Gm586 Unit Five Transformational Leadership And Teams
Gm586 Unit Five Transformational Leadership And Teams Unit Five I
Gm586 Unit Five Transformational Leadership and Teams Unit Five Individual Assignment: Leading a Team Points Earned Points Possible Content, Focus, Use of Text / Research (50%): Holacracy: Read about Zappos© use of holacracy in an online article or two. 2 Read the scenario provided. 2 How can you as the new team leader transform this team into a more motivated one? 34 Analysis and Critical Thinking (30%): Response exhibits strong higher-order critical thinking. 11 Response exhibits strong higher-order analysis and evaluation.
11 Writing Style, Grammar, & APA Format and Style (20%): Sentences are clear, concise, and direct; tone is appropriate. 5 Grammatical skills are strong with almost no errors per page. 5 Correct use of APA format and style. 5 Late paper submission penalty applied Total Points Earned 75 Grade/Percentage 100% Learner Name 1 ORGANIZED CYBERCRIME 3 Imagine that you are a paralegal in a software development firm. You’ve been given the task of making a recommendation regarding the type of software license agreement that should be used with your company’s new product offering. The product will be available for purchase online, and then instant download. It will also be offered via physical media which will be available in retail markets. In making your recommendation, you should consider all the types of licenses available and consider the delivery method. For each license type considered, provide the rationale behind why you selected or rejected that base license agreement type for your product. Create a report of your recommendation to be presented to senior management and the product lawyer. Required Resources None Submission Requirements · Format: Microsoft Word · Font: Arial 12-point size, Double-space · Citation Style: Follow your school’s preferred style guide · Length: No more than 500 words
Paper For Above instruction
The scenario presents a multifaceted challenge: how to effectively recommend a suitable software license agreement for a new product accessible through online download and physical retail. Addressing this, the primary task involves analyzing various types of licenses, evaluating their compatibility with the product’s distribution modes, and ultimately proposing the most appropriate license to senior management and legal counsel.
First, understanding the common license types pertinent to software products is essential. These include proprietary licenses, open-source licenses such as GPL, LGPL, and MIT, as well as specialized licenses like Creative Commons. Each license type offers distinct permissions, restrictions, and legal implications. When considering online distribution and physical retail, factors such as commercialization rights, modification permissions, redistribution, and security concerns become particularly relevant.
Proprietary licenses are the traditional model, granting exclusive rights to the software owner while restricting users from modifying or redistributing the software. Such licenses are suitable for commercially sensitive products that require control over redistribution and licensing enforcement (Russo & Ferrari, 2019). Given the retail and online sales channels, a proprietary license could prevent unauthorized copying and unauthorized commercial redistribution, offering clarity and legal enforcement power for the company.
Open-source licenses, on the other hand, promote source code sharing, modification, and redistribution under specific conditions. For a commercial product targeted at retail markets, open-source licenses like GPL might complicate proprietary control but could be beneficial if the company seeks community collaboration or cloud-based service models. However, GPL’s copyleft provision requires that derivative works also be open-source, which might conflict with the company’s profit and control goals.
Considering the distribution modes, a custom end-user license agreement (EULA) under proprietary licensing terms emerges as the most suitable. It allows the company to define specific rights and restrictions tailored to both digital download and physical media sale. This flexibility ensures that the company can control the license scope, limit redistribution, and enforce legal rights effectively—crucial for protecting intellectual property rights and revenue streams (Gopal & Sanders, 2020).
The rationale for rejecting open-source licenses in this context hinges on control and revenue protection. Open licenses could risk unauthorized redistribution or modification, diluting the company's rights, especially critical when dealing with retail sales and online downloads subject to accidental or malicious violations. Conversely, a proprietary license provides enforceability, clarity, and flexibility required for dual distribution channels.
In conclusion, the most appropriate licensing approach combines a proprietary license through a well-drafted EULA, aligning with the dual delivery method—online instant downloads and physical retail. This choice balances the need for legal control, revenue protection, and clarity for end-users. Moreover, consulting with the legal team ensures compliance with applicable laws and enhances enforceability.
References:
Gopal, R., & Sanders, P. (2020). Software Licensing and Legal Strategy. Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 27(3), 215-234.
Russo, A., & Ferrari, M. (2019). Navigating Open Source Software Licenses. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 27(4), 341-359.