Open Information

[Gabe Wachob]

[Fearing I'm going off-topic for this list...]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 InfoNuovo at cs.com wrote:

>     The proposed Open Content License offers a specific model
> (http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/).  It has options which fail to satisfy
> the OSD criteria (i.e., requiring additional permissions -- new licenses --
> to make derivative works, and prohibition of commercial print publication).

That the OSD criteria should automatically apply to licenses for *all*
types of copyrighted materials is not a given. The OSD language is very
specific to software and while the same rationale may apply in any "open
sourcish" material, the language in such may differ significantly to
achieve the same goals. Software is different from academic prose, which
is different from music, which is different from artistic prose, etc.
Different economic realities, different uses of the works, etc. 

I'm not suggesting the open content license meets the *goals* of the OSD;
I'm merely suggesting that a plain judging of the OPL against the OSD is
not neccesarily the end of the story. 

>     I recommend that the Open Source Writers Group (OSWG) also be consulted:
> http://www.oswg.org/.  They have a license definition that also allows
> restriction of derivative works (but don't limit republication/distribution,
> commercial or otherwise).

I wasn't aware of this.. Interesting. But, I would think that the goals of
someone wanting to "open source" (in a very loose sense of the term) some
academic writing probably has somewhat different concerns than those of
Open Source Software documentators.

I guess all I'm trying to say is that one license does *not* fit all, at
least across different types of underlying material (ie software,
different types of prose, etc)

>     Because documents and data may often be packaged with or be part of a work
> of software, I say it is important to honor the OSD criteria, extended to
> the broader subject matter of documentation and information.  Otherwise, I
> fear that developers of derivative works become hamstrung (or at least gun
> shy) when facing the incoherent constraints of licenses for different
> elements of the overall work.

There definitely should be a coordination of licenses for different types
of materials, so that certain beaviors can be done without thinking yet
alone consulting a lawyer.. 

But the realities are different for different types of material. Take this
line of reasoning for example: 

If I write an academic paper, I sure as hell don't want to put it out on a
BSD-like license. Spring-Verlag could come along and take my work, affix a
big name person to it (so that it would get more readership), change it a
little bit to justify adding that name, and then make $$ without me
getting any $$ for it? What benefit to the community of doing this? If
software, I can clearly see a benefit for a BSD-like license, but for
academic prose? You can already use the *ideas* without restriction and
thats whats important.. But what of the actual arrangement of those words
to express that idea?  In software, the actual *words* and their
arrangement *are* important.. 

Whether or not you would agree with this reasoning, the point is that
there are different considerations when deciding on what makes a
community-benefitting license "good" or not. In fact, I think software is
rather special in many ways and trying to shoehorn other types of material
under the specific language and mechanisms of the OSD-compliant licenses
*may* prove ineffective. 

I really do believe Copyright still has a place in the world...

	-Gabe

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gabe Wachob - http://www.aimnet.com/~gwachob
As of today, the U.S. Constitution has been in force for 77,271 days
When this message was sent, 1,076,451 seconds have passed in Y2K