Comments on: Ruminating on DiSo and the public domain http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/12/13/ruminating-on-diso-and-the-public-domain/ This can all be made better. Ready? Begin. Fri, 29 Aug 2008 02:14:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Tantek http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/12/13/ruminating-on-diso-and-the-public-domain/#comment-98055 Tantek Wed, 02 Jan 2008 19:26:06 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/12/13/ruminating-on-diso-and-the-public-domain/#comment-98055 >More soon. As promised: <a href="http://microformats.org/blog/2007/12/29/making-open-standards-as-open-as-possible/" rel="nofollow">Making open standards as open as possible — required public domain licensing of all microformats wiki contributions</a> and <a href="http://tantek.com/log/2008/01.html#d01t1946" rel="nofollow">Open as possible means public domain plus a strong community</a> >More soon.

As promised:

Making open standards as open as possible — required public domain licensing of all microformats wiki contributions

and

Open as possible means public domain plus a strong community

]]> By: Tantek http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/12/13/ruminating-on-diso-and-the-public-domain/#comment-97541 Tantek Sat, 15 Dec 2007 10:03:49 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/12/13/ruminating-on-diso-and-the-public-domain/#comment-97541 Great post Chris. It's interesting to see many of the above commenters merely prove your points (re: big es System etc.). A lot of their arguments used to be true, before the Web, before we had strong communities on the Web, with ability to rapidly coordinate and expose those that would abuse open and free culture (whether content, code, process, etc.). It comes down to the simple fact that at this point in history, the open communities based on the Web can be better trusted and relied upon to act more quickly and effectively, than any one so-called legal entity. Or to put it another way, we should minimize the number of such required "legal entity bottlenecks", as each such dependency is a weakness, a vulnerability, a source of possible doubt and distrust. Unfortunately that's the line of reasoning that must be used for a lot of folks, as fear tends to be a stronger motivator in more people than opportunity. It would be much simpler to challenge folks to base their motivations and decisions on opportunity (e.g. what public domain enables) rather than fear (nearly all the reasons given in all the comments above are based on fear, and mostly theoretical fears at that.) However this is quite challenging (though not impossible), as it requires a high level of self-reflection and self-actualization to understand and override the neurological evolutionary legacies present in our brains' amygdala and reptilian complex where fear and resistance to change are based.[3] I'll leave you with my summary statement on this topic: Open content cannot be truly open and long lasting unless it is published in open standards. And open standards are not fully open unless they have no restrictions. Viva la public domain! P.S. My first (after driving the voluntary public domain declarations on microformats.org this past July) public actions following these principles was to create the Body Optimization wiki this past November with a requirement upon login[1] for all contributions to bereleased into the public domain per the Creative Commons Public Domain License[2]. More soon. :) [1] https://bodyoptimization.pbwiki.com/FrontPage?login=1 [2] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ [3] http://www.buffalostate.edu/orgs/bcp/brainbasics/triune.html Great post Chris.

It’s interesting to see many of the above commenters merely prove your points (re: big es System etc.). A lot of their arguments used to be true, before the Web, before we had strong communities on the Web, with ability to rapidly coordinate and expose those that would abuse open and free culture (whether content, code, process, etc.).

It comes down to the simple fact that at this point in history, the open communities based on the Web can be better trusted and relied upon to act more quickly and effectively, than any one so-called legal entity. Or to put it another way, we should minimize the number of such required “legal entity bottlenecks”, as each such dependency is a weakness, a vulnerability, a source of possible doubt and distrust. Unfortunately that’s the line of reasoning that must be used for a lot of folks, as fear tends to be a stronger motivator in more people than opportunity.

It would be much simpler to challenge folks to base their motivations and decisions on opportunity (e.g. what public domain enables) rather than fear (nearly all the reasons given in all the comments above are based on fear, and mostly theoretical fears at that.) However this is quite challenging (though not impossible), as it requires a high level of self-reflection and self-actualization to understand and override the neurological evolutionary legacies present in our brains’ amygdala and reptilian complex where fear and resistance to change are based.[3]

I’ll leave you with my summary statement on this topic:

Open content cannot be truly open and long lasting unless it is published in open standards. And open standards are not fully open unless they have no restrictions.

Viva la public domain!

P.S. My first (after driving the voluntary public domain declarations on microformats.org this past July) public actions following these principles was to create the Body Optimization wiki this past November with a requirement upon login[1] for all contributions to bereleased into the public domain per the Creative Commons Public Domain License[2]. More soon. :)

[1] https://bodyoptimization.pbwiki.com/FrontPage?login=1
[2] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/
[3] http://www.buffalostate.edu/orgs/bcp/brainbasics/triune.html

]]> By: James D Kirk http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/12/13/ruminating-on-diso-and-the-public-domain/#comment-97475 James D Kirk Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:34:15 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/12/13/ruminating-on-diso-and-the-public-domain/#comment-97475 Chris A. is <strong>absolutely correct</strong>. When art had made it into public domain, either by non-renewal or as this article suggests, by design, anyone can make a derivative work and copyright for their own gain. Not sure how I personally feel about these concepts (for instance, I have a book I've been editing, adding legitimate updates and changes that would easily qualify as a derivative work so I can sell online, legally. I like that this is available to me, the "non-creator" of this work as I would not likely have written such a book. But not sure how I would feel if I HAD created that book. Of course, if I had, I would have been sure to renew the copyright when it expired the first time!) So, yeah, from the perspective of this conversation, something of more strength should likely be considered for the protection of the project and the the community using it. Chris A. is absolutely correct. When art had made it into public domain, either by non-renewal or as this article suggests, by design, anyone can make a derivative work and copyright for their own gain. Not sure how I personally feel about these concepts (for instance, I have a book I’ve been editing, adding legitimate updates and changes that would easily qualify as a derivative work so I can sell online, legally. I like that this is available to me, the “non-creator” of this work as I would not likely have written such a book. But not sure how I would feel if I HAD created that book. Of course, if I had, I would have been sure to renew the copyright when it expired the first time!)

So, yeah, from the perspective of this conversation, something of more strength should likely be considered for the protection of the project and the the community using it.

]]> By: Chris Anderson http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/12/13/ruminating-on-diso-and-the-public-domain/#comment-97468 Chris Anderson Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:15:03 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/12/13/ruminating-on-diso-and-the-public-domain/#comment-97468 I'm not a license expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm afraid Public Domain has no aspects of share-alike / viral / copyleft. Anyone can make a proprietary derivative of a public domain work, in my understanding. It seems the big advantage to GPL style licenses is that they create a culture of contribution. It is that culture and the people invested in it who will defend the work against enclosure. I’m not a license expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I’m afraid Public Domain has no aspects of share-alike / viral / copyleft. Anyone can make a proprietary derivative of a public domain work, in my understanding. It seems the big advantage to GPL style licenses is that they create a culture of contribution. It is that culture and the people invested in it who will defend the work against enclosure.

]]> By: Assaf http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/12/13/ruminating-on-diso-and-the-public-domain/#comment-97463 Assaf Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:18:23 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/12/13/ruminating-on-diso-and-the-public-domain/#comment-97463 If you're working on a specification, the problem is not copyright (you can always rewrite it in your own words), or ideas (can't be protected), but patents. And you need to make sure contributions are not made in support of a patent. Software licenses like the ASL won't protect you from patents either, so you do need to look into IPR policies. If you’re working on a specification, the problem is not copyright (you can always rewrite it in your own words), or ideas (can’t be protected), but patents. And you need to make sure contributions are not made in support of a patent. Software licenses like the ASL won’t protect you from patents either, so you do need to look into IPR policies.

]]> By: Messina: I’d Rather Build Culture, Not Consult! http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/12/13/ruminating-on-diso-and-the-public-domain/#comment-97460 Messina: I’d Rather Build Culture, Not Consult! Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:24:29 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/12/13/ruminating-on-diso-and-the-public-domain/#comment-97460 [...] - Chris Messina in his post “Ruminating on DiSo and the Public Domain“ [...] [...] - Chris Messina in his post “Ruminating on DiSo and the Public Domain“ [...]

]]> By: microformats.dk » Projekt DiSO http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/12/13/ruminating-on-diso-and-the-public-domain/#comment-97450 microformats.dk » Projekt DiSO Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:36:25 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/12/13/ruminating-on-diso-and-the-public-domain/#comment-97450 [...] Messina (2007) - Ruminating on DiSo and the public domain Dette indlæg var skrevet af Søren Johannessen, skrevet den 13. december 2007 kl. 09:53, smidt [...] [...] Messina (2007) - Ruminating on DiSo and the public domain Dette indlæg var skrevet af Søren Johannessen, skrevet den 13. december 2007 kl. 09:53, smidt [...]

]]> By: Alfonso Guerra http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/12/13/ruminating-on-diso-and-the-public-domain/#comment-97449 Alfonso Guerra Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:30:55 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/12/13/ruminating-on-diso-and-the-public-domain/#comment-97449 Public Domain is the wrong vehicle to retain a fully open system. That's akin to calling The Wild West a Utopia because there's no crime. To protect the principles and the values of the community, you'll have to mandate that IP is assigned to some (hopefully shared) legal entity which would have standing to protect it. Anything entered into the Public Domain cannot be mandated by anyone, and no one will be in a position to dictate how it's used. As cumbersome and wasteful as you may feel the IPR may be, it is a vital component to ensuring the quality of the community going forward. It's the cleanroom that permits participants to trust in the quality of the work, and their standing with regards to one another. Once the trust component is in effect, the community can be more open and accepting of others. It's in systems which lack that trust, and the rigor of demonstrating trust-worthiness that the breakdowns occur and abuse is rampant (witness spam and malware). Public Domain is the wrong vehicle to retain a fully open system. That’s akin to calling The Wild West a Utopia because there’s no crime.

To protect the principles and the values of the community, you’ll have to mandate that IP is assigned to some (hopefully shared) legal entity which would have standing to protect it. Anything entered into the Public Domain cannot be mandated by anyone, and no one will be in a position to dictate how it’s used.

As cumbersome and wasteful as you may feel the IPR may be, it is a vital component to ensuring the quality of the community going forward. It’s the cleanroom that permits participants to trust in the quality of the work, and their standing with regards to one another. Once the trust component is in effect, the community can be more open and accepting of others. It’s in systems which lack that trust, and the rigor of demonstrating trust-worthiness that the breakdowns occur and abuse is rampant (witness spam and malware).

]]> By: James D Kirk http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/12/13/ruminating-on-diso-and-the-public-domain/#comment-97446 James D Kirk Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:54:31 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/12/13/ruminating-on-diso-and-the-public-domain/#comment-97446 I'll have to read that article "An Economy for Giving Everything Away" since the abstract really grabbed my attention <em>(but given that it's now 2:45am my time...)</em> Am thinking that the public domain concepts you're referring to are fine for DiSo (and likely many other things as well), and doesn't it just put the onus on our creative, constructive selves to find ways to <strong>take that which is "open" and free to all and still find ways to benefit from them?</strong> (I'm particularly thinking of financial benefits as I write this.) If this isn't of interest to someone, they don't have to work at "making a living" using something that is so widely spread to the community, right? DiSo is first using WordPress as its foundation. Perfect example. I have pretty close to the same core code running a whole bunch of websites that WP.com uses to host over a million. <strong>Is their opportunity any better than mine? I don't believe so.</strong> And more to it, I wouldn't have the same opportunity with a Moveable Type (well, until recently anyway). One just has to get out of the competitive mind and become more creative and constructive with the resources available to them. (At least that's what my last fortune cookie stated! ;) ) I’ll have to read that article “An Economy for Giving Everything Away” since the abstract really grabbed my attention (but given that it’s now 2:45am my time…)

Am thinking that the public domain concepts you’re referring to are fine for DiSo (and likely many other things as well), and doesn’t it just put the onus on our creative, constructive selves to find ways to take that which is “open” and free to all and still find ways to benefit from them? (I’m particularly thinking of financial benefits as I write this.) If this isn’t of interest to someone, they don’t have to work at “making a living” using something that is so widely spread to the community, right?

DiSo is first using WordPress as its foundation. Perfect example. I have pretty close to the same core code running a whole bunch of websites that WP.com uses to host over a million. Is their opportunity any better than mine? I don’t believe so. And more to it, I wouldn’t have the same opportunity with a Moveable Type (well, until recently anyway).

One just has to get out of the competitive mind and become more creative and constructive with the resources available to them.
(At least that’s what my last fortune cookie stated! ;) )

]]>