paradox Open Source / Open Content

[sandro_zic at web.de]

Well, we took our time to think about the excellent feedback we got 
on this list.

On 10 Jan 2002, at 23:16, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:

> I am assuming your software is a server side program that provides the
> functionality of a sophisiticated web browser and an advanced document
> reader (like adobe reader).

Our software runs server side and is accessed by a web browser. Usually, output to the browser is HTML. Actually, we use DocBookXML and transform it to HTML or PDF.

The software's architecture will allow for distributed repositories and 
will thus offer a client-server architecture based on webservices 
(XML-RPC, SOAP, ...).

> If so, why wouldn't the copyleft provision
> in the GNU GPL serve your purpose as far as the software is concerned?
> Why wouldn't copyleft create a sufficient (although not perfect)
> disincentive to use your software for proprietary content? The
> disincentives should cut from at least two angles: the potential
> code-fork of your software as well as the copyright holders of "closed"
> content, which the code forker must be concerned about if he is to
> profit from his fork. Unless I am missing something, a strong copyleft
> provision might assist your project's objectives. 

That's one of the reasons why the GPL - on one side - perfectly fits 
our needs and intentions.

> Regarding a related matter, I am assuming your agenda has benefitted
> from considerable aforethought and planning from your group and lawyers.
> Unfortunately, it is not easy in today's climate to combine open source
> and open content and avoid/minimize the risks of indirect copyright
> infringement. As we now know from the lessons of file-sharing (and, to
> some extent, Napster), it seems you are better served considering what
> might happen to the interests of "closed content" copyright holders when
> software like the type I think you have developed is distributed.

We are considering strong resentments from publishing houses as 
our software provides the means to e.g. scientists to found online 
journals on their own, thus circumventing the traditional content 
distribution channels. This idea of online journals is quite similar to a 
project on Sourceforge.net. That's where we stole the idea from :)

The question we were still not able to answer ourselves is: how can 
we protect the freedom of open content (at least) in the fields of 
science and education (at least) when our software is being used? 
Just think of a Napster (allthough our software is not really p2p) for 
open content that does not infringe the rights of copyright holders 
because the users of this "Open Content Napster" share articles that 
authors offer for free as authors publish their works with our open 
content license (this will _not_ be the OPL 
http://opencontent.org/opl.shtml; but that's another discussion) which 
grants the free (re-)use.

Think of a copyleft Napster that distributes copyleft content. Or 
simply think of a Sourceforge for scientists where they publish their 
works for free in self-organised online journals.

Now, how can we prevent that our software is being used by 
publishing houses to offer closed content (in science and education) 
and thus "sabotage" the intention of our programmers, to build a 
software for an open knowledge network? We can't? Because the 
section 6 of the OSD states "No Discrimination Against Fields of 
Endeavor"? So let the freedom of knowledge and content sharing be 
restricted by the freedom of free use of our software?

I am well aware that we now somehow leave the path of legal matters 
to political matters: we want our software to be used to share open 
content (like free scientific works) and open knowledge (like open 
metadata/ontologies). If someone uses it for closed content in the 
fields of science and education, the content should be available for 
free after 9 months of the initial publication. One can do with our 
software whatever he wants if he does that in a company intranet or 
in the public in other fields than science or education.

So what does section 6 of the OSD really mean? Open Source - 
yes! Open Content - well... Section 6 of the OSD is able to protect 
free software, but becomes contradictory to a "basic idea of open 
content/knowledge" based on the "basic idea of open source" 
mentioned at the startpage of www.opensource.org:

"When scientists can read, redistribute, and modify the text of a 
scientific work, the publication evolves. People improve it, people 
adapt it, people fix mistakes. And this can happen at a speed that, if 
one is used to the slow pace of conventional development of 
scientific works (or better: distribution of knowledge), seems 
astonishing."

How can we bring together the idea of open source and open 
content/knowledge? You say: no problem! I say: there is a problem 
when you develop a software for open content/knowledge as open 
source. The problem is that the free use of this software 
compromises the intended use of this software for open 
content/knowledge (at least in the fields of science and education).

How can we grant that scientist can work with free scientifc texts at 
least if someone uses our software and at least 9 months after initial 
publication? We can't do it as long as we want to provide our 
software under GPL? So we simply have to face the fact that 
powerful publishing houses can do the same as we do, but with 
closed content - and even with our software? That's a shame ;)

Sorry for my provocative questions - just trying to point out some 
things ;)

Sandro

> Rod
> 
> 
> > 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.
> 
> --
> 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