|
ShawnFettyFirstPaper 6 - 27 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 rife 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 address the array of sociological and professional elements working against lawyers collaborating. | >
> | Striving for those goals, proponents of open-source law have been chasing the tails of three very different dragons: 1) treatises and practice journals, 2) Wexis, and 3) lawyering itself. In the first case, a number of Wikipedia-law-clones have been published on the Web. For the second, we have PreCydent, an open-source competitor to Wexis. And finally, we have Harvard’s experiment in “[harnessing] the distributed resources of the Internet” to draft briefs.
Despite these efforts, a sustainable model for open-source law remains undeveloped. None of the Law-Wikis have been even modestly adopted, Precydent went belly up, and the Berkman Center’s Openlaw site appears to have been effectively decommissioned (given the dead links and other signs of neglect) some time in 2002, just a few years after its inception. Here, I sketch what happened with open-source law.
Moreover, while sites like Cornell's Legal Information Institute Justia.com may eventually become credible legal references, they fall short when it comes to promoting actual advocacy.
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 |
|
|
ShawnFettyFirstPaper 5 - 25 Oct 2011 - Main.ShawnFetty
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | | Introduction | |
<
< | 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. | >
> | 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 rife with dead links and other signs of neglect. |
|
|
ShawnFettyFirstPaper 4 - 21 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 rife 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 address the array of sociological and professional elements working against lawyers collaborating. |
|
|
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 |
|
|
ShawnFettyFirstPaper 2 - 19 Oct 2011 - Main.DevinMcDougall
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | | # * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, ShawnFetty
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list | |
>
> | . This is a really cool topic. One potential application: replacing Westlaw/Nexis. Their hyperlinking, tagging and indexing is very useful, but it is nothing that Wikipedia's technology and norms could not also do.
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 |
|
|
ShawnFettyFirstPaper 1 - 19 Oct 2011 - Main.ShawnFetty
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
Just collecting links while I continue to edit off-wiki
The Problem(s) with open-source law
-- By ShawnFetty - 19 Oct 2011
Introduction
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.
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.
Section II
Subsection A
Subsub 1
Subsection B
Subsub 1
Subsub 2
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line:
# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, ShawnFetty
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|