The main attribute of Creative Commons I would like to model is the
Accessibility and Ease of Use.
The license is explained in plain, easy-to-understand terms. Adopting
CC licensing is almost effortless. Deciding that CC is what you need,
and committing yourself to releasing work under Creative Commons is a
mental hurdle, not a societal or organizational hurdle. There is no
membership fee to create CC licensed content.
Publishing content under a CC license makes it easier to find -
several tools exist to find Creative Commons photos, music, books,
games etc. Also, those seeking to use (re-use) something that is CC
licensed don't need to ask permission to do 95% of the things you'd
want to do with said content. It fits Alex's meme of "permission". The
barriers to entry are so low that you hardly notice them. However,
those who assume barriers (i.e. the Executive Desk types) won't see it
the same way.
To Matthew's point:
The same can be said of some open source, but I was referencing the
Creative Commons widget when I wrote the post. Many open source
projects are created to "scratch an itch", and once we have several
working examples, sometimes a process or a standard needs to be
created. That's how our community is growing now.
Peace,
Ryan Price
[email protected]
@liberatr
407-484-8528
FloridaCreatives.com
Orlando Happy Hour: Mar 15th @ Crooked Bayou
Next Likemind: Mar 19th @ UrbanThink!
BarCampOrlando.org
Saturday, April 3rd, 9-6 @ Wall St Plaza
Flash Mob Pillow Fight to follow @pillowlando
On Mar 1, 2010, at 5:01 PM, Matthew Wettergreen wrote:
The license idea is in my opinion the best one we have heard for the
direction of the group and of the coworking movement. It reflects
the initial values of coworking of: community, openness,
collaboration, accessibility and sustainability. It does not
undermine the progress we have all made in the coworking world while
still being a firm designation and statement of the work that we
have all contributed. It allows discussion to progress in the same
way that it has now without routing that discussion through
different channels, a governing organization or gatekeepers. It does
not shut down the discussion of the next steps for coworking as a
global movement but puts down one step in a direction that we can
all agree on.
The license, in my interpretation is closer to the GNU public
software license that Alex could be referencing than the CC license
that others have mentioned. Let me say that I am intrigued by the CC
license and think it is also good but let's go back to origins of
the GNU public license: the commons wanted to protect things that
were in the commons because they were created by the commons so that
people who were privately motivated couldn't put a small twist on an
idea and then commercialize all of that work as their own to turn a
profit. It seems to me that the core values of community, openness,
collaboration, accessibility and sustainability are something that
we, the coworking community, "the commons" want people to practice
if they are going to use the name coworking. A visible, transparent
statement (license) that is self-enforced by the community would put
a public face on where we are as a community and an idea at this
point.
This license also seems to avoid the stumbling block for most of the
discussion which is centering on "next steps." One on hand we're not
done with the discussion about next steps. On another hand it's
great that we're even talking about "next" steps because it means
we're in a new phase of the coworking movement, one in which we're
discussing new things beyond how to open and maintain a coworking
space, something that is pretty well worked out by now. Because
there are so many discussions to be had about the direction, strong
decisions in any one way will close, not open further discussion, it
seems that we should progress how we began by solidifying the
origins of the coworking movement as a way to allow for further
discussion until another issue like this comes up.
It's like in the Foundation Trilogy: An empire was formed by key
decisions being made when they had to be, other than that things ran
as they should. Creating a license could be the way to solidify the
second step of coworking and let everything else progress as it
should.
Matthew
Caroline Collective
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 12:24 AM, Alex Hillman <[email protected]
> wrote:
I'm still going to close up the brainstorm (since we've had at least
a couple of good ideas) at 5pm EST today for the funds
redistribution, and will re-post the ideas that I got. If you've got
something specifically related to how funds are collected, and how
the funders are rewarded, today's the day.
But the real reason for this post:
I was doing some digging into my own personal archives, and found an
22 month old post of mine, from back when this list was a mere 1000
people. Ha.
http://dangerouslyawesome.com/2008/06/its-about-giving-back-this-time/
Please read it before continuing this post. If you're not going to
read the whole thing, I'd ask that you consider these excerpts:
When I describe the beauty of the coworking movement to someone, it
goes something like this:
Coworking isn’t really a franchise, but it’s sort of an open source
franchise. I say that in the capacity that there is no monetary buy
in to participate in the community, and yet, you’ve got the
experiences (successes and failures) of everyone before you to work
with. We’ve got a wickedly strong toolbox, and you can have it. At
this stage in the game, with all of the press, you’ve got a very
strong brand and high rate of press visiblity to work with. You can
use whatever you want. It’s here for you. All we ask is that as you
grow, learn, and achieve, you remember where you started and keep us
posted. This isn’t just for us, cuz we’re going to do it too. It’s
for the generations to come, as the movement grows, morphs, and
evolves.
So if it seems a little absurd that I’m freaking out about people
branding themselves as “coworking” and not contributing to the list
(or any visible forum), you see what I’m getting at?
---------------------------------------------
In the case of coworking that I’m trying to illustrate, it’s about
representation.
I’m not asking for a financial buy in to use the brand
“coworking” (if anybody should, it’d be Brad Neuberg, but even he
doesn’t want that from you). The fact that Brad has only ever asked
that his name be attributed as the origin of the word as related to
this movement is key, and I understand his reasoning completely: the
success of the movement that contributed groundwork to is a crucial
part of his C.V., and when he gets around to his next big idea, it’s
important that his attribution in the coworking history books is
present.
Attribution. Linkbacks. A track record for, and of, sharing. This is
all really, really important or else the whole thing risks toppling
in on itself.
-------------------------
What would a coworking license look like? I’m not totally sure yet.
I know I’m not interested in restriction, since that would be
entirely counter to the principles of the movement. I’m just looking
at little things to help enforce reciprocity.
Am I interested in policing such a thing? Of course not.
But if there’s something on paper, misunderstandings can be dealt
with.
--------------------------
And really, all I want is to help give back even a little piece of
what I’ve gotten from this community. As the movement grows, those
expectations need to be set forth clearly.
--------------------------
And since that’s what we want with coworking (more people to
experiment on the model and link back to their inspirations, as well
as provide new inspirations), I think that could be helpful.
I know not everyone thinks about giving back, and if you require
people to, you’ll always be disappointed. That’s the unfortunate
reality. I accept that.
I think we’re lucky to be part of a community where the leeching is
still the less-common situation. But as the movement grows more and
more, the opportunities for exploit increase.
--------------------------
I didn't push the idea at the time, but was more watching patterns
and getting frustrated. Some of those patterns have evolved, and
brought us to where we are today.
I'd like to offer the idea that's more lightweight than the
organizations that have been proposed. The thing we've really been
talking about is ironing out the expectations associated with
coworking, and largely, tying them back to core values somehow. The
problems with organizations are many, and something I'm not
interested in debating here. What I'm curious, legitimately curious
because I don't have enough knowledge to back up successful or
failed models, is the idea of using something like a license to
unify us and set expectations.
Not like a drivers license, but like a software license. One that
encourages sharing, reciprocity, building market value, and
ultimately, more knowledge capital along with the word "coworking"
and its associated ideas.
The downsides to this, of course, are that software licenses
themselves have a bit of a holy war background to them, and that
they're complicated to understand. Such is legal.
The upside is, it addresses some unity and usage with the word
coworking, which we all value enough to have spent the last 3 weeks
discussing a domain and its implications on the list.
I don't know if this idea has legs, and love to open up the floor
for founded discussion.
/ah
indyhall.org
coworking in philadelphia
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Coworking" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/coworking?hl=en
.
--
Matthew Wettergreen, Ph.D
Caroline Collective
Co-Founder // Co-Director
4820 Caroline st // Houston // TX // 77004
http://carolinecollective.cc
Rice University
Engineering and Design for Art and Artifact Conservation (EDAAC)
Program Director
http://edaac.rice.edu
e: [email protected]
w: http://matthewwettergreen.com
c: 713.825.4613
t: @organprinter
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Coworking" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/coworking?hl=en
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Coworking" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/coworking?hl=en.
