07-11T14:46:53Z

Slatchle: /* Block Domains */

==Techniques Against Spam==

===Block Domains===
'''Background'''
A Technique to black spam that creates a blacklist of known spammers that can be used by email providers by the user. This will cause suspect spam to be sent to a spam folder or the automatic rejection of emails from blocked domains

This [http://www.joewein.de/sw/blacklist.htm site] contains a list of known spamming domains that can be downloaded in a text file for anti spam software

'''Positive'''

It will effectively block spam from known spamming addresses.

'''Negative'''

Legitimate domains could be blocked as a result of a computer being hijacked

===Require users to request permission to send your email===
'''Background'''
A Technique to black spam that requires senders to request permision to send you an email. Senders not on your approved list , or white list email will be rejected or sent to a differnt folder. One example of this is the [http://www.earthlink.net/software/free/spamblocker/ Earthlink Spam Blocker]

'''Positive'''

The user should never receive spam.

'''Negative'''

Could have emails that a user might want to see that is not spam, but also not on your approved list.

===Charge for e-mail sent===
'''Background'''
If there is a cost per email sent spammers sending out millions of spam then would not be able spam at such a high rate
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/03/05/spam.charge.ap/

'''Positive'''

Spam would be cut down due to the cost

'''Negative'''

users will have to pay a cost per email sent as well

===Opt in / opt out===

'''Opt-in''' is a type of permission-based mailing where recipients must first give consent before becoming part of a mass mailing list. This guarantees that the sender of the advertisement, newsletter, or other mass mailing is targeting only those who want the mail.

'''Opt-out''' is a less stringent form of acquiring permission because recipients are not asked for consent before receiving the mailing, but are permitted to opt out of further mailings by indicating they wish to receive no further messages from the sender. The process of opting out usually takes the form of a web link embedded in an email or a specially formatted reply to the sender.

The European Union Privacy and Electronics Communication Directive mandates that entities wishing to contact existing customers through email or text/SMS must provide an opt-out option in their message.

===Domain authentication===

'''Domain Authentication''' is a means of ensuring a valid sender identity in email to help prevent spam, email forgery, and fraud. There are different methods of domain authentication, such as Sender Policy Framework, Certified Server Validation, SenderID and DomainKeys, and different methods have different advantages. DomainKeys, for example, can authenticate the entire content of a message as well as the domain from which it originated, while SPF and CSV can reject a forged email before any data transfer occurs. However, they are all effective for authenticating a sender's domain, and it is yet to be determined which method or methods will become most popular.

===Bounties===

'''Bounties''' in a general sense are monetary rewards for either information leading to the arrest of criminals or for delivering the criminal in question to the authorities. In the case of bounties on spammers, some proposed plans would award money equal to a percentage of the penalty for the spammer. For example, information provided on a spammer who was not convicted or fined would yield no bounty, while a twenty percent (20%) bounty on a large spamming operation that was fined two million dollars would yield forty thousand(40,000) dollars.

[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5326107/%20 news report of possible bonds law]

===The "Goodmail" approach===

The '''Goodmail''' approach to spam was an idea to have spammers pay isps to ensure that their mail was delivered past spam filters. In theory this would reduce spam because only legitimate companies could pay the fee and not individual con artists. Many nonprofit groups were concerned that they would not be able to send Email because they did not have the finances to pay for goodmail services. There was also concern among customers that all mail which was not Goodmail certified would be blocked, including personal Email. There is also the risk that if isps rely on goodmail to stop spam, they will defer development on their spam blockers until they are completely ineffective.

[http://www.goodmailsystems.com Goodmail homepage]

===Bonds with escrow agencies===

This system requires mail senders who are not whitelisted by recipients to pay a small fee to a bond agency. If the recipient feels the mail is spam and unwanted, they can then retrieve the bond money from the agency. In effect, this means that they charge the sender for wasting their time.<ref>[http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/spam/contributions/Spam%20economics-faq.pdf] For non-spam email, no money would change hands at all, the original bond amount would simply be returned to the sender.

[http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/spam/contributions/Spam%20economics-faq.pdf full description of bond system]

CSC 379:Week 1, Group 5

2007-07-06T12:04:40Z

Slatchle:

CSC 379:Week 1, Group 5

2007-07-06T00:20:49Z

Slatchle:

==Techniques Against Spam==

===Block domains===

Creates a blacklist of known spammers that can be used at the ISP level or by the user. This will cause the automatic rejection of emails from blocked domains

negative
can have false positives

===Require users to request permission to send your email===

===Charge for e-mail sent===

===Opt in / opt out===
===Domain authentication===
http://www.dmnews.com/cms/dm-news/internet-marketing/32319.html
===Bounties===
Rewards for information that leads to arrest of spammers.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5326107/%20
===The "Goodmail" approach===

===Bonds with escrow agencies===

CSC 379:Week 1, Group 5

2007-07-06T00:02:15Z

Slatchle:

==Techniques Against Spam==

===Block domains===

Creating a blacklist of known spammers that can be used at the ISP level or by the user. This will cause the automatic rejection of emails from blocked domains

negative
can have false positives

===Require users to request permission to send your email===

===Charge for e-mail sent===

===Opt in / opt out===
===Domain authentication===
http://www.dmnews.com/cms/dm-news/internet-marketing/32319.html
===Bounties===

===The "Goodmail" approach===

===Bonds with escrow agencies===

CSC 379:Week 1, Group 5

2007-07-05T23:44:26Z

Slatchle:

Techniques Against Spam

Block domains

Require users to request permission to send your email

Charge for e-mail sent

Opt in / opt out

Domain authentication

Bounties

The "Goodmail" approach

Bonds with escrow agencies