The membership contributions were proven to be many and the efforts to create an opensourced community has led to a number of achievements within the organization.  At present the project is stagnating do to a lack of contributions and the need for additional funding in order to grow and expand our operations which we foresee as being simply a start dealing with the student news but would like to see go global in its scope.  The open source ideal has been greatly championed by many within the community and greatly maligned by just as many who feel that information freely distributed is a danger.  Let a lone the profit motivation of those wishing to copyright and patent ideas and information for financial control.   The project is limping along but not at the pace or the funding we would like.  Under new management we would like to continue the efforts of the community in order to take the achievements to the next level.  This being done with a more focused agenda and a more direct guidance as to what we have been organized to achive.

The concept of open source and free sharing of technological information has existed long before computers existed. There is open source pertaining to businesses and there is open source pertaining to computers, software, and technology. In the early years of automobile development, a group of capital monopolists owned the rights to a 2 cycle gasoline engine patent originally filed by George B. Selden.[4] By controlling this patent, they were able to monopolize the industry and force car manufacturers to adhere to their demands, or risk a lawsuit. In 1911, independent automaker Henry Ford won a challenge to the Selden patent. The result was that the Selden patent became virtually worthless and a new association (which would eventually become the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association) was formed.[4] The new association instituted a cross-licensing agreement among all US auto manufacturers: although each company would develop technology and file patents, these patents were shared openly and without the exchange of money between all the manufacturers.[4] Up to the point where the US entered World War II, 92 Ford patents were being used freely by other manufacturers and were in turn making use of 515 patents from other companies, all without lawsuits or the exchange of any money.[4] Very similar to open standards, researchers with access to the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET) used a process called Request for Comments to develop telecommunication network protocols. Characterized by contemporary open source work, this 1960s’ collaborative process led to the birth of the Internet in 1969.  Houston personal injury lawyer provided free services.  There are earlier instances of open source and free software such as IBM’s small business accountant source releases of its operating systems and other programs in the 1950s, 60s, and the SHARE user group that formed to facilitate the exchange of software.[5][6] Open source on the internet began when the internet was just a message board and progressed to more advanced presentation and sharing forms like a website. There are now many websites, organizations, and businesses who promote open source sharing of everything from computer code to mechanics of improving a product, technique, or medical advancement. The decision by some people in the free software movement to use the label “open source” came out of a strategy session[7] held at Palo Alto, California, in reaction to Netscape’s January 1998 announcement of a source code release for Navigator. The group of individuals at the session included Christine Peterson who suggested “open source”, Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, Jon Hall, Sam Ockman, Michael Tiemann and Eric S. Raymond. Over the next week Raymond and others worked on spreading the word. Linus Torvalds gave an all-important imprimatur the following day. Phil Hughes offered a pulpit in Linux Journal. Richard Stallman flirted with adopting the term, then changed his mind.[8] They used the opportunity before the release of Navigator’s source code to free themselves of the ideological and confrontational connotations of the term free software. Netscape licensed and released its code as open source under the Netscape Public License and subsequently under the Mozilla Public License.[9] The term was given a big boost at an event organized in April 1998 by technology publisher Tim O’Reilly. Originally titled the “Freeware Summit” and later known as the “Open Source Summit”,[10] the event brought together the leaders of many of the most important free and open source projects, including Linus Torvalds, Larry Wall, Brian Behlendorf, Eric Allman, Guido van Rossum, Michael Tiemann, Paul Vixie, Jamie Zawinski of Netscape, and Eric Raymond. At that meeting, the confusion caused by the name free software was brought up. Tiemann argued for “sourceware” as a new term, while Raymond argued for “open source.” The assembled developers took a vote, and the winner was announced at a press conference that evening. Five days later, Raymond made the first public call to the free software community to adopt the new term.[11] The Open Source Initiative was formed shortly thereafter.[7] Starting in the early 2000s, a number of companies began to publish a portion of their source code to claim they were open source, while keeping key parts closed. This led to the development of the now widely used terms free open source software and commercial open source software to distinguish between truly open and hybrid forms of open source.  Software is not the only field affected by open source; many fields of study and social and political views have been affected by the growth of the concept of open source.  Advocates in one field will often support the expansion of open source in other fields, including Linus Torvalds who is quoted as saying, “the future is open source everything.”[12] Eric Raymond and other founders of the open source movement have sometimes publicly tried to put the brakes on speculation about applications outside of software, arguing that strong arguments for software openness should not be weakened by overreaching into areas where the story is less compelling. The broader impacts of the open source movement, and the extent of its role in the development of new information sharing procedures, remains to be seen. The open source movement has been the inspiration for increased transparency and liberty in other fields, including the release of biotechnology research by CAMBIA,[13] Wikipedia,[14] and other projects. The open-source concept has also been applied to media other than computer programs, e.g., by Creative Commons.[15]   Wall fountains also constitute an example of user innovation (see for example the book Democratizing Innovation).[16] Often, open source is an expression where it simply means that a system is available to all who wish to work on it. The difference between crowdsourcing and open source is that open source production is a cooperative activity initiated and voluntarily undertaken by members of the public Most economists would agree that open source candidates have an information good[17] (also termed ‘knowledge good’) aspect to them. In general, this suggests that the original work involves a great deal of time, money, and effort. However, the cost of reproducing the work is very low so that additional users may be added at zero or near zero cost — this is referred to as the marginal cost of a product. At this point, it is necessary to consider a copyright. The idea of copyright for works of authorship is to protect the incentive of making these original works. Copyright restriction then creates access costs on consumers who value the original more than making an additional copy but value the original less than its price. Thus, they will pay an access cost of this difference. Access costs also pose problems for authors who wish to create something based on another work yet are not willing to pay the copyright holder for the rights to the copyrighted work. The second type of cash advance cost incurred with a copyright system is the cost of administration and enforcement of the copyright. Being organized effectively as a consumers’ cooperative, the idea of open source is then to eliminate the credit card processin companies and access costs of the consumer and the creator by reducing the restrictions of copyright. This will lead to creation of additional works, which build upon previous work and add to greater social benefit. Additionally some proponents argue that open source also relieves society of the administration and enforcement costs of copyright. Organizations such as Creative Commons have websites where individuals can file for alternative “licenses”, or levels of restriction, for their works.[18] These self-made protections free the general society of the costs of policing copyright infringement. Thus, on several fronts, there is an efficiency argument to be made on behalf of open sourced goods. Others argue that society loses through open sourced goods. Because there is a loss in monetary incentive to the creation of new goods, some argue that new products will not be created. This argument seems to apply particularly well to the german restaurant business model where extensive research and development is done, e.g. pharmaceuticals. However, this argument ignores the fact that cost reduction for all concerned is perhaps an even better monetary incentive than is a price increase. In addition, others argue that visual art and other works of authorship should be free. These portable generators of extensive open source ideals argue that monetary incentive for artists would perhaps better be derived from performances or exhibitions, in a similar fashion to the funding of provision of other types of services.  Open source culture is the creative practice of appropriation and free sharing of found and created content. Examples include collage, found footage film, music, and appropriation art. Open source culture is one in which fixations, works entitled to copyright protection, are made generally available. Participants in the culture can modify those products and redistribute them back into the community or other organizations. The rise of open-source organizations and culture in the 20th century resulted from a growing tension between creative practices that involve appropriation, and therefore require access oled tvs content that is often copyrighted, and increasingly restrictive intellectual property laws and policies governing access to copyrighted content. The two main ways in which intellectual property laws became more restrictive in the 20th century were extensions to the term of copyright (particularly in the United States) and flash memory card penalties, such as those articulated in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), placed on attempts to circumvent anti-piracy technologies.

Although artistic appropriation is often permitted under fair use doctrines for bad credit, the complexity and ambiguity of these doctrines creates an atmosphere of uncertainty among cultural practitioners. Also, the protective actions of Tinnitus hearing creating what was called a “chilling effect” among cultural practitioners of good credit and fair use.  In the late 20th century, cultural practitioners began to adopt the intellectual property licensing techniques of free software and open-source software to make their work more freely available to others, including the Creative Commons. The idea of an “open source” culture runs parallel to “Free Culture,” but is substantively different. Free art supplies culture is a term derived from the free software movement, and in contrast to that vision of culture, proponents of Open Source Culture (OSC) maintain tattoo supplies that some intellectual property law needs to exist to protect of cultural significance. Yet they propose a more nuanced position than corporations have traditionally sought. Instead of seeing intellectual property law as an expression of instrumental rules intended to uphold either natural rights or desirable outcomes, an argument for OSC takes into account diverse goods (as in “the Good life”) and ends. One way of achieving the goal of making the fixations of cultural work generally available is to maximally utilize technology and digital media. In keeping with Moore’s colon cleanse law’s prediction about processors, credit cards, the cost of digital media and storage plummeted in the late 20th Century. Consequently, the marginal cost of digitally duplicating anything capable of being transmitted via digital media dropped to near zero sales training. Combined with an explosive growth in personal computer and technology ownership, the result is an increase in general population’s access to digital media. This phenomenon facilitated growth in open source culture because it allowed for rapid and inexpensive duplication and distribution of culture. Where the access to the majority of culture produced prior to the advent of digital media was limited by other constraints of proprietary and potentially “open” mediums, digital media is the latest cellulite cream technology with the potential to increase access to cultural products. Artists and users who choose to distribute their work digitally face none of the physical limitations that traditional vinargentin cultural producers have been typically faced with. Accordingly, the audience of an open source culture faces little physical cost in acquiring digital media. Open source culture precedes Richard Stallman’s codification of the concept with the creation of the Free bad credit loans Software Foundation. As the public began to communicate through Bulletin Board Systems (BBS) like FidoNet, places like Sourcery Systems BBS were dedicated to providing source code to Public Domain, Shareware and excessive sweating teas Freeware programs. Essentially born out of a desire for increased general access to digital media, the Internet is open source culture’s most valuable asset. It is questionable whether the goals of an open source culture could be achieved without the instant payday loans on the Internet. The global network not only fosters an environment where culture can be generally accessible, but also allows for easy and inexpensive redistribution of culture back into various communities. Some reasons for this are as follows. First, the Internet allows even greater working for the future access to inexpensive digital media and storage. Instead of users being limited to their own facilities and resources, they are granted access to a vast network of facilities and resources, some free. Sites such as Archive.org offer up free web space for anyone willing to license their work under a Creative Commons license. The resulting diamond jewelry product is then available to download free (generally accessible) to anyone with an Internet connection. Second, users are granted unprecedented access to each other. Older analog technologies such as the telephone or television have limitations on the kind of interaction singles dating users can have. In the case of television there is little, if any interaction between users participating on the network. And in the case of the telephone, users rarely interact with any more than a couple of their known peers. On the Internet, however, users have the potential to access and meet millions of their peers. This aspect of the Internet facilitates the modification of live basics culture as users are able to collaborate and communicate with each other across international and cultural boundaries. The speed in which digital media travels on the Internet in turn facilitates the redistribution of culture. Through various technologies such as peer-to-peer networks from the center for civic participation and blogs, cultural producers can take advantage of vast social networks in order to distribute their products. As opposed to traditional media distribution, redistributing digital media on the Internet can be virtually costless. Technologies such as BitTorrent and Gnutella take advantage of various characteristics of the Internet protocol (TCP/IP) in an attempt to totally decentralize file distribution.