Open Source & FLOSS Questions (Group 7)

1.) Stallman says that copyrights should be able to expire after some time, is this a good idea? Would this solve propriety problems with software?

2.) Source code is understood by human beings, not computers so does that mean when computing source code into machine code, humans will always have an important job? (this is reassuring with all the fear that machines are going to take over)

3.) Kristi Grisbi says that open source software is too risky and unpredictable compared to her own software system, do people think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages in this situation? Otherwise why would people ever even consider using open source if their privacy is exposed?

4.)  Stallman is making money from requesting the source codes from companies and taking their business away from them.. is this even legal?

5.) Stallman says free software is "software that respects your freedom," what exactly does this mean? What defines freedom? Freedom for individuals or groups?

Readings from Week 3

Wiener, N., 1954. Cybernetics in History. In Theorizing Communication: Readings Across Traditions. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. 
1.) The author implies that communication must be a message with a shared meaning, so then what is communication between people when the message is not completely interpreted?

2.) When communicating from "machine to machine" should we be concerned that we are letting machines do far too much of our thinking, learning, and communicating?

3.) What does this statement "In control  and  communication we  are  always fighting nature's tendency  to  degrade the  organized  and to  destroy  the  meaningful;  the  tendency,  as Gibbs has shown us, for entropy to increase." imply? That humans are not naturally meant to communnicate effectively?

Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J.H. & Jackson, D.D., 1967. Some Tentative Axioms of Communication. In Theorizing Communication: Readings Across Traditions. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. 
1.) What type of communication is most effective?

2.) The author said that even not communicating (denial, silence, withdrawal....) is a form of communication and so it is impossible for one not to communicate. I think this is an interesting point but are there any examples that prove otherwise?

3.) I feel like the root of many communication problems are the "I nag because you withdraw" and "I withdraw because you nag" interaction. These are both intrinsic and unchanging opinions, so how can his kind of negative interaction be avoided?