From raiff@b... Thu Nov 30 07:46:02 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: raiff@b... X-Apparently-To: ourownthoughts@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 30 Nov 2000 15:46:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 80156 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2000 15:46:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Nov 2000 15:46:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ch.egroups.com) (10.1.10.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 30 Nov 2000 16:47:05 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: raiff@b... Received: from [10.1.10.99] by ch.egroups.com with NNFMP; 30 Nov 2000 15:46:00 -0000 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 15:45:50 -0000 To: ourownthoughts@egroups.com Subject: Re: OpenContent or Public Domain? Message-ID: <905sne+i8eo@e...> In-Reply-To: <3A20A1D7.523D6BB5@m...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 4989 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 209.24.240.56 From: raiff@b... Andrius, Here's my opinion on the matter: The OpenContent license structurally is directly opposite the most common software practice of copyrighting and restricting access to all software code. What the OpenContent license seeks to achieve is a snowballing of free software. If I use a print routine from FSF, then all the software that I write has to be freely distributed which uses this routine. This seeks prevents a company from simply repackaging FSF code into an application, and selling it. Does it actually work? I'm not sure - I believe that vendors get around this - see below (Strategies for using FSF code). Here's some of my background on the matter: The company where I work has had to purge all FSF (Free Software Foundation) code that was inadvertently introduced into the codebase. This was done so that we wouldn't have to freely distribute all of the work that has been done which happens to rely on FSF code - even in minor part. Strategies for using FSF code: What is commonly done - in order for software vendors to not have to distribute their code freely - is to create an interface barrier to FSF code from proprietary code. That is to say that a vendor would write a wrapper around the FSF code, which would then be used by the rest of the proprietary code. Then, all the vendor has to do is freely distribute the wrappers, not the rest of the code. Further commentary: This license was specifically designed for computer software. I don't think that it's as applicable to written work. --- In ourownthoughts@egroups.com, Andrius Kulikauskas wrote: > Our advisor Steve Danic has a collaborative website, > http://www.memes.net, where all of the material collected is under the > OpenContentLicense. So I got some more information about that. This is > from the OpenContent website, http://www.opencontent.org/ > > > > OpenContent is freely available for modification, use, and redistribution under a > > license similar to those used by the Open Source / Free Software community. In > > plain English, the license relieves the author of any liability or implication of > > warranty, grants others permission to use the Content in whole or in part, and > > insures that the original author will be properly credited when Content is used. It > > also grants others permission to modify and redistribute the Content if they > > clearly mark what changes have been made, when they were made, and who made > > them. Finally, the license insures that if someone else bases a work on > > OpenContent, that the resultant work will be made available as OpenContent as > > well. > > The OpenContent license is at: > http://www.opencontent.org/opl.shtml > > My first question is, why use the OpenContent license, instead of just > the "public domain"? What is the weakness of the public domain? > > I'm an "anti-legalist". I think the law should be followed to the > letter, so I prefer that there not be many laws. My gut feeling is that > the OpenContent license is legalistic, it "strengthens the laws" but are > these laws that need to be strengthened? For example, I think that > plagiarism - misrepresenting the author - is against the law, > regardless, certainly if there is some gain or loss involved. The > OpenContent license may certainly make this easier to prosecute, but is > this relevant in the small cases? In the big cases, where there is > substantial gain or loss, does it gain anything? So I wonder what do we > win by using the OpenContent license? What's an example? > > Whereas the insistence that the author be credited - I'd rather leave > that at the discretion of the user. I don't think it's always helpful, > especially when working with small bits of information, the blurbs that > I'm interested in. Certainly, I don't like the extra bookkeeping. I > think these things are relative, and should be cultural norms, not > absolute legal standards. I don't want to live in a legal > straightjacket. I want ideas to flow, I don't want them "digitalized", > I prefer them "analog". We have a networking club, so I'm willing to be > careful about attribution. But in principle, I'm in favor of a natural > tendency to make knowledge anonymous. I'd rather be known locally, and > anonymous globally (rather than the other way around). > > Regardless of how dumb my arguments might be, if I have a public domain > site, I can't use OpenContent information. Or a person who collects and > organizes OpenContent information in a creative way - say a book of > quotations - can't copyright their arrangement, should they want to. > I'm allergic to legal restrictions - I want things to be able to stand > without legal props. > > Those are my gut feelings, so I'm curious if I'm missing something. > > Andrius > > Andrius Kulikauskas > Minciu Sodas > ms@m... > http://www.ms.lt > +1 (773) 651-3785 or 586-6280