Hi Ray, At 19:02 21/04/02 -0400, you wrote: >Did anyone get the article that I sent earlier? No one answered, perhaps >it is old news but I would be interested in a reference if it is. If not, >then what do you think? Here is the article again.
No, we received it OK (see below). My first reaction is that Copyleft (the General Public License) is a terminological and legal nonsense. (The fact that Coca Cola is using it must surely make us suspicious!) But I didn't want to comment on Graham Lawton's article because the whole matter of copyright is something I'm dwelling on at more leisure. Meanwhile, if any FWer is interested in these matters, I recommend two recent books on the subject: "The Future of Ideas: the fate of the commons in a connected world" by Lawrence Lessig (Random House, 2001) "Copyrights and Copywrongs: the rise of intellectual property and how it threatens creativity" by Siva Vaidhyanathan (NYU Press, 2001) Keith >The Great Giveaway > >Good ideas are worth money. So why are hard headed >operators giving them away for free? Join our experiment to find out says >Graham Lawton > >IF YOU'VE BEEN to a computer show in recent months you might have seen >it: a shiny silver drinks can with a ring-pull logo and the words >"opencola" on the side. Inside is a fizzy drink that tastes very much >like Coca-Cola. Or is it Pepsi? > >There's something else written on the can, though, which sets the drink >apart. It says "check out the source at opencola.com". Go to that Web >address and you'll see something that's not available on Coca-Cola's >website, or Pepsi's--the recipe for cola. For the first time ever, you >can make the real thing in your own home. > >OpenCola is the world's first "open source" consumer product. By calling >it open source, its manufacturer is saying that instructions for making >it are freely available. Anybody can make the drink, and anyone can >modify and improve on the recipe as long as they, too, release their >recipe into the public domain. As a way of doing business it's rather >unusual--the Coca-Cola Company doesn't make a habit of giving away >precious commercial secrets. But that's the point. > >OpenCola is the most prominent sign yet that a long-running battle >between rival philosophies in software development has spilt over into >the rest of the world. What started as a technical debate over the best >way to debug computer programs is developing into a political battle over >the ownership of knowledge and how it is used, between those who put >their faith in the free circulation of ideas and those who prefer to >designate them "intellectual property". No one knows what the outcome >will be. But in a world of growing opposition to corporate power, >restrictive intellectual property rights and globalisation, open source >is emerging as a possible alternative, a potentially potent means of >fighting back. And you're helping to test its value right now. > >The open source movement originated in 1984 when computer scientist >Richard Stallman quit his job at MIT and set up the Free Software >Foundation. His aim was to create high-quality software that was freely >available to everybody. Stallman's beef was with commercial companies >that smother their software with patents and copyrights and keep the >source code--the original program, written in a computer language such as >C++--a closely guarded secret. Stallman saw this as damaging. It >generated poor-quality, bug-ridden software. And worse, it choked off the >free flow of ideas. Stallman fretted that if computer scientists could no >longer learn from one another's code, the art of programming would >stagnate (New Scientist, 12 December 1998, p 42). > >Stallman's move resonated round the computer science community and now >there are thousands of similar projects. The star of the movement is >Linux, an operating system created by Finnish student Linus Torvalds in >the early 1990s and installed on around 18 million computers worldwide. > >What sets open source software apart from commercial software is the fact >that it's free, in both the political and the economic sense. If you want >to use a commercial product such as Windows XP or Mac OS X you have to >pay a fee and agree to abide by a licence that stops you from modifying >or sharing the software. But if you want to run Linux or another open >source package, you can do so without paying a penny--although several >companies will sell you the software bundled with support services. You >can also modify the software in any way you choose, copy it and share it >without restrictions. This freedom acts as an open invitation--some say >challenge--to its users to make improvements. As a result, thousands of >volunteers are constantly working on Linux, adding new features and >winkling out bugs. Their contributions are reviewed by a panel and the >best ones are added to Linux. For programmers, the kudos of a successful >contribution is its own reward. The result is a stable, powerful system >that adapts rapidly to technological change. Linux is so successful that >even IBM installs it on the computers it sells. > >To maintain this benign state of affairs, open source software is covered >by a special legal instrument called the General Public License. Instead >of restricting how the software can be used, as a standard software >license does, the GPL--often known as a "copyleft"--grants as much >freedom as possible (see http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html). Software >released under the GPL (or a similar copyleft licence) can be copied, >modified and distributed by anyone, as long as they, too, release it >under a copyleft. That restriction is crucial, because it prevents the >material from being co-opted into later proprietary products. It also >makes open source software different from programs that are merely >distributed free of charge. In FSF's words, the GPL "makes it free and >guarantees it remains free". > >Open source has proved a very successful way of writing software. But it >has also come to embody a political stand--one that values freedom of >expression, mistrusts corporate power, and is uncomfortable with private >ownership of knowledge. It's "a broadly libertarian view of the proper >relationship between individuals and institutions", according to open >source guru Eric Raymond. > >But it's not just software companies that lock knowledge away and release >it only to those prepared to pay. Every time you buy a CD, a book, a copy >of New Scientist, even a can of Coca-Cola, you're forking out for access >to someone else's intellectual property. Your money buys you the right to >listen to, read or consume the contents, but not to rework them, or make >copies and redistribute them. No surprise, then, that people within the >open source movement have asked whether their methods would work on other >products. As yet no one's sure--but plenty of people are trying it. > >Take OpenCola. Although originally intended as a promotional tool to >explain open source software, the drink has taken on a life of its own. >The Toronto-based OpenCola company has become better known for the drink >than the software it was supposed to promote. Laird Brown, the company's >senior strategist, attributes its success to a widespread mistrust of big >corporations and the "proprietary nature of almost everything". A website >selling the stuff has shifted 150,000 cans. Politically minded students >in the US have started mixing up the recipe for parties. > >OpenCola is a happy accident and poses no real threat to Coke or Pepsi, >but elsewhere people are deliberately using the open source model to >challenge entrenched interests. One popular target is the music industry. >At the forefront of the attack is the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a >San Francisco group set up to defend civil liberties in the digital >society. In April of last year, the EFF published a model copyleft called >the Open Audio License (OAL). The idea is to let musicians take advantage >of digital music's properties--ease of copying and distribution--rather >than fighting against them. Musicians who release music under an OAL >consent to their work being freely copied, performed, reworked and >reissued, as long as these new products are released under the same >licence. They can then rely on "viral distribution" to get heard. "If the >people like the music, they will support the artist to ensure the artist >can continue to make music," says Robin Gross of the EFF. > >It's a little early to judge whether the OAL will capture imaginations in >the same way as OpenCola. But it's already clear that some of the >strengths of open source software simply don't apply to music. In >computing, the open source method lets users improve software by >eliminating errors and inefficient bits of code, but it's not obvious how >that might happen with music. In fact, the music is not really "open >source" at all. The files posted on the OAL music website >http://www.openmusicregistry.org so far are all MP3s and Ogg >Vorbises--formats which allow you to listen but not to modify. > >It's also not clear why any mainstream artists would ever choose to >release music under an OAL. Many bands objected to the way Napster >members circulated their music behind their backs, so why would they now >allow unrestricted distribution, or consent to strangers fiddling round >with their music? Sure enough, you're unlikely to have heard of any of >the 20 bands that have posted music on the registry. It's hard to avoid >the conclusion that Open Audio amounts to little more than an opportunity >for obscure artists to put themselves in the shop window. > >The problems with open music, however, haven't put people off trying open >source methods elsewhere. Encyclopedias, for example, look like fertile >ground. Like software, they're collaborative and modular, need regular >upgrading, and improve with peer review. But the first attempt, a free >online reference called Nupedia, hasn't exactly taken off. Two years on, >only 25 of its target 60,000 articles have been completed. "At the >current rate it will never be a large encyclopedia," says editor-in-chief >Larry Sanger. The main problem is that the experts Sanger wants to >recruit to write articles have little incentive to participate. They >don't score academic brownie points in the same way software engineers do >for upgrading Linux, and Nupedia can't pay them. > >It's a problem that's inherent to most open source products: how do you >get people to chip in? Sanger says he's exploring ways to make money out >of Nupedia while preserving the freedom of its content. Banner adverts >are a possibility. But his best hope is that academics start citing >Nupedia articles so authors can earn academic credit. > >There's another possibility: trust the collective goodwill of the open >source community. A year ago, frustrated by the treacle-like progress of >Nupedia, Sanger started another encyclopedia named Wikipedia (the name is >taken from open source Web software called WikiWiki that allows pages to >be edited by anyone on the Web). It's a lot less formal than Nupedia: >anyone can write or edit an article on any topic, which probably explains >the entries on beer and Star Trek. But it also explains its success. >Wikipedia already contains 19,000 articles and is acquiring several >thousand more each month. "People like the idea that knowledge can and >should be freely distributed and developed," says Sanger. Over time, he >reckons, thousands of dabblers should gradually fix any errors and fill >in any gaps in the articles until Wikipedia evolves into an authoritative >encyclopedia with hundreds of thousands of entries. > >Another experiment that's proved its worth is the OpenLaw project at the >Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. Berkman >lawyers specialise in cyberlaw--hacking, copyright, encryption and so >on--and the centre has strong ties with the EFF and the open source >software community. In 1998 faculty member Lawrence Lessig, now at >Stanford Law School, was asked by online publisher Eldritch Press to >mount a legal challenge to US copyright law. Eldritch takes books whose >copyright has expired and publishes them on the Web, but new legislation >to extend copyright from 50 to 70 years after the author's death was >cutting off its supply of new material. Lessig invited law students at >Harvard and elsewhere to help craft legal arguments challenging the new >law on an online forum, which evolved into OpenLaw. > >Normal law firms write arguments the way commercial software companies >write code. Lawyers discuss a case behind closed doors, and although >their final product is released in court, the discussions or "source >code" that produced it remain secret. In contrast, OpenLaw crafts its >arguments in public and releases them under a copyleft. "We deliberately >used free software as a model," says Wendy Selzer, who took over OpenLaw >when Lessig moved to Stanford. Around 50 legal scholars now work on >Eldritch's case, and OpenLaw has taken other cases, too. > >"The gains are much the same as for software," Selzer says. "Hundreds of >people scrutinise the 'code' for bugs, and make suggestions how to fix >it. And people will take underdeveloped parts of the argument, work on >them, then patch them in." Armed with arguments crafted in this way, >OpenLaw has taken Eldritch's case--deemed unwinnable at the outset--right >through the system and is now seeking a hearing in the Supreme Court. > >There are drawbacks, though. The arguments are in the public domain right >from the start, so OpenLaw can't spring a surprise in court. For the same >reason, it can't take on cases where confidentiality is important. But >where there's a strong public interest element, open sourcing has big >advantages. Citizens' rights groups, for example, have taken parts of >OpenLaw's legal arguments and used them elsewhere. "People use them on >letters to Congress, or put them on flyers," Selzer says. > >The open content movement is still at an early stage and it's hard to >predict how far it will spread. "I'm not sure there are other areas where >open source would work," says Sanger. "If there were, we might have >started it ourselves." Eric Raymond has also expressed doubts. In his >much-quoted 1997 essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, he warned against >applying open source methods to other products. "Music and most books are >not like software, because they don't generally need to be debugged or >maintained," he wrote. Without that need, the products gain little from >others' scrutiny and reworking, so there's little benefit in open >sourcing. "I do not want to weaken the winning argument for open sourcing >software by tying it to a potential loser," he wrote. > >But Raymond's views have now shifted subtly. "I'm more willing to admit >that I might talk about areas other than software someday," he told New >Scientist. "But not now." The right time will be once open source >software has won the battle of ideas, he says. He expects that to happen >around 2005. > >And so the experiment goes on. As a contribution to it, New Scientist has >agreed to issue this article under a copyleft. That means you can copy >it, redistribute it, reprint it in whole or in part, and generally play >around with it as long as you, too, release your version under a copyleft >and abide by the other terms and conditions in the licence. We also ask >that you inform us of any use you make of the article, by e-mailing >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >One reason for doing so is that by releasing it under a copyleft, we can >print the recipe for OpenCola without violating its copyleft. If nothing >else, that demonstrates the power of the copyleft to spread itself. But >there's another reason, too: to see what happens. To my knowledge this is >the first magazine article published under a copyleft. Who knows what the >outcome will be? Perhaps the article will disappear without a trace. >Perhaps it will be photocopied, redistributed, re-edited, rewritten, cut >and pasted onto websites, handbills and articles all over the world. I >don't know--but that's the point. It's not up to me any more. The >decision belongs to all of us. > >Further reading: >For a selection of copylefts, see >http://www.eff.org/IP/Open_licenses/open_alternatives.html >The Cathedral and the Bazaar by Eric Raymond is available at >http://tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/ > > >THE INFORMATION IN THIS ARTICLE IS FREE. It may be copied, distributed >and/or modified under the conditions set down in the Design Science >License published by Michael Stutz at http://dsl.org/copyleft/dsl.txt > > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "William B Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 11:39 AM >Subject: Re: Privatizing the Public: Whose agenda? At What Cost? > > >> There was an article in the Tampa Tribune today that the cost of >> privatizing the juvenile detention program in Florida is three times what >> the state employee run program cost. >> >> Also, >> >> http://www.afscme.org/private/crimep03.htm >> >> Bill Ward, President >> International Marketing Services >> http://www.ims7.com >> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > __________________________________________________________ �Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in order to discover if they have something to say.� John D. Barrow _________________________________________________ Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________
