Hello Keith, You read the article too fast. Coke has nothing to do with it. It is an actual product metaphor for the process being used by Linux and several other groups. I think we can find all kinds of similarities in the world as we can with all of our discussions. I've done the "giveback" for years because of my beliefs from my culture. Artists have done the same with the resultant problem of "free riders" never giving back to the original artist givers (the economic "Public Goods" problem). So I would suggest you drop the filter from the former books and check it out again. Thanks for looking at it to begin with. Thoughts that come "out of left field" that do not relate to prior discussions are often misunderstood at first. I'm not claiming that this is original, just that it is out there and about the future of work, so I tossed it into the ring in case the list hadn't discussed it already. It might even become a "teapot tempest."
Ray Evans Harrell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 3:05 AM Subject: Copyleft > 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] > _________________________________________________ >
