authorless and ownerless

What does it mean for something to be authorless or ownerless in today's world?

To answer this question, first I'd like to consider this question in a historical context. Ong's theory of primary orality along with Havelock and McLuhan consider the use of narrative in pre-writing cultures. Instead of stories being authored, they are inspired. In the case of the Ancient Greeks, we still talk about a writer's muse even today. A story was ownerless, since it was the culture as a whole that "owned" the story. And the story changed to meet the needs of the community. For example, Ong points to an example from an isolated African tribe whose 5 princes changed to 3 princes over a century or two to reflect the current conditions of the tribe as their geographical territory shrunk over the years.

What it means to be authorless and ownerless in today's world means something altogether different. As opposed to those authors who have chosen to be anonymous over the years or relinquished their ownership through time or intent, I would argue that to designate something as authorless and ownerless requires a great deal more effort. The Software Linux provides us with an excellent example of what it takes to ensure the authorless and ownerless status of something as well as an alternative model of authorship and ownership.

According to the website Linux Online, "Linux is written and distributed under the GNU General Public License which means that its source code is freely-distributed and available to the general public."

The idea behind freeware, which could be applied to other areas as well, is that one copyrights something and then offers EVERYONE the license to copy, alter, and distribute the product. Also inherent in the copyright is that anyone wishing to copyright their modifications can only do so if they also allow the same distributed rights. You can read more about Linux and the specifics of their copyright provisions at the link above,