| | |
|
ShawnFettyFirstPaper 3 - 19 Oct 2011 - Main.ShawnFetty
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | | Open-source law envisions the coordinated effort of dispersed, freely collaborating lawyers. The idea builds on the same premise (simplified here) as open-source software: the product of free and easy sharing is superior to proprietary products. Open-source law promises the pursuit of justice where there is none—or at least cheaper legal services. | |
<
< | To-date, implementations of open-source law have tackled 1) legal reference materials and 2) collective brief writing. Nevertheless, a sustainable model for open-source law remains undeveloped. In the first case, a number of Wikipedia-law-clones have been published on the Web, but none have been even modestly adopted. Moreover, while Cornell's Legal Information Institute is a credible legal reference, it falls short when it comes to promoting actual advocacy. As for the second approach, Harvard’s experiment in “[harnessing] the distributed resources of the Internet” to draft briefs appears to have been effectively decommissioned some time in 2002, just a few years after its inception. The Berkman Center’s Openlaw site is riddled with dead links and other signs of neglect. | >
> | To-date, implementations of open-source law have tackled 1) legal reference materials and 2) collective brief writing. Nevertheless, a sustainable model for open-source law remains undeveloped. In the first case, a number of Wikipedia-law-clones have been published on the Web, but none have been even modestly adopted. Moreover, while Cornell's Legal Information Institute is a credible legal reference, it falls short when it comes to promoting actual advocacy. As for the second approach, Harvard’s experiment in “[harnessing] the distributed resources of the Internet” to draft briefs appears to have been effectively decommissioned some time in 2002, just a few years after its inception. The Berkman Center’s Openlaw site is riddled with dead links and other signs of neglect. | | | | |
<
< | In contrast, Wikipedia and open-source software are, by this point, more-or-less self-perpetuating. Where a hole exists in either, someone somewhere will fill it, probably sooner than later. Free collaboration has clearly worked well in these contexts. Here, I sketch what happened with open-source law. Law is not inherently incompatible with the open-source model. Moving forward, any successful open-source law methodology must respond to the array of sociological and professional elements working against lawyers collaborating. | >
> | In contrast, Wikipedia and open-source software are, by this point, more-or-less self-perpetuating. Where a hole exists in either, someone somewhere will fill it, probably sooner than later. Free collaboration has clearly worked well in these contexts. Here, I sketch what happened with open-source law. Law is not inherently incompatible with the open-source model. Moving forward, any successful open-source law methodology must address the array of sociological and professional elements working against lawyers collaborating. | | |
Section II | | | One thing you might also consider is the choice of terms "open source" versus "free software"' whichever you choose, you may want to develop an account of why. Richard Stallman, among others, prefers to use the phrase "free software" because it reminds the user that the central issue is ethical - freedom. However, here, the translation is inexact because law is not software (except in a metaphorical sense). If you google "free software v. open source" or something similar you will find copious debate on this subject if you are interested.
-- DevinMcDougall - 19 Oct 2011
\ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | I agree. I should spend at least some time clarifying my choice of terms. Because space here is limited, I'm probably not going to get into it, but it's something I'm going to keep in mind as I move forward with my bigger project/my next essay.
-- ShawnFetty - 19 Oct 2011 |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |