paradox Open Source / Open Content

[sandro_zic at web.de]

Thanks a lot for your answers, Abe and Rod! I appreciate your 
comments a lot because they helped me to think clearer about some 
of the points I wrote. Nevertheless it seems to me that you did not 
quite catch the essence of our problem. I will try my best now to 
make it clearer:

Rod wrote:
"Your question seems to raise several issues. As stated, however, I 
had
difficulty in determining whether your concern is really about 
software or
content (i.e. publications made available by software)."

The combinations of both is actually, where our problem with the 
GPL starts: The oc4 project introduces the idea of open source to 
content producers and consumers. We simply generalised the 
underlying social philosophy of the GNU project that sharing 
knowledge (in this case source code) grants a win-win-situation for 
all participants. I.e. that our project is open in two ways: open 
source and open content, as we believe that sharing knowledge in 
e.g. public domain scientific works or in disucssions about such 
works, unleashes the potentials of open source (reads: 'the 
potentials of sharing knowledge for free') to scientists, students, 
teachers, pupils, etc.

Thus our concern is about software _and_ publications made 
available by software. Both must be free, otherwise a proprietary 
software runs counter the idea of open content - and we all now how 
crucial a free and open infrastructure is to the free flow of 
communication. This is where the paradox comes into play:


Sandro wrote:
"What if someone uses our software to restrict access to
publications by offering them on a pay-for-view basis?"

In the case of our project, the free distribution of content can be 
jeopardized by the free distribution of our software. This is why we 
think of restricting the free distribution of our software in the fields of 
science and education as we consider these two fields as crucial to 
the right of free access to information.


Abe wrote:
"> The rationale behind this is that our software can be used without 
any
> restrictions in all fields except science and education.
-- This is in blatant disagreement with the OSD paragraph 6:
   No discrimination against fields of endeavor."

That's exactly our problem! So what to do with the above mentioned 
conflict of open source and open content regarding their distribution 
and the aim of our project, to provide the infrastructure (=software) 
for open content production and re-use.


Abe wrote:
"> Anyone who uses our software for commercial purpose in the 
fields of
> science and education,
-- How do you define 'commercial purpose'? This is a difficult 
question!"

True! We mean: restricting access to publications which are 
published with and within our software in a way that you have to pay 
for viewing or discussing the texts or for downloading a copy - 
simply: paying to work with the texts in any way.


Abe wrote:
"> a) is obliged to offer the publications for free 9 months after they
> were published.
-- During 9 months or starting 9 months after initial publication?
   How do you define 'published'? Be careful or you'll allow
   circumvention of your intentions."

Starting 9 months after initial publication. Good point 'How do you 
define 'published'?'. Well, we might define 'published' on behalf of 
the build in software routines that trigger the process of publishing - 
though I am not sure yet.


Abe wrote:
"> b) is obliged to keep his site (using our software) functioning to
> communicate with the central routing servers of our network which 
hold
> together the decentral repositories.
-- For how long? Sure you cannot force anyone to keep a site in the
   air for an indefinite period? What if copyrights are transferred?
   If the copyright owner goes broke? Dies and leaves his/her rights
   to whomsoever?"
   
Thanks for that comment. We will think about that.


Rod wrote:
"If you have a proposed license, you might want to simply to post it 
to the list?"

Thank you! We will definitely do that as soon as we finished writing 
the license.


Abe wrote:
"You chose an unhappy name! 0C4 is a code that is *awfully* 
common to mainframe programmers."

I did not know that - thanks for the hint!


I hope I made clear the essence of our problem. It is not only about 
software, but also about the content created and distributed on the 
basis of that software - and especially the idea of our project to 
apply the idea of open source to all kinds of knowledge work. I am 
well aware, that my questions are of principal nature. Please forgive 
me the missing pragmatism ;) Nevertheless I would be happy if you 
could further help us on our problem so we might find a pragmatic 
solution.

Thanks again,
Sandro

On 10 Jan 2002, at 0:08, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:

> Your question seems to raise several issues. As stated, however, I had
> difficulty in determining whether your concern is really about software
> or content (i.e. publications made available by software). 
> 
> When you asked: "what if someone uses our software to restrict access to
> publications by offering them on a pay-for-view basis?" it is unclear to
> me whether your concern primarily is adding a technological  access
> barrier to the source code (as is done with some e-books) or is directed
> to the selling of publications? The former is a legitimate concern of
> open source as it relates to software distribution, the latter is not.
> Your question may involve multiple copyright holders. If you have a
> proposed license, you might want to simply to post it to the list?
> 
> Rod
> 
> Rod Dixon
> Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
> Rutgers University Law School - Camden
> www.cyberspaces.org
> rod at cyberspaces.org
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: sandro_zic at web.de [mailto:sandro_zic at web.de] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 9:36 AM
> > To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> > Cc: stephan Eissler
> > Subject: paradox Open Source / Open Content
> > 
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > I'd like to ask for your comments and advice.
> > 
> > My name is Sandro Zic, core-developer of the oc4ware which is 
> > the software of 
> > some international Web-portals like the 'Open Community 4 
> > Science' which will 
> > start on Monday (unfortunately, only in German up to now).
> > 
> > These portals will form a kind of content or knowledge 
> > network of free content. 
> > We basically adopted the idea of open source for all kinds of 
> > knowledge work 
> > like research and teaching at universities.
> > 
> > Our Software is currently GPL licensed and one could say, 
> > that the GPLs idea - 
> > as stated in the preamble - is right what we want on the 
> > level of Open Content or 
> > Open Knowledge, just replace 'software' with 'content' or 
> > 'publications':
> > 
> > "The licenses for most software are designed to take away 
> > your freedom 
> > to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public 
> > License is 
> > intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free 
> > software--to 
> > make sure the software is free for all its users."
> > 
> > Nevertheless, we encountered a paradox and thus think of moving away 
> > from the GPL as the software license of oc4ware. The problem 
> > is that if 
> > everyone has the possibility to run our software without any 
> > restrictions, 
> > he might jeopardize the idea of Open Content/Knowledge.
> > 
> > For example, a big commercial content provider could use our software 
> > to start a commercial content network, doing just the same 
> > things like our 
> > open content network does - except for the fact that users 
> > have to pay for 
> > accessing the publications offered.
> > 
> > This is the paradox: If the software is free to use for 
> > anyone and the idea 
> > and aim of our project is to provide the freedom to share and change 
> > content/knowledge of any kind - what if someone uses our software to 
> > restrict access to publications by offering them on a 
> > pay-for-view basis? 
> > This runs counter to the idea _why_ the software is 
> > programmed: freedom 
> > to share and change content/knowledge.
> > 
> > To solve this problem, we think about creating our own 
> > license, which is 
> > basically GPL, but with two additional points:
> > 
> > Anyone who uses our software for commercial purpose in the fields of 
> > science and education,
> > a) is obliged to offer the publications for free 9 months 
> > after they were 
> > published.
> > b) is obliged to keep his site (using our software) functioning to 
> > communicate with the central routing servers of our network 
> > which hold 
> > together the decentral repositories.
> > 
> > The rationale behind this is that our software can be used 
> > without any 
> > restrictions in all fields except science and education. There are no 
> > restrictions at all if the software is used for internal 
> > purposes (like 
> > company intranet education). But the commercial use is restricted, if 
> > publications are offered to the public, regarding the above mentioned 
> > points.
> > 
> > I hope, I made clear our problem and would very much appreciate any 
> > help. Maybe there's already been a discussion on such a topic 
> > (though I 
> > did not find any), maybe you got an idea how to solve the 
> > paradox, maybe 
> > a proper license already exists, or maybe there is no paradox 
> > at all ;)
> > 
> > Thanks in advance,
> > 
> > 
> > Sandro Zic | http://www.oc4home.org
> > --
> > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
> > 
> 
> --
> license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3



Sandro Zic | http://www.oc4home.org
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3