Ruth Suehle’s presentation (“How ‘Open Source’ Defines a Culture”) explored how “open source” applies to topics such as transparency in government, accessible education, data sharing, and copyright law. Although the term originated with software, the concept more generally refers to sharing information and innovations for other people to adapt and improve. Suehle described this concept as being productive — sharing information openly leads to the more rapid development of important breakthroughs. Additionally, we could argue that a great deal of our art, literature, and pop culture are influenced by earlier works, whereas an emphasis on proprietary rights might stifle this natural exchange of ideas (like Disney’s habit of adapting famous out-of-copyright stories and then claiming exclusive rights to them — gross). 

A concern people tend to have about “free” information is whether it breaks down somewhere — perhaps one thing worked for a few people, but the results wouldn’t be the same if everyone did it. It may be that “open source” sometimes only works on a small scale; I think people still have a tendency to place a different kind of value on something that’s been paid for — but “open source” concepts can still coexist with a for-profit market. For example, it’s good that a school like MIT, which costs over a hundred thousand to attend, offers a number of its courses for free online. (Or rather, it sucks for MIT’s students that education is so expensive.) People might still attribute more worth to a degree from the institution itself, but the idea that people might be able to make good use of information but be fenced off from it (especially for a reason like expense) doesn’t seem right. An open source culture, even if not completely free, at least lowers that barrier.