Information Systems Components - Book Report/Review Example

Information Systems Components The London Summer Olympic Games will be the most wired Olympic games to While such an occurrence should come as no surprise with the rapid nature of technological progress, the dramatic infusion of technology into these games raises a number of important questions. In this context of understanding, one of the predominant considerations is the implementation of software throughout the games. Officials have agreed that one of the central missions for these games is to make them as financially sustainable as possible. Still, it was agreed that there would be no significant uses of open source software. This poses a dilemma, as the exclusive use of proprietary and closed-source alternatives is an expensive venture. Ultimately, the games reasoned that the risks were too high for the open source alternative. There is a clear distinction between open source and proprietary software. Essentially open source software is that wherein a license is made available for free to a licensee. Open source software is developed by a designer or a team of designers who then obtain a copyright for their work. The copyright is then made available to the public for no charge. Still, certain obligations might be made for users, including the inclusion of author attribution on the specific software. Open source software is contrasted with proprietary software. Proprietary software is that wherein the original designer or team of designers has obtained a copyright. Rather than allowing users to use the software for no charge, closed-source software necessitates that licensees pay a fee for the privilege of using the software in certain specified contexts. There are a variety of qualitative differences that generally distinguish between open source and proprietary software. One of the primary concerns, and one which the 2012 London Olympic organizers considered, is that in many situations open source software carries potential risks. A major risk associated with open source software is the potential for a lack of security. While it is recognized that such a perspective is a broad ranging generalization, one must consider that in the context of the 2012 Olympics, with the extensive array of necessary software applications, it would be cost prohibitive and dangerous to attempt to discern between the forms of open source software that contain adequate security and those that do not. In large part one recognizes that software exists in a dynamic context and developers must regularly include updates that target specific deficiencies. Open source software proponents contend that the open source community is able to modify and update the open source code in conjunction with dysfunctions that arise (Open Source Initiative, 2012). Still, a growing body of evidence has emerged that argues to a great degree open source software poses significant security risks compared to proprietary software. Messmer (2008) indicates that Fortify Software examined eleven open source software packages over the course of three months. The study determined that while there were sporadic instances when open source software packages were safe, in large part the specific security risks went unattended and developers remained largely unresponsive. While there are a variety of quality concerns with open source software, critics of this software also note that there are a number of overarching legal risks associated with the open source route. Even as open source software is provided for no fee, the license that contains the original copyright is able to note specific contexts wherein the software can be used. It then becomes the responsibility of the user to ensure that they are in compliance with the specified usage restrictions or face the accompanying legal risks. One considers that one of the major elements related to the 2012 London Olympic games is the staggering scale of the event. Indeed, Steves (2011) notes that the International Broadcast Centre will be a 24-hour media hub and serve 20,000 broadcasters who will be broadcasting to billions throughout the world. With such a large-scale operation a correspondingly extensive array of software will need to be implemented. For small-scale operations, attending to the various licensing restrictions is viable, yet for the 2012 Olympics it is clear that the organizers reasoned that it would be more economically efficient to avoid the potential risks and go the proprietary route. Critics of open source software have oftentimes pointed to the nature of the General Public License (GPL). Meyer (2004) notes that the General Public License – the open source code for the software – oftentimes has been derived illegally from proprietary software. In these regards, the software that is implemented by the organization, in this instance the 2012 London Olympics, could actually be in violation of specific proprietary copyrights. Open source supporters argue that the potential for the software to be in violation of copyright is limited and the potential for a lawsuit still more limited. Further arguments have also contended that through a basic amount of research and investigation one can determine if the open source software infringes on copyrights. While such a perspective makes ostensible sense, one considers that in practice this is oftentimes far from the truth and that the line between open and closed is oftentimes difficult to determine. Even in the telecommunications industry where engineers and lawyers are employed to discern between copyrights, lawsuits frequently emerge. Consider the recent litigation between Apple and HTC, where the later is now required to pay significant legal fees for infringement (McCullah). It’s clear that for the 2012 Olympics Games the potential of a significant legal battle over infringement is a pressing risk. In conclusion, while there are strengths and weaknesses to both open and proprietary software, the significant risks associated with open source are cost prohibitive for the 2012 Olympics. This research has considered the potential risks associated with the implementation of open source software on a large scale. While open source software is free to use, upon deeper examination one comes to recognize that there are a variety of hidden costs, many of which take greater prominence when implemented in a large-scale way. Ultimately, the 2012 Olympics recognized that their scale operations was such that proprietary software would be both safer and avoid potential legal pitfalls. References Messmer, E, (2004), Open source software a security risk, study claims. Available from: http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/072108-open-source- security-risk.html [Accessed: Jan 18, 2012]. McCullah, D, (2011). Apple wins patent victory over HTC, which faces looming import ban. Available from: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57345291-37/apple- wins-patent-victory-over-htc-which-faces-looming-import-ban/ [Accessed: Jan 1, 2012]. Meyer, P, (2011). The Risks of Open Source Software, Available from: http://library.findlaw.com/2004/May/11/133415.html [Accessed: Jan 18, 2012]. Open Source Initiative. (2012). Available from: http://www.opensource.org/ [Accessed: Jan 18, 2012]. Steves, D, (2011). Facts and figures about the Olympic Park. Available from: http://getset.london2012.com/en/the-games/about-london-2012/the- olympic-park/facts-and-figures-about-the-olympic-park [Accessed: Jan 18, 2012]. Read More