Intellectual Highway Department

Quoting drew Roberts <zotz100jamz.com>:

> Yet one thing about linux, and if you think of it as
gnu/linux this is more
> apparent, is that it had a hugh head start of all the
gnu code developed by
> the FSF (is that right?) under the GPL and some LGPL
and developed mugh more
> along the lines of a cathedral model.

Yes, the FSF wrote the compiler, debugger, C library, the
shell tools and
possibly the text editor (emacs) used by GNU/Linux. They
wrote them very much
on the cathedral model. This is why Linus could write the
Linux Kernel "just
for fun".

gcc, emacs and gdb were written by Stallman to start with.
This isn't a
cathedral model so much as a hermit model.  He
supported this work by
working as a software cinsultant. So this does look like a
gift in Greg's
economic model. But the projects were not considered or
phrased as gifts, they
were considered or phrased as Freedom. And they can be sold
quite happily as
well as exchanged with gift expectations.

> The option that is being left out is charging people to
build the road in the
> first place. We should also keep in mind that these are
not mutually
> exclusive options.

Well there's taxation at the state or town level. Or
subscription. Or 
bonds. Or
charging people who don't car pool. Or a lottery. Or
selling land along the
road. There are many ways of paying for the freedom of a
road. 

> You can use a copyleft license and yet still get paid
for every hour you work
> if you so choose. People do this now.

Yes and this is why a gift/market bipolar split simply does
not work. 
Whilst an
economist can happily chunk acts contributing to Free
Software into 
smaller and
smaller examples of discrete gift and market acts, the Free
Software doesn't
care.

Some countries have paid health care. some countries have
state health care.
Some have hybrids. All who have health care have health
care. A road is
freedom. It doesn't matter how it is paid for as long as
people have that
freedom.

>> This is complete fallacy.
>> You're saying that All Rights Reserved creations
somehow
>> prevent the creation of new works. By that
argument, I should
>> be able to look at the new works being distributed
on the net
>> and on the TV and radio and see a noticable decline
as time
>> goes on, since the terms keep getting extended.
>
> I humbly submit that it is not a complete fallacy. With
the trend to
> copyrights that do not expire we are going to see this
more and more and I
> especially think it is going to become apparent with
melodies.

It is not a fallacy at all. The *quality* of work from major
producers is
declining as they go into less risky recycling of ideas that
they already own.
And the *risk* of personal expression goes up as videos get
pulled from
MySpace. And the *volume* of work going into the public
domain and becoming
usable is decreasing as copyright is extended.

This is quantifiable.

> So, we could write a little distributed app. Churn out
all the possible
> melodies up to a certain length and submit them all to
the copyright office
> as a collection of melodies. Then leave it up to anyone
who has one of the
> collection copyrighted already to make that claim and
then we could have all
> of the other possible melodies under a copyleft
license.

IIRC a company has done the evil twin of this and is suing
ringtone
manufacturers. I cannot remember the URL though. :-/

>> Try the bounty hunter metaphor. Disney catching
>> a bunch of bad guys doesn't prevent you or anyone
>> else from catching a completely new and unrelated
>> bad guy.

Note the "completely new and unrelated". The
problem with the current 
system is
that having got the ringleader they set up a plea bargain
that stops anyone
else going after the rest of the gang.

>> Even that metaphor fails to some extent,
>> but that's the problem with metaphors.
>
> With an unlimited number of bad guys and an unlimited
amount of reward money,
> OK. Is that the real world though?

I think it's more the case that the bounty hunters don't
want me to be allowed
to arm myself. We have their protection, why would I want to
arm myself?

The GPL is the right to bear arms in the Bounty Hunters
scenario. 

> What is the issue with making a license for people who
want to make BY-SA
> works but can see no other way to support themselves in
doing so but by
> adding an NC option and yet think that they would
garner more goodwill if
> they could build in a sunset to straight BY-SA?

The problem with this is we already have effective ways for
people to 
make money
in the way they wish to (assuming there is a market for what
they are 
offering,
which may not be the case, but is never considered a problem
for proprietary
projects). Solving an over-stated problem ("you can't
make money off CC") with
a solution that concedes the terms of the debate is not
something I think is a
good idea.

> If that is really the case, it is time for CC to drop
the NC option as it has
> nothing whatsoever with the Creative Commons. End of
story.

But NC is popular. Popularity is success. Therefore NC will
stay.

>> So while I can see people who used to contribute
stuff
>> under CC-SA changing to using a CC-Sunset license,
>> I don't see people going from CC-NC to sunset.
>> which means that any CC-SA commons will get
>> worse, not better.
>
> Not if it allows for the funding of more works that
will end up BY-SA it
> won't.

I agree with Greg, I think that a sunset license will
cannibalise SA 
rather than
reducing NC.

- Rob.

_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

Greg bond wrote:
> > I am seriously disturbed by your continued
(intentional?)
> > conflation of 'free license techniques' and
'gift economy'. Right
> > here you rightly point out that Linux succeeded
over BSD Unix
> > because of the nature of copyleft licenses: proof
that copyleft
> > communities are not mere 'gift economies'. If
that's not proof
> > that copyleft != gift economy, I don't know what
is.
>
>  linux and wikipedia worked because of the terrain it
was built on,
>  not because of some magic powers of the gift economy,
not because of
>  some magic in its licensing scheme. The terrain was
chunkable. So
>  many people could contribute their free time to the
project without
>  getting monetary compensation for it.

This is totally wrong: GNU/Linux is a huge success, but BSD
Unix is only
a marginal one.  HURD is pretty much still a failure, though
some
people are trying to pull out a success in the end.

Yet...

Linux is a monolithic kernel, HURD is
"chunkable" (it's a micro-kernel).

BSD Unix had a huge head-start over Linux  (e.g. it already
*existed*
as a usable, complete OS in 1990).  I know this for a fact,
because I
was writing software for it in 1988.

So why did Linux succeed where "chunkable" and
"gift economy"
didn't?  Simple -- Linux used copyleft to ensure traction:
everything
that goes into the commons stays in the commons.

It's hard to see what 'terrain', other than the licensing
is relevant.


> > A 'commons' is material that can be meaningfully
shared and
> > "remixed", to use the CC expression.
Regrettably, there is more
> > than one of these now. Hence the complaint of
"commons
> > fragmentation".
>
>  CC-NC is not a commons. Nor is CC-ND. They are market
economy
>  licenses where the creator can give up some rights in
exchange for
>  something that might benefit him more. Free samples in
exchange for
>  possibly more sales.

ND is not a commons -- this is explicit.

NC *is* a commons, or so CC would have us think. There is no
point in
it otherwise (ND would serve the same purpose).

NC-SA in particular expresses a definite intent to create a
commons
(why SA at all, otherwise?).

>  No one should be doing anything "commons"
like with anything licensed
>  CC-NC or CC-ND or any other market economy license.

Nevertheless, people do exactly that.

What do I tell them?  "Naughty, naughty"?
"What you're doing can't be done!"?

>  I mean charging a direct toll to pay for the road
versus building the
>  road, allowing people to travel on it for free, and
then building a
>  gas station and trying to make back your road
construction costs by
>  selling gas.
>
>  If you have a small group of contributers to a
copyleft project and
>  they're working full time on the project, they need
to get paid for
>  their time or go hungry.
>
>  Using a copyleft license doesn't change the fact that
they need to
>  get paid for their time. but they have to figure out
indirect ways to
>  make money while still using copyleft.

Oh? Why "must they" use "indirect"
methods?

This is a totally artificial limit, IMHO.

> > But the real point is that you are kidding
yourself if you continue
> > to believe that a system which encourages toll
roads has no impact
> > on the creation of free roads. I grant you that it
is not a true
> > zero-sum game -- but there is a definite question
of mindshare
> > among artists. More artists using one license or
another means a
> > preference for the commons they select.
>
>  This is complete fallacy. You're saying that All
Rights Reserved
>  creations somehow prevent the creation of new works.
By that
>  argument, I should be able to look at the new works
being distributed
>  on the net and on the TV and radio and see a noticable
decline as
>  time goes on, since the terms keep getting extended.

Okay, say we stop saying that "NC fragments the
commons". Let's
instead say "NC spams the commons".  It's not
unlike the problem
with my email box -- I now have to filter out something like
90% of my
incoming email because people keep sending me junk.

Yet that junk doesn't "take away" my real
email, so I'd be wrong to
say that my email is "fragmented" between real
and spam email,
but that certainly is my perception.

Does that make the problem clearer?

>  Again, CC-NC is not a "commons" license.

>  Artists use CC-NC as a market economy license. They
trade some of the
>  rights to their work, using it as free samples and
free advertising,
>  in exchange for teh potential for more sales. It's a
loss leader.
[...]
>  It isn't "commons" leverage. It is a loss
leader. It is giving up
>  some rights in exchange for an individual benefit.
Free samples in
>  exchage for potential for new sales.

This is one model. ONE. And probably not the best.

What's more, the "loss leader" strategy
actually works better if
the work is By-SA (it will get distributed further).  NC is
more
of a "try before you buy" license, if anything.

>  CC-NC isn't a gift economy.
[...]
>  CC-NC isn't for sharing and cooperation. It isn't a
commons.
[...]
>  But CC-NC doesn't "mess with" copyleft or
the community, because it
>  isn't even in that category. It is a cathedral
license. A market
>  economy license. It's operating on completely
different terrain with
>  a completely different economic model.
[...]
>  What's the problem is that you're relating to CC-NC
as if it should
>  be a commons or it should put works into a commons
area. It doesn't.
>  But then, it was never meant to do that.
[...]
>  What's the problem is that you're relating to CC-NC
as if it should
>  be a commons or it should put works into a commons
area. It doesn't.
>  But then, it was never meant to do that.

Repetitive, but simply wrong:

It certainly /was/ meant to be a commons license, or there
never
would have been a CC-By-NC-SA license option. It's
completely
illogical from the perspective you describe -- yet, there it
is:

"""
Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike (by-nc-sa)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your
work 
non-commercially, as long as they credit you and license
their new 
creations under the identical terms. Others can download and

redistribute your work just like the by-nc-nd license, but
they can also 
translate, make remixes, and produce new stories based on
your work. All 
new work based on yours will carry the same license, so any
derivatives 
will also be non-commercial in nature.
"""
(From CC's current "meet the licenses" page).

Sure sounds like a promise of commons-like viability to me.

As you describe this business model, NC should be abolished,
because
it offers nothing you can't get with ND. NC is fairy gold
entirely.

Fine. Let's do that. NO MORE NC!

I could live with that.

>  I also think that were CC to create a sunset license
that started out
>  as CC-NC and switched to CC-SA, then the people who
would adopt it
>  would be fence-hangers to CC-SA, not CC-NC. That's a
fundamental
>  problem.
>
>  If people are on the fence and decide to go with
CC-SA, Great. The
>  commons gets something contributed to it. If the
person sees
>  CC-Sunset, they may be more apt to go with CC-Sunset
with a couple
>  year delay, *just in case* they might be able to make
some money off
>  of it.

This is perhaps a legitimate criticism, but I think you're
wrong.

For example, I have in fact written for publications with
copyleft+blackout,
which is effectively the same strategy.  I would not have
written those
articles without the pay, and the pay is justified by the
magazine getting
the "scoop" on publication -- which the blackout
gives them.

Certainly I don't mind that those article won't make the
absolute most
possible money. I'm happy to enrich the commons. But I also
need
money to live -- I can't do pro bono work *all* the time.

>  If you take someone who uses CC-NC, I don't see
CC-Sunset offering
>  them anything new. CC-NC is a market economy license
that benefits
>  the author. They give up some right to the community
and the
>  community gives them some free advertising. CC-Sunset
doesn't offer
>  them anything additional.

Those people should be using ND, then.  That would make
their
no-commons intent clear.

But you're wrong -- artists are in fact using NC in a false
hope that the
collaborative magic will help them. Creative Commons is
contributing
to this fallacy.

Artists using CC-By-NC-SA, in particular, are the ones I'm
interested in,
and they do exist.  They are indeed fence-hangers on the
NC/SA line,
and I hate to say this, but I have both theoretical and
empirical reasons
to believe that as things stand, they mostly don't shift to
the SA side,
but to the NC side.  So SA loses content it might otherwise
get.

Because they feel they need something that NC offers them
that SA
can't at present.

>  If CC-NC were a restrictive "commons" then
peole using CC-NC might
>  change to CC-Sunset. But I don't think people who use
CC-NC think
>  they're contributing to a commons, I think they know
on some level
>  that they're keeping some rights so they are at an
advantage over the
>  community.

I think you're wrong about that, and that about sums it up.

>  It's an exchange of free-advertising. If anyone was
interested in
>  contrubting to a commons they would use a commons
license like CC-SA.
>
If that were true, they'd choose NC-ND only.

In fact, that might be one solution: fuse the NC and ND
modules into one,
so they can't be separated. That removes the delusion that
NC is a
commons. You say it isn't one at all, even when it uses SA,
I say it
is merely a poor version of one.  Either way NC-SA is just
deceptive,
and should be eliminated entirely.

>  So while I can see people who used to contribute stuff
under CC-SA
>  changing to using a CC-Sunset license, I don't see
people going from
>  CC-NC to sunset. which means that any CC-SA commons
will get worse,
>  not better.

I disagree.  I think a sunset NC to SA licensing system
would encourage
contributions that won't currently be made at all.  There
may indeed
be a price of a few "fence hangers" going the
other way.  I think the net
effect would be very positive for the SA commons, however.

Frankly, I don't like taking SA contributions from
"fence hangers" 'forced'
to release more rights than they really wanted, anyway -- 
they tend to
be the kind of people who come back later and complain that
they were
mislead into contributing or some such thing (it's
different when they
have used SA material in the work -- that's quid pro quo,
and they have
no basis to complain).

You yourself point out that SA-only communities will find it
hard to
create certain works.  I agree with you, and I think
charging license
fees for limited times may solve problems in those areas. I
also think
artists will appreciate both the ability to capitalize on
their time
investment, and the contribution to the commons (otherwise,
they
wouldn't be thinking about CC licenses at all).

You say these folks don't use NC at all, but I think
that's bunk, based
on my conversations with people who do use it, based on
CC's presentation
of the concept, and based on the material they provide for
artists to
read.  The CC framing of the issues definitely makes NC out
to be a
"commons" license.

That means two things:

1) CC really needs to change the marketing on its present
"perpetual NC"
    license module, to reflect the reality: either it's a
"poor commons" or
    "no commons at all". Take your pick.

2) Artists actually do want something that does balance
commercial marketing
    and commons-friendliness.  I'd like to find a way to
provide that so 
that
    both sides get more of what they want. That's what *I*
call "win-win".

Cheers,
Terry

-- 
Terry Hancock (hancockAnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpac
eworks.com


_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

Greg bond wrote:
>  I suppose if you have a project that has few
contributers to begin
>  with, that doesn't chunk well, is generally made by
individuals doing
>  a lot of Cathedral work and then submitting it, then
the Sunset
>  license model fits the project terrain. But I wouldnt
be convinced
>  that the thing would go exothermic and become
self-sustaining.

This only needs to be true at the beginning, and in my
experience,
it often is (many big projects need a huge investment at the
beginning,
before they can shift to a 'bazaar' production mode).

Let me clarify what I was proposing, especially since I made
references
to other methods.

The "Sunset" I propose would cause a work to
becom CC-By-SA (or
CC-By) after the sunset.  At that point, derivative works
would have
to be released under the CC-By-SA (technically this isn't
*quite* true,
because you could still use the CC-By-NC-SA license that you
originally
received, but it will become so the minute anyone adds
anything to
it under the CC-By-SA).

I'm uncertain whether, in fact, the sunset itself should be
"shared alike"
so that contributions under the original NC license would
automatically
have the sunset applied, nor whether the Sunset should be
absolutely
indexed to the time of publication of the original work, or
to the time
of the contribution.  Those details would be pretty
important, and ought
to be worked out (yet another reason why it *ought* to be a
license
module, and not up to the artist to figure out).

I also imagine more of a "feeder" use-case --
the works to which
a sunset NC work would be contributed would generally be
either
"collective" or "transformative"
works. It's not so much that a song
would go from NC marketing to SA collaboration *on the
song*, but
rather that the NC marketed work would become material to be
used
in collaboration on larger collections of music, or in
games, movies,
or other works in which music is only a part of the work.

In fact, if there were any legal way to do it, I might've
imagined trying
to make an alternative to NC that would allow
"collective" or
"transformative" works to be used freely
(including commercially), but
not for the work to be used whole and as itself.
Unfortunately, this
would make for an even stickier definition, and there are
certain
cases artists would likely object to (e.g. song gets used as
an advertising
'jingle').

Of course, the artist could explicitly agree to those kinds
of uses,
but the whole point of a free commons is that innovation is
spurred
by eliminateing those kinds of "transactional
costs" (and affiliated
risks).


-- 
Terry Hancock (hancockAnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpac
eworks.com

_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

On Wednesday 31 May 2006 04:42 am, robrobmyers.org wrote:
> Quoting drew Roberts <zotz100jamz.com>:
> > Yet one thing about linux, and if you think of it
as gnu/linux this is
> > more apparent, is that it had a hugh head start of
all the gnu code
> > developed by the FSF (is that right?) under the
GPL and some LGPL and
> > developed mugh more along the lines of a cathedral
model.
>
> Yes, the FSF wrote the compiler, debugger, C library,
the shell tools and
> possibly the text editor (emacs) used by GNU/Linux.
They wrote them very
> much on the cathedral model. This is why Linus could
write the Linux Kernel
> "just for fun".
>
> gcc, emacs and gdb were written by Stallman to start
with. This isn't a
> cathedral model so much as a hermit model.  He
supported this work by
> working as a software cinsultant. So this does look
like a gift in Greg's
> economic model. But the projects were not considered or
phrased as gifts,
> they were considered or phrased as Freedom. And they
can be sold quite
> happily as well as exchanged with gift expectations.

Right, and when I work on GPL stuff or BY-Sa stuff, I do not
concieve of 
myself as participating in a gift economy either. I see
myself working for 
freedom. I also see myself as having been paid in kind, up
front, in an 
amount that I could never hope to pay for with cash. Due to
network effects, 
I doubt I could ever be a true free-rider, but I could get
much closer to one 
than I do. That I don't is based at least in part to my
inner sense of what 
is fair and right.
>
> > The option that is being left out is charging
people to build the road in
> > the first place. We should also keep in mind that
these are not mutually
> > exclusive options.
>
> Well there's taxation at the state or town level. Or
subscription. Or
> bonds. Or
> charging people who don't car pool. Or a lottery. Or
selling land along the
> road. There are many ways of paying for the freedom of
a road. 
>
> > You can use a copyleft license and yet still get
paid for every hour you
> > work if you so choose. People do this now.
>
> Yes and this is why a gift/market bipolar split simply
does not work.

I couldn't agree more.

> Whilst an
> economist can happily chunk acts contributing to Free
Software into
> smaller and
> smaller examples of discrete gift and market acts, the
Free Software
> doesn't care.

No do I care how the Free Stuff gets made. So long as it
gets made and is 
useful. (Well, I care some as how can have an impact on
quality and can also 
increase confidence that the players are reliable which
counts for some 
uses.)

>
> Some countries have paid health care. some countries
have state health
> care. Some have hybrids. All who have health care have
health care. A road
> is freedom. It doesn't matter how it is paid for as
long as people have
> that freedom.
>
> >> This is complete fallacy.
> >> You're saying that All Rights Reserved
creations somehow
> >> prevent the creation of new works. By that
argument, I should
> >> be able to look at the new works being
distributed on the net
> >> and on the TV and radio and see a noticable
decline as time
> >> goes on, since the terms keep getting
extended.
> >
> > I humbly submit that it is not a complete fallacy.
With the trend to
> > copyrights that do not expire we are going to see
this more and more and
> > I especially think it is going to become apparent
with melodies.
>
> It is not a fallacy at all. The *quality* of work from
major producers is
> declining as they go into less risky recycling of ideas
that they already
> own. And the *risk* of personal expression goes up as
videos get pulled
> from MySpace. And the *volume* of work going into the
public domain and
> becoming usable is decreasing as copyright is extended.
>
> This is quantifiable.

It may be that the real problem is the concentration of
ownership of all these 
copyrights by so few players that causes most of the
problems. I haven't 
thought enough about it as it relates to multiple fields.
>
> > So, we could write a little distributed app. Churn
out all the possible
> > melodies up to a certain length and submit them
all to the copyright
> > office as a collection of melodies. Then leave it
up to anyone who has
> > one of the collection copyrighted already to make
that claim and then we
> > could have all of the other possible melodies
under a copyleft license.
>
> IIRC a company has done the evil twin of this and is
suing ringtone
> manufacturers. I cannot remember the URL though. :-/

Bam Sookie. How many notes do you have to get the same
before you can go down 
for unconscious (unintended?) copyright violation?
>
> >> Try the bounty hunter metaphor. Disney
catching
> >> a bunch of bad guys doesn't prevent you or
anyone
> >> else from catching a completely new and
unrelated
> >> bad guy.
>
> Note the "completely new and unrelated".
The problem with the current
> system is
> that having got the ringleader they set up a plea
bargain that stops anyone
> else going after the rest of the gang.
>
> >> Even that metaphor fails to some extent,
> >> but that's the problem with metaphors.
> >
> > With an unlimited number of bad guys and an
unlimited amount of reward
> > money, OK. Is that the real world though?
>
> I think it's more the case that the bounty hunters
don't want me to be
> allowed to arm myself. We have their protection, why
would I want to arm
> myself?
>
> The GPL is the right to bear arms in the Bounty Hunters
scenario. 

A fun way to put it. Are we gonna have calls for GPL control
soon? You need to 
be licensed and registered in order to be able to use the
GPL?
>
> > What is the issue with making a license for people
who want to make BY-SA
> > works but can see no other way to support
themselves in doing so but by
> > adding an NC option and yet think that they would
garner more goodwill if
> > they could build in a sunset to straight BY-SA?
>
> The problem with this is we already have effective ways
for people to
> make money
> in the way they wish to (assuming there is a market for
what they are
> offering,
> which may not be the case, but is never considered a
problem for
> proprietary projects). 

Let's mkae up a list of these ways, shall we?

> Solving an over-stated problem ("you can't make 
> money off CC") with a solution that concedes the
terms of the debate is not
> something I think is a good idea.

Here I think you are making a mistake of lumping all things
CC together. In 
this thread and the related ones, I don't think anyone is
maintaining that 
you cannot make money from such things as:

BY-NC-ND
BY-NC-SA
BY-NC

Some may feel that you cannot make money from

BY-SA
BY

Does anyone disagree as relates to the discussions we have
been having?

Now, I personally feel that we can find long term ways to
make money with 
BY-Sa, but I think that they way things work in the overall
CC world right 
now, it is going to take us a lot longer to get whre I think
we are gonna end 
up than it could if we did things differently.

What those different things are is still up in the air in my
mind which is why 
I am willing to take up so much time in these discussions.
>
> > If that is really the case, it is time for CC to
drop the NC option as it
> > has nothing whatsoever with the Creative Commons.
End of story.
>
> But NC is popular. Popularity is success. Therefore NC
will stay.

There was a big IF in there.
>
> >> So while I can see people who used to
contribute stuff
> >> under CC-SA changing to using a CC-Sunset
license,
> >> I don't see people going from CC-NC to
sunset.
> >> which means that any CC-SA commons will get
> >> worse, not better.
> >
> > Not if it allows for the funding of more works
that will end up BY-SA it
> > won't.
>
> I agree with Greg, I think that a sunset license will
cannibalise SA
> rather than
> reducing NC.

Is there really much to cannibalise right now? I have
trouble finding it. 
(Tell me I am wrong and don't know how to look. Please.)
>
> - Rob.
>
all the best,

drew
-- 
http://www.ourmed
ia.org/node/145261
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
http://www.ourmedi
a.org/user/17145

_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

On Wednesday 31 May 2006 05:38 am, Terry Hancock wrote:
> Greg bond wrote:
> > > I am seriously disturbed by your continued
(intentional?)
> > > conflation of 'free license techniques' and
'gift economy'. Right
> > > here you rightly point out that Linux
succeeded over BSD Unix
> > > because of the nature of copyleft licenses:
proof that copyleft
> > > communities are not mere 'gift economies'.
If that's not proof
> > > that copyleft != gift economy, I don't know
what is.
> >
> >  linux and wikipedia worked because of the terrain
it was built on,
> >  not because of some magic powers of the gift
economy, not because of
> >  some magic in its licensing scheme. The terrain
was chunkable. So
> >  many people could contribute their free time to
the project without
> >  getting monetary compensation for it.
>
> This is totally wrong: GNU/Linux is a huge success, but
BSD Unix is only
> a marginal one.  HURD is pretty much still a failure,
though some
> people are trying to pull out a success in the end.
>
> Yet...
>
> Linux is a monolithic kernel, HURD is
"chunkable" (it's a micro-kernel).
>
> BSD Unix had a huge head-start over Linux  (e.g. it
already *existed*
> as a usable, complete OS in 1990).  I know this for a
fact, because I
> was writing software for it in 1988.
>
> So why did Linux succeed where "chunkable"
and "gift economy"
> didn't?  Simple -- Linux used copyleft to ensure
traction: everything
> that goes into the commons stays in the commons.
>
> It's hard to see what 'terrain', other than the
licensing is relevant.
>
> > > A 'commons' is material that can be
meaningfully shared and
> > > "remixed", to use the CC
expression. Regrettably, there is more
> > > than one of these now. Hence the complaint of
"commons
> > > fragmentation".
> >
> >  CC-NC is not a commons. Nor is CC-ND. They are
market economy
> >  licenses where the creator can give up some
rights in exchange for
> >  something that might benefit him more. Free
samples in exchange for
> >  possibly more sales.
>
> ND is not a commons -- this is explicit.
>
> NC *is* a commons, or so CC would have us think. There
is no point in
> it otherwise (ND would serve the same purpose).
>
> NC-SA in particular expresses a definite intent to
create a commons
> (why SA at all, otherwise?).
>
> >  No one should be doing anything
"commons" like with anything licensed
> >  CC-NC or CC-ND or any other market economy
license.
>
> Nevertheless, people do exactly that.
>
> What do I tell them?  "Naughty, naughty"?
> "What you're doing can't be done!"?
>
> >  I mean charging a direct toll to pay for the road
versus building the
> >  road, allowing people to travel on it for free,
and then building a
> >  gas station and trying to make back your road
construction costs by
> >  selling gas.
> >
> >  If you have a small group of contributers to a
copyleft project and
> >  they're working full time on the project, they
need to get paid for
> >  their time or go hungry.
> >
> >  Using a copyleft license doesn't change the fact
that they need to
> >  get paid for their time. but they have to figure
out indirect ways to
> >  make money while still using copyleft.
>
> Oh? Why "must they" use
"indirect" methods?
>
> This is a totally artificial limit, IMHO.
>
> > > But the real point is that you are kidding
yourself if you continue
> > > to believe that a system which encourages
toll roads has no impact
> > > on the creation of free roads. I grant you
that it is not a true
> > > zero-sum game -- but there is a definite
question of mindshare
> > > among artists. More artists using one license
or another means a
> > > preference for the commons they select.
> >
> >  This is complete fallacy. You're saying that All
Rights Reserved
> >  creations somehow prevent the creation of new
works. By that
> >  argument, I should be able to look at the new
works being distributed
> >  on the net and on the TV and radio and see a
noticable decline as
> >  time goes on, since the terms keep getting
extended.
>
> Okay, say we stop saying that "NC fragments the
commons". Let's
> instead say "NC spams the commons".  It's
not unlike the problem
> with my email box -- I now have to filter out something
like 90% of my
> incoming email because people keep sending me junk.
>
> Yet that junk doesn't "take away" my real
email, so I'd be wrong to
> say that my email is "fragmented" between
real and spam email,
> but that certainly is my perception.
>
> Does that make the problem clearer?
>
> >  Again, CC-NC is not a "commons"
license.
> >
> >  Artists use CC-NC as a market economy license.
They trade some of the
> >  rights to their work, using it as free samples
and free advertising,
> >  in exchange for teh potential for more sales.
It's a loss leader.
>
> [...]
>
> >  It isn't "commons" leverage. It is a
loss leader. It is giving up
> >  some rights in exchange for an individual
benefit. Free samples in
> >  exchage for potential for new sales.
>
> This is one model. ONE. And probably not the best.
>
> What's more, the "loss leader" strategy
actually works better if
> the work is By-SA (it will get distributed further). 
NC is more
> of a "try before you buy" license, if
anything.
>
> >  CC-NC isn't a gift economy.
>
> [...]
>
> >  CC-NC isn't for sharing and cooperation. It
isn't a commons.
>
> [...]
>
> >  But CC-NC doesn't "mess with"
copyleft or the community, because it
> >  isn't even in that category. It is a cathedral
license. A market
> >  economy license. It's operating on completely
different terrain with
> >  a completely different economic model.
>
> [...]
>
> >  What's the problem is that you're relating to
CC-NC as if it should
> >  be a commons or it should put works into a
commons area. It doesn't.
> >  But then, it was never meant to do that.
>
> [...]
>
> >  What's the problem is that you're relating to
CC-NC as if it should
> >  be a commons or it should put works into a
commons area. It doesn't.
> >  But then, it was never meant to do that.
>
> Repetitive, but simply wrong:
>
> It certainly /was/ meant to be a commons license, or
there never
> would have been a CC-By-NC-SA license option. It's
completely
> illogical from the perspective you describe -- yet,
there it is:
>
> """
> Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike (by-nc-sa)
>
> This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon
your work
> non-commercially, as long as they credit you and
license their new
> creations under the identical terms. Others can
download and
> redistribute your work just like the by-nc-nd license,
but they can also
> translate, make remixes, and produce new stories based
on your work. All
> new work based on yours will carry the same license, so
any derivatives
> will also be non-commercial in nature.
> """
> (From CC's current "meet the licenses"
page).

This is perhaps a bad explanation of SA as it mixes with NC.
NC alone ensures 
that so any derivatives will also be non-commercial in
nature.

SA (when added to NC) ensures that the license will not be
changed to 
something even more restrictive than what the original
author set.
>
> Sure sounds like a promise of commons-like viability to
me.
>
> As you describe this business model, NC should be
abolished, because
> it offers nothing you can't get with ND. NC is fairy
gold entirely.
>
> Fine. Let's do that. NO MORE NC!
>
> I could live with that.

I could to, but I think that is becuase we are pre-sold on
BY-SA or BY anyway.
>
> >  I also think that were CC to create a sunset
license that started out
> >  as CC-NC and switched to CC-SA, then the people
who would adopt it
> >  would be fence-hangers to CC-SA, not CC-NC.
That's a fundamental
> >  problem.
> >
> >  If people are on the fence and decide to go with
CC-SA, Great. The
> >  commons gets something contributed to it. If the
person sees
> >  CC-Sunset, they may be more apt to go with
CC-Sunset with a couple
> >  year delay, *just in case* they might be able to
make some money off
> >  of it.
>
> This is perhaps a legitimate criticism, but I think
you're wrong.
>
> For example, I have in fact written for publications
with
> copyleft+blackout, which is effectively the same
strategy.  I would not
> have written those articles without the pay, and the
pay is justified by
> the magazine getting the "scoop" on
publication -- which the blackout gives
> them.
>
> Certainly I don't mind that those article won't make
the absolute most
> possible money. I'm happy to enrich the commons. But I
also need
> money to live -- I can't do pro bono work *all* the
time.

I think that this is the fallacy in these
"games." That no appreciable number 
of people want to create copyleft work and are being held
back because they 
can't figure a way to make a living while doing so. And
that all people 
choosing NC are doing so to "maximise" their
profits from those works.
>
> >  If you take someone who uses CC-NC, I don't see
CC-Sunset offering
> >  them anything new. CC-NC is a market economy
license that benefits
> >  the author. They give up some right to the
community and the
> >  community gives them some free advertising.
CC-Sunset doesn't offer
> >  them anything additional.
>
> Those people should be using ND, then.  That would make
their
> no-commons intent clear.
>
> But you're wrong -- artists are in fact using NC in a
false hope that the
> collaborative magic will help them. Creative Commons is
contributing
> to this fallacy.
>
> Artists using CC-By-NC-SA, in particular, are the ones
I'm interested in,
> and they do exist.  They are indeed fence-hangers on
the NC/SA line,
> and I hate to say this, but I have both theoretical and
empirical reasons
> to believe that as things stand, they mostly don't
shift to the SA side,
> but to the NC side.  So SA loses content it might
otherwise get.
>
> Because they feel they need something that NC offers
them that SA
> can't at present.
>
> >  If CC-NC were a restrictive "commons"
then peole using CC-NC might
> >  change to CC-Sunset. But I don't think people
who use CC-NC think
> >  they're contributing to a commons, I think they
know on some level
> >  that they're keeping some rights so they are at
an advantage over the
> >  community.
>
> I think you're wrong about that, and that about sums
it up.
>
> >  It's an exchange of free-advertising. If anyone
was interested in
> >  contrubting to a commons they would use a commons
license like CC-SA.
>
> If that were true, they'd choose NC-ND only.
>
> In fact, that might be one solution: fuse the NC and ND
modules into one,
> so they can't be separated. That removes the delusion
that NC is a
> commons. You say it isn't one at all, even when it
uses SA, I say it
> is merely a poor version of one.  Either way NC-SA is
just deceptive,
> and should be eliminated entirely.

Any comments from the CC people on this idea?
>
> >  So while I can see people who used to contribute
stuff under CC-SA
> >  changing to using a CC-Sunset license, I don't
see people going from
> >  CC-NC to sunset. which means that any CC-SA
commons will get worse,
> >  not better.
>
> I disagree.  I think a sunset NC to SA licensing system
would encourage
> contributions that won't currently be made at all. 
There may indeed
> be a price of a few "fence hangers" going
the other way.  I think the net
> effect would be very positive for the SA commons,
however.
>
> Frankly, I don't like taking SA contributions from
"fence hangers" 'forced'
> to release more rights than they really wanted, anyway
--  they tend to
> be the kind of people who come back later and complain
that they were
> mislead into contributing or some such thing (it's
different when they
> have used SA material in the work -- that's quid pro
quo, and they have
> no basis to complain).
>
> You yourself point out that SA-only communities will
find it hard to
> create certain works.  I agree with you, and I think
charging license
> fees for limited times may solve problems in those
areas. I also think
> artists will appreciate both the ability to capitalize
on their time
> investment, and the contribution to the commons
(otherwise, they
> wouldn't be thinking about CC licenses at all).

If it wasn't for the problems that would be caused by
license fragmentation / 
proliferation, I would call for large scale license
experiments on a fairly 
long time scale to see what works and what doesn't. Not a
good idea in real 
life though.
>
> You say these folks don't use NC at all, but I think
that's bunk, based
> on my conversations with people who do use it, based on
CC's presentation
> of the concept, and based on the material they provide
for artists to
> read.  The CC framing of the issues definitely makes NC
out to be a
> "commons" license.
>
> That means two things:
>
> 1) CC really needs to change the marketing on its
present "perpetual NC"
>     license module, to reflect the reality: either
it's a "poor commons" or
>     "no commons at all". Take your pick.

Agree. It should be clear that this is a second class
option. I ask CC to talk 
it over and take a stand on which licenses make for the best
"Creative 
Commons" and to promote them at all times. If they
still want to offer the 
range, fine, but explain how those choices negatively effect
the "Creative 
Commons."
>
> 2) Artists actually do want something that does balance
commercial
> marketing and commons-friendliness.  I'd like to find
a way to provide that
> so that
>     both sides get more of what they want. That's what
*I* call "win-win".
>
> Cheers,
> Terry
all the best,

drew
-- 
http://www.ourmed
ia.org/node/145261
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
http://www.ourmedi
a.org/user/17145

_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

> NC *is* a commons, or so CC would have us think.

if you can show me where CC uses the word
"Commons"
to describe CC-NC, I will forward them my request
that they fix it.

> There is no point in it otherwise
> (ND would serve the same purpose).

Of course there is.
If an artist wants to give away free samples,
they need to use CC-NC.

If they give away free samples with CC-ND,
then I could take their song, upload it to
Lulu.com and sell CD's on demand.

NC prevents everyone else from SELLING the free sample.

>>  No one should be doing anything
"commons" like with anything licensed
>>  CC-NC or CC-ND or any other market economy
license.
>
> Nevertheless, people do exactly that.
>
> What do I tell them?  "Naughty, naughty"?
> "What you're doing can't be done!"?

No, you tell them that whatever work they're adding
to the original will always be at a disadvantage
compared to the original artist. If they wish to
contribute anyway, that's their choice. Some people
like to write fan fiction, and most fanficcers do
NOT expect to ever get paid. It isn't right or wrong,
it's just that fanficcers know what they're getting
into.

Usually.
 >>  What's the problem is that you're relating to
CC-NC as if it should
>>  be a commons or it should put works into a commons
area. It doesn't.
>>  But then, it was never meant to do that.
>
> Repetitive, but simply wrong:
>
> It certainly /was/ meant to be a commons license, or
there never
> would have been a CC-By-NC-SA license option. It's
completely
> illogical from the perspective you describe -- yet,
there it is:
>
> (From CC's current "meet the licenses"
page).
>
> Sure sounds like a promise of commons-like viability to
me.

I ***never*** read it that way. (six asterisks)
It allows fanfiction and other derivatives that
aren't commercial.

I think one of CC's first mottos was "spectrum of
rights".
Only one end of the spectrum is a commons. the other end
is various stages of cathedral models.

> As you describe this business model, NC should be
abolished, because
> it offers nothing you can't get with ND. NC is fairy
gold entirely.

I don't have a problem with CC-NC not being a commons
license.
Commons licenses are not the only way to solve a problem.
Cathedral licenses also solve various problems as well.
And some of CC's cathedral licenses allow poeple who want
to use cathedral approaches do so without signing up for
the DRM-DMCA gestapo clauses that they could use.

Cathedral licenses that are more liberal than simple
All Rights Reserved are a good thing.
> Those people should be using ND, then.  That would make
their
> no-commons intent clear.

But if they want to allow fanfiction and similar derivative
works, they just don't want anyone to charge money for it,
CC-NC is exactly what works.

> But you're wrong -- artists are in fact using NC in a
false hope that the
> collaborative magic will help them. Creative Commons is
contributing
> to this fallacy.

I'd have to say that this is the first time I've heard
anyone say they expected a collaborative, commons-like
project to spring forth from their CC-NC licensed work.

But I don't get out much.

> Artists using CC-By-NC-SA, in particular, are the ones
I'm interested in,
> and they do exist.  They are indeed fence-hangers on
the NC/SA line,
> and I hate to say this, but I have both theoretical and
empirical reasons
> to believe that as things stand, they mostly don't
shift to the SA side,
> but to the NC side.  So SA loses content it might
otherwise get.

Way back when CC was first starting it's licenses,
I was adamant that ShareAlike not be combinable with
any other license, for the very reason that ShareAlike
implies a commons and NonCommercial is the antithesis
of a commons.

I don't have a problem with CC-NC but I do have a problem
with CC-NC-SA. If anyone is using CC-NC-SA, they may as
well switch to CC-NC because there is no share-aliking
that will occur on any "commons" sort of scale
that would
need ShareAlike to protect it.

If you want to get rid of a license, get rid of that
combination that is CC-NC-SA.

-- 
Bounty Hunters: Metaphors for Fair IP laws
http://www.gre
gbond.com/bountyhunters/
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

On 5/31/06, Terry Hancock <hancockanansispaceworks.com>
wrote:
> Greg bond wrote:
> >  I suppose if you have a project that has few
contributers to begin
> >  with, that doesn't chunk well, is generally made
by individuals doing
> >  a lot of Cathedral work and then submitting it,
then the Sunset
> >  license model fits the project terrain. But I
wouldnt be convinced
> >  that the thing would go exothermic and become
self-sustaining.
>
> This only needs to be true at the beginning, and in my
experience,
> it often is (many big projects need a huge investment
at the beginning,
> before they can shift to a 'bazaar' production mode).

Yes. This morning on the commute to work, the idea of using
a sunset approach to a certain niche of projects could
possibly
modify the terrain on which it's built. The specific
project that
came to mind was "Elephant Dreams".

Projects that release older versions of software GNU-GPL,
but hold the latest version ARR and sell it to those who
want
the latest version, take advantage of the natural terrain
that old software is buggier than new, and new software
also has new features than old, making new software
valuable. The old version of the software works as a
loss leader for the project, giving away free samples,
but also leveraging the advantages that comes with
being part of the GNU-GPL space, namely wider
distribution and recognition.

So, for a software project that wants to have a small
team working long hours to create it, software versions
are a natural dividing point to have gnu-gpl on the old
versions and still make money on the new.

A movie project could be built by a smallish team working
long hours (because it isn't chunkable), but there isn't
a natural boundary for versioning that makes a new
version better than an older version. (You could do
something like Red Versus Blue, where you're putting
out shorts every week, and then sell a subscription, but
if you just have one movie, you're sort of screwed there)

But were the project team to commit to a sunset license
upfront, they could at least get some leverage that would
allow them to make money on sales for a period, then
release the work to CC-SA or something.

But do you need a license to make that commitment?

I still think that were CC-Sunset to be made available,
a lot of authors who had contributed to CC-SA would
switch to CC-Sunset. And I think that's a very bad
outcome.

The benefit of CC-Sunset seems to be only for
those niche projects that can't get started any other
way. And once it did switch to CC-SA, I wonder
how much the availability of CC-Sunset would
pull potential contributers away from the niche project
as they try to do their own Sunset thing.

And I'm not convinced that CC should just
try it and see how it works.
If a lousy license is released, it can be bad
publicity and a bad rap for liberal licensing
schemes in general.

I think that for now, I would suggest that some
niche project that can't figure out how to get
a working commons and needs a seed project
try committing to doing their own sunset agreement.

If it pans out, great, if not, well, then I'm not sure
how putting the CC name on it would make it work.

> Let me clarify what I was proposing, especially since I
made references
> to other methods.
>
> The "Sunset" I propose would cause a work
to becom CC-By-SA (or
> CC-By) after the sunset.  At that point, derivative
works would have
> to be released under the CC-By-SA (technically this
isn't *quite* true,
> because you could still use the CC-By-NC-SA license
that you originally
> received, but it will become so the minute anyone adds
anything to
> it under the CC-By-SA).
>
> I'm uncertain whether, in fact, the sunset itself
should be "shared alike"
> so that contributions under the original NC license
would automatically
> have the sunset applied, nor whether the Sunset should
be absolutely
> indexed to the time of publication of the original
work, or to the time
> of the contribution.  Those details would be pretty
important, and ought
> to be worked out (yet another reason why it *ought* to
be a license
> module, and not up to the artist to figure out).
>
> I also imagine more of a "feeder" use-case
-- the works to which
> a sunset NC work would be contributed would generally
be either
> "collective" or
"transformative" works. It's not so much that a
song
> would go from NC marketing to SA collaboration *on the
song*, but
> rather that the NC marketed work would become material
to be used
> in collaboration on larger collections of music, or in
games, movies,
> or other works in which music is only a part of the
work.
>
> In fact, if there were any legal way to do it, I
might've imagined trying
> to make an alternative to NC that would allow
"collective" or
> "transformative" works to be used freely
(including commercially), but
> not for the work to be used whole and as itself.
Unfortunately, this
> would make for an even stickier definition, and there
are certain
> cases artists would likely object to (e.g. song gets
used as an advertising
> 'jingle').
>
> Of course, the artist could explicitly agree to those
kinds of uses,
> but the whole point of a free commons is that
innovation is spurred
> by eliminateing those kinds of "transactional
costs" (and affiliated
> risks).
>
>
> --
> Terry Hancock (hancockAnansiSpaceworks.com)
> Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpac
eworks.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

Quoting Greg bond <teloscorbingmail.com>:

> Yes. This morning on the commute to work, the idea of
using
> a sunset approach to a certain niche of projects could
possibly
> modify the terrain on which it's built. The specific
project that
> came to mind was "Elephant Dreams".

Elephants dream was paid for by pre-sales (effectively SPP)
and is now 
available
BY as a torrent.

I believe that a sunset clause would have killed interest
and pre-sales. The
project would not have happened. Sunset is bad for people
who use it, as they
create uncertainty around their own sales. People will just
wait for the
sunset.

That said it might be interesting to apply a sunset to the
angels project, as
that seems to want to be NC at the moment.

> So, for a software project that wants to have a small
> team working long hours to create it, software versions
> are a natural dividing point to have gnu-gpl on the old
> versions and still make money on the new.

As Eric Raymond (I can't believe I'm quoting him
positively  ) points
out,
most software is written in-house, not for external sales.
Money is not made
directly on it.

> A movie project could be built by a smallish team
working
> long hours (because it isn't chunkable),

Like Elephants Dream. They worked very long hours I believe.


But movies are chunkable. The average blockbuster is now
rendered by a 
number of
different effects houses. The script is derived multiple
times before 
shooting.
And actors need never meet. I'm not saying this is a good
way of doing things,
but it is chunked. 

> but there isn't
> a natural boundary for versioning that makes a new
> version better than an older version.

They could get some money to fix the character animation.
I'd pay for that.

> (You could do
> something like Red Versus Blue, where you're putting
> out shorts every week, and then sell a subscription,
but
> if you just have one movie, you're sort of screwed
there)

Back to the old Flash Gordon shorts then. Yay! 

> I still think that were CC-Sunset to be made available,
> a lot of authors who had contributed to CC-SA would
> switch to CC-Sunset. And I think that's a very bad
> outcome.

Yes.

> The benefit of CC-Sunset seems to be only for
> those niche projects that can't get started any other
> way. And once it did switch to CC-SA, I wonder
> how much the availability of CC-Sunset would
> pull potential contributers away from the niche project
> as they try to do their own Sunset thing.

Yes, it is a licensing solution to a perceptual problem.

> And I'm not convinced that CC should just
> try it and see how it works.
> If a lousy license is released, it can be bad
> publicity and a bad rap for liberal licensing
> schemes in general.

Absolutely.

Incidentally,:

http://geekz.co.uk/l
ovesraymond/

especially:

http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/archive/show-them-the-
code



- Rob.

_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

On 5/31/06, robrobmyers.org <robrobmyers.org> wrote:
> Quoting Greg bond <teloscorbingmail.com>:
>
> > Yes. This morning on the commute to work, the idea
of using
> > a sunset approach to a certain niche of projects
could possibly
> > modify the terrain on which it's built. The
specific project that
> > came to mind was "Elephant Dreams".
>
> Elephants dream was paid for by pre-sales (effectively
SPP)
> and is now available BY as a torrent. I believe that a
sunset clause
> would have killed interest and pre-sales.

I did mention I'd like to see a sunset license tried on the
the
other side of a blast-door first, didn't I? If it blows up
in someone's
face, which I'm not entirely convinced that it wouldn't,
I'd rather not
be pulling shrapnel out of CC for the next few years, that
and end
up walking with a limp.

> The project would not have happened. Sunset is bad for
people who
> use it, as they create uncertainty around their own
sales. People will
> just wait for the sunset.

Well, I think some software businesses GPL the old versions
of code,
but you have to pay to get the latest rev, so the idea seems
to be workable,
I just question whether implementing an artificial barrier
via a sunset
will have the same effect that comes naturally from software
revisions.

Some people will just wait for the current version of the
software to
get released GPL rather than pay for it. But that doesn't
mean that
you couldn't stilll make an income on the people who are
willing ot pay.

> most software is written in-house, not for external
sales.
> Money is not made directly on it.

I also believe I said this would be a niche thing, right?

> But movies are chunkable. The average blockbuster is
now
> rendered by a number of different effects houses. The
script
> is derived multiple times before shooting.  And actors
need
> never meet. I'm not saying this is a good way of doing
things,
> but it is chunked. 

Yes, yes. When I use a word, it means exactly what I want it
to mean. And when I say "chunkable", I mean
chunkable to the
point that a complete newbie to the project could surf to
the site,
find something valuable (entertaining) to them, and then see
an
"edit" button, and spend all of two minutes
adding some improvement
to the project that would be equivalent to two minutes of
contribution
by the most experienced editor. And have none of that two
minutes
be lost by overhead trying to integrate it into the project.

Wikipedia is chunkable. Grandma could go to an article about
knitting because she wants to learn something about
knitting,
and then notice a spelling error and fix it in less than a
minute.
No overhead is involved rolling this contribution into the
project.

Maybe chunkable isnt the right word, but it's all I got so
far.
It basically means a project that fails to follow the
mythical
man-month that inter-person communication/overhead goes
exponential as you add people to the project. That overhead
remains relatively constant regardless of the number of
people
because the project requires little or not communication and
coordination.

And if you want a hundred thousand people all contributing
one hour's worth of work to your project and end up with
a 90,000 hour result (10 percent overhead), then you need
to figure out how to make the project chunkable or
(insert better terminology here)

> > but there isn't a natural boundary for versioning
that makes a
> > new version better than an older version.
>
> They could get some money to fix the character
animation.
> I'd pay for that.

Yeah, I don't know. some people would pay for a re-released
version
of an old disney cartoon with the images cleaned up and
recolored.
Maybe it translates.  I did purchase a leather bound copy of
Hitchhiker's guide even though I owned the individual
paperbacks.

> Back to the old Flash Gordon shorts then. Yay! 

We showed a Flash short at my old university
in the main movie theater before every main attraction.
Imagine my surprise when the first short started
and I saw the Star Wars crawl of text and thought,
HEY! But! You! He! How! What!
After that initial shock, they were actually entertaining
in their own way.

> Yes, it is a licensing solution to a perceptual
problem.

Well, there may be a real problem that is preventing
a project from succeeding as a simple commons model,
such as a lack of chunkability. but I would say that
licenses don't fix those problems.

Licenses don't change the terrain.

> http://geekz.co.uk/l
ovesraymond/

I've been out of the loop for a bit, apparently.
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

On Wednesday 31 May 2006 11:57 am, robrobmyers.org wrote:
> Quoting Greg bond <teloscorbingmail.com>:
> > Yes. This morning on the commute to work, the idea
of using
> > a sunset approach to a certain niche of projects
could possibly
> > modify the terrain on which it's built. The
specific project that
> > came to mind was "Elephant Dreams".
>
> Elephants dream was paid for by pre-sales (effectively
SPP) and is now
> available
> BY as a torrent.
>
> I believe that a sunset clause would have killed
interest and pre-sales.
> The project would not have happened. Sunset is bad for
people who use it,
> as they create uncertainty around their own sales.
People will just wait
> for the sunset.
>
> That said it might be interesting to apply a sunset to
the angels project,
> as that seems to want to be NC at the moment.
>
> > So, for a software project that wants to have a
small
> > team working long hours to create it, software
versions
> > are a natural dividing point to have gnu-gpl on
the old
> > versions and still make money on the new.
>
> As Eric Raymond (I can't believe I'm quoting him
positively  ) points
> out, most software is written in-house, not for
external sales. Money is
> not made directly on it.
>
> > A movie project could be built by a smallish team
working
> > long hours (because it isn't chunkable),
>
> Like Elephants Dream. They worked very long hours I
believe. 
>
> But movies are chunkable. The average blockbuster is
now rendered by a
> number of
> different effects houses. The script is derived
multiple times before
> shooting.
> And actors need never meet. I'm not saying this is a
good way of doing
> things, but it is chunked. 
>
> > but there isn't
> > a natural boundary for versioning that makes a new
> > version better than an older version.
>
> They could get some money to fix the character
animation. I'd pay for that.
>
> > (You could do
> > something like Red Versus Blue, where you're
putting
> > out shorts every week, and then sell a
subscription, but
> > if you just have one movie, you're sort of
screwed there)
>
> Back to the old Flash Gordon shorts then. Yay! 

I just watched a show on PBS the other night with Robert
Altman and Garrisone 
Keillor being interviewed about a movie they made. IMDB
shows it is probably 
"A Prairie Home Companion"

http://www.imdb.
com/title/tt0420087/

I think it was Altman who said they shot the whole thing in
twenty some days.

I am sure many non-professional theatre groups have people
put in that kind of 
time for free.

You might not be able to make block busters, but if you
picked the right 
scripts, I bet you could make feature films for release
BY-SA.

Also see:

http://www.openbusiness.cc/2006/05/16/
just-do-it-a-message-from-nollywood/
http://www.openbusiness.cc/2006/01/31/sms
-sugar-man-the-future-is-here/

And how much time and money do people spend on their
hobbies? Can we turn the 
creation of copyleft art into a hobby?

>
> > I still think that were CC-Sunset to be made
available,
> > a lot of authors who had contributed to CC-SA
would
> > switch to CC-Sunset. And I think that's a very
bad
> > outcome.
>
> Yes.
>
> > The benefit of CC-Sunset seems to be only for
> > those niche projects that can't get started any
other
> > way. And once it did switch to CC-SA, I wonder
> > how much the availability of CC-Sunset would
> > pull potential contributers away from the niche
project
> > as they try to do their own Sunset thing.
>
> Yes, it is a licensing solution to a perceptual
problem.
>
> > And I'm not convinced that CC should just
> > try it and see how it works.
> > If a lousy license is released, it can be bad
> > publicity and a bad rap for liberal licensing
> > schemes in general.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> Incidentally,:
>
> http://geekz.co.uk/l
ovesraymond/
>
> especially:
>
> http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/archive/show-them-the-
code
>
> 
>
> - Rob.
>
all the best,

drew
-- 
http://www.ourmed
ia.org/node/145261
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
http://www.ourmedi
a.org/user/17145

_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community