Slashdot Mirror

This will include the opportunity to register for free listings in the Netscape Business Directory, which will include data from NSI.

Umm, maybe I've been living under a rock, but WTF is the Netscape Business Directory?

If it is their Business "channel", that is merely a slick repackaging of the Open Directory Project. There is no fee to submit URLs to the ODP. As far as I know, Netscape doesn't charge a fee to keep sites listed in ODP's Business section when Netscape repackages the data.

Or is this perhaps a future service? The utility of a FREE listing in something promised Real Soon Now is unknown. Could turn out to be vapor, for all we know. Or a vehicle that no self-respecting person would use anyway.

• Home Director, by Home Director, Inc. is a nifty set of tools much like X10's.
• HomeToys Home Automation Links many links to various products having to do with home automation -- even has some things on voice recognition.
• Linux Home Automation
• DMOZ's Home Automation Section
• There are many more, so I'll just point you to Google (Home Automation Search)

Having looked at it a bit more, oneMission doesn't seem like that great a directory. It's been around for a while (since at least January 1999), and yet it's tiny with very few links. The signup page states that "links to pages that may be harmful to children or that contain violence of any kind" are forbidden, as are "links to pages that would constitute a violation of any law, regulation, rule or custom" -- yet oneMission is littered with adult links, spam, etc. Maybe if more people participated it would begin to grow into a decent directory, but as it stands now it's just crap.

Disclaimer: Yes, I am an ODP editor, but any opinions above are mine alone.

According to the ODP Guidelines, inactive accounts expire after three months.

If you trace it back all the way, yes, AOL/Time-Warner does own dmoz. The project is actually owned by Netscape, which in turn is owned by AOL/Time-Warner. But don't forget, AOL/Time-Warner also owns ICQ and a helluva lot of other things. Some people who are already editors have expressed dismay upon realizing that they are -- as they put it -- "working for the man" but the majority of editors are working for the good of the project. (And yes, I am a dmoz editor.)

> AOL/Time Warner has owned dmoz from the beginning.
Not quite true, when ODP started (just under 2 years ago) it was totally independent. After around 9 months, it was then sold to Netscape as it fitted in with their 'open software' system. AOL then brought Netscape in July last year.
For those of you who must know, dmoz stands for directory.mozilla.org - and, yes, you can reach dmoz.org via the full URL of directory.mozilla.org URL.
ODP is an TLA for 'Open Directory Project'.

Richy C.
--

This means that it is impractical for me to dump dmoz.org, although it would surely be reasonable for someone with a T1 to do a mirror on, say, a weekly basis.

I'd think archiving it would be wise anyways; it guards against various risks, not merely a change of AOL policy.

It guards against all sorts of outages, whether chosen ( e.g. - license change) or not (fire in the server room).

I would expect the same to be true for VA Linux Systems' SourceForge ; it would be a good thing for people interested in particular projects to do regular CVS archive retrievals so that if an asteroid strikes the Silly Valley, there may be copies of the code elsewhere.

Herein lies my skepticism about SourceForge; I'm not overly worried about them "taking things proprietary," but am rather a bit paranoid about backup procedures. In particular, the lack of visibility of policy on the subject. Maybe I just haven't looked hard enough...

> [Description of what was in all caps?]
Descriptions of the sites in your category

> I was an editor long before Netscape or AOL came into the picture.
Same here - since the Gnuhoo days (but only just - around three days later it changed to NewHoo).

> Your amended "editors guidlines" were never pointed out clearly, and I did follow the guidelines that I signed up under several years ago.
The editors guidelines have always existed and have always had a link from the editor dashboard. IIRC details of them were also sent out in the 'welcome email' (I can't confirm that as I haven't got access to my email box). The guidelines have always been 'no' against descriptions and titles in capitals - after all it is common sense.
'Signed up under several years ago' - ODP isn't even two years old yet BTW...

> If you want to act like this - fine - bureaucratic arrogance solves zip
I'm only stating facts that can be confirmed.

> Unfortunately, the open, cool thing ODP started out to be has become just another arm of a bureacratic hydra
Yes, it is 'another arm of a bureacratic hydra', but it is still 'cool' - as around 5,000 active editors will confirm. It has changed quite a bit from when it started, I agree, but for the better. Instead of quanity we are now aiming directly for quality - ODP is already bigger than Yahoo! and we want it to be much much better.

> But, hey, there's a ton of other search engines to choose from.
True, and quite a number of those are using ODP's content. Google, HotBot (who was using it before the Netscape purchase), Altavista and many more.

> On a personal note, if you AOL guys
I don't use AOL at all, I've never even tried a free trial, I don't work for them and if it wasn't for the fact they brought Netscape I still would have nothing to do with them. I have found that they are trying to keep Netscape (and therefore ODP) at an arms length and trying not to effect it at all. Saying that, they have paid for at least 2 server upgrades so... :)

> ad simply pointed out the fact that I hadn't followed your new "editors guidlines"
I can't comment on this case specifically as it was too long in the past to look at your editor profile and find out the reason. Profiles are deleted after around 3 months of inactivity.

> I would have been happy to comply
The point is that you should have been complying with the current guidelines anyway.

> (after I check Google and Yahoo! for the latest paramotor info)
Feel free, editors don't (or shouldn't) care if the data gets used by a million users or none at all. I personally have paid work for a rival directory (UK based), but I still do volunteer work on ODP as I enjoy it, it has a good community and is fun.
Google is using ODP data now BTW.

There is code for ODP like servers out there: POD comes to mind, amongst other tools that can easily be found.

But recreating a new system to allow editors to work on the directory is much harder, and I would be somewhat happier if that kind of forking was made easier. More in line with what ESR said about making forking easier being the best insurance against proprietary abuse. So: liberate the server source!

Charles (editor cas)

There is code for ODP like servers out there: POD comes to mind, amongst other tools that can easily be found.

But recreating a new system to allow editors to work on the directory is much harder, and I would be somewhat happier if that kind of forking was made easier. More in line with what ESR said about making forking easier being the best insurance against proprietary abuse. So: liberate the server source!

Charles (editor cas)

There is code for ODP like servers out there: POD comes to mind, amongst other tools that can easily be found.

But recreating a new system to allow editors to work on the directory is much harder, and I would be somewhat happier if that kind of forking was made easier. More in line with what ESR said about making forking easier being the best insurance against proprietary abuse. So: liberate the server source!

Charles (editor cas)

Examining the logs for that category, I noticed an editor 'jamesewing' (which I would guess the above poster was).

I've been unable to find out why the editor was removed, but last edit by that editor in that category was on the 7/Jun/1999 13:51:57 - three months AFTER the AOL purchase of Netscape (who 'brought' ODP many many months before).

Amendment: I've just viewed the edit logs of one of the sites, and a few reasons shoot out at me: Descripton was in ALL CAPS (a big no no in the entire internet, not just ODP) and had non-english sites in an 'English only' category (German sites should go in the World/ hierarchy). Same with a Swedish site.

Basically, this editor got thrown out for not following the editors guidelines.

I would highly encourage anyone who is expert and enthusiastic about a subject, and is literate and web-literate (and who is not just going to promote their own site!) to apply.. We even have a growing selection of non-English and Regional categories. As it says, "for just a few minutes of your time you can help make the Web a better place".

I would highly encourage anyone who is expert and enthusiastic about a subject, and is literate and web-literate (and who is not just going to promote their own site!) to apply.. We even have a growing selection of non-English and Regional categories. As it says, "for just a few minutes of your time you can help make the Web a better place".

I would highly encourage anyone who is expert and enthusiastic about a subject, and is literate and web-literate (and who is not just going to promote their own site!) to apply.. We even have a growing selection of non-English and Regional categories. As it says, "for just a few minutes of your time you can help make the Web a better place".

The original poster asked: Could this project convert to a legally enforceable open and free use license?. But it already is under an Open Content license!

Basically the ownership rights are irrelevant. All the license requires you to do is link back to http://dmoz.org using the supplied "Become an Editor" graphic. If you do that, you can modify, republish, sell, or do anything to the data you like. (IANAL).

As for whether corporate influences will have an effect on the impartiality of the directory - let's get real here. Of course they will. But (A) if it gets really bad, it can be forked, and (B) there's been surprisingly little interference from on high. Staff have a good "hands-free" approach on the whole. I say this as a "meta editor" (name greenrd - check here for proof) who has been with volunteering with the ODP for 18 months.

The original poster asked: Could this project convert to a legally enforceable open and free use license?. But it already is under an Open Content license!

Basically the ownership rights are irrelevant. All the license requires you to do is link back to http://dmoz.org using the supplied "Become an Editor" graphic. If you do that, you can modify, republish, sell, or do anything to the data you like. (IANAL).

As for whether corporate influences will have an effect on the impartiality of the directory - let's get real here. Of course they will. But (A) if it gets really bad, it can be forked, and (B) there's been surprisingly little interference from on high. Staff have a good "hands-free" approach on the whole. I say this as a "meta editor" (name greenrd - check here for proof) who has been with volunteering with the ODP for 18 months.

• License FAQ
• The Open Directory's Open Directory categories (everything you ever wanted to know about the Open Directory but were afraid to ask).

• License FAQ
• The Open Directory's Open Directory categories (everything you ever wanted to know about the Open Directory but were afraid to ask).

I was one of the original category editors when the "Open Directory" (as it was first called) started. (You can still check out my definitive Paramotor category here :-).

When AOL purchased it, I suddenly found my directory editor rights cancelled and my category listed as "needing an editor". I contacted the AOL/dmoz.org folks several times asking to be allowed back in to the category I created and worked so hard on, but to no avail. What a waste.

IMHO, these guys are the Internet equivalent of a lumbering Brontosaurus. They trample lots of good stuff in endless pursuit of the mediocre and Joe Average's $9.95 monthly check!

Basically, staff agreed with meta-editors (who are editors who 'edit' editors - ie give them extra editing permissions, recommend them for 'promotion etc), editalls and editors, that if AOL/Netscape/Other were to either try and place adverts on the editing site (dmoz.org - we don't care if our 'downstream users' put adverts on their site or not), or stop issuing RDF dumps or similar then we would take a copy of the most recent RDF dumps that we have (and believe me, many many editors take regular copies for their own usage) and re-start the project somewhere else.

It's only taken less than 2 years for the ODP to grow to over 1.7million sites and with less than 1% of dead sites listed (they are all checked every couple of months) I personally think they are doing better than Yahoo!.

Okay, like all things ODP will have people that are 'critical' about what it is, but many many more people like it.

Basically, staff agreed with meta-editors (who are editors who 'edit' editors - ie give them extra editing permissions, recommend them for 'promotion etc), editalls and editors, that if AOL/Netscape/Other were to either try and place adverts on the editing site (dmoz.org - we don't care if our 'downstream users' put adverts on their site or not), or stop issuing RDF dumps or similar then we would take a copy of the most recent RDF dumps that we have (and believe me, many many editors take regular copies for their own usage) and re-start the project somewhere else.

It's only taken less than 2 years for the ODP to grow to over 1.7million sites and with less than 1% of dead sites listed (they are all checked every couple of months) I personally think they are doing better than Yahoo!.

Okay, like all things ODP will have people that are 'critical' about what it is, but many many more people like it.

Basically, staff agreed with meta-editors (who are editors who 'edit' editors - ie give them extra editing permissions, recommend them for 'promotion etc), editalls and editors, that if AOL/Netscape/Other were to either try and place adverts on the editing site (dmoz.org - we don't care if our 'downstream users' put adverts on their site or not), or stop issuing RDF dumps or similar then we would take a copy of the most recent RDF dumps that we have (and believe me, many many editors take regular copies for their own usage) and re-start the project somewhere else.

It's only taken less than 2 years for the ODP to grow to over 1.7million sites and with less than 1% of dead sites listed (they are all checked every couple of months) I personally think they are doing better than Yahoo!.

Okay, like all things ODP will have people that are 'critical' about what it is, but many many more people like it.

Basically, staff agreed with meta-editors (who are editors who 'edit' editors - ie give them extra editing permissions, recommend them for 'promotion etc), editalls and editors, that if AOL/Netscape/Other were to either try and place adverts on the editing site (dmoz.org - we don't care if our 'downstream users' put adverts on their site or not), or stop issuing RDF dumps or similar then we would take a copy of the most recent RDF dumps that we have (and believe me, many many editors take regular copies for their own usage) and re-start the project somewhere else.

It's only taken less than 2 years for the ODP to grow to over 1.7million sites and with less than 1% of dead sites listed (they are all checked every couple of months) I personally think they are doing better than Yahoo!.

Okay, like all things ODP will have people that are 'critical' about what it is, but many many more people like it.

The actual content created by ODP editors (of which I am one) is 'open content' and can be downloaded and used by anybody. To my knowledge, over 200 sites are now using the data - Hotbot, Altavista and AOL are just some of the 'bigger names. There is actually nothing stopping Yahoo! or Microsoft using the ODP RDF dumps to put the content on their site as long as they follow the licencing conditions (which are basically just acknowledge the source).

The Open Directory Project started life just under 2 years ago as a project by a few people (skrenta, tolles and a couple of others) who just got fed up with Yahoo!'s dead links. So they started a 'Yahoo-like' directory (called 'Gnuhoo') and opened it to volunteer editors. The object of the Project was (and still is) to create the 'ultimate web directory' for use by anybody.

Since it started ODP has been through a number of names changes, from Gnuhoo it was forced to change its name because the people from GNU complained (the editing software isn't open source, only the content is), then it became NewHoo! but when Netscape brought the ODP it thought it best if the name was changed to stop Yahoo! complaining. Then it became 'directory.mozilla.org', but that was a bit of mouthful so it was shortened the the new URL of http://dmoz.org.

If you would like to use the ODP content on your website, there is a whole range of tools to enable you to use the content on your pages - some of them (like P.O.D.) don't even require you to download the huge RDF dumps.

I hope all this has been informative to people, but I stil fail to see the relevance to Slashdot.

The actual content created by ODP editors (of which I am one) is 'open content' and can be downloaded and used by anybody. To my knowledge, over 200 sites are now using the data - Hotbot, Altavista and AOL are just some of the 'bigger names. There is actually nothing stopping Yahoo! or Microsoft using the ODP RDF dumps to put the content on their site as long as they follow the licencing conditions (which are basically just acknowledge the source).

The Open Directory Project started life just under 2 years ago as a project by a few people (skrenta, tolles and a couple of others) who just got fed up with Yahoo!'s dead links. So they started a 'Yahoo-like' directory (called 'Gnuhoo') and opened it to volunteer editors. The object of the Project was (and still is) to create the 'ultimate web directory' for use by anybody.

Since it started ODP has been through a number of names changes, from Gnuhoo it was forced to change its name because the people from GNU complained (the editing software isn't open source, only the content is), then it became NewHoo! but when Netscape brought the ODP it thought it best if the name was changed to stop Yahoo! complaining. Then it became 'directory.mozilla.org', but that was a bit of mouthful so it was shortened the the new URL of http://dmoz.org.

If you would like to use the ODP content on your website, there is a whole range of tools to enable you to use the content on your pages - some of them (like P.O.D.) don't even require you to download the huge RDF dumps.

I hope all this has been informative to people, but I stil fail to see the relevance to Slashdot.

The actual content created by ODP editors (of which I am one) is 'open content' and can be downloaded and used by anybody. To my knowledge, over 200 sites are now using the data - Hotbot, Altavista and AOL are just some of the 'bigger names. There is actually nothing stopping Yahoo! or Microsoft using the ODP RDF dumps to put the content on their site as long as they follow the licencing conditions (which are basically just acknowledge the source).

The Open Directory Project started life just under 2 years ago as a project by a few people (skrenta, tolles and a couple of others) who just got fed up with Yahoo!'s dead links. So they started a 'Yahoo-like' directory (called 'Gnuhoo') and opened it to volunteer editors. The object of the Project was (and still is) to create the 'ultimate web directory' for use by anybody.

Since it started ODP has been through a number of names changes, from Gnuhoo it was forced to change its name because the people from GNU complained (the editing software isn't open source, only the content is), then it became NewHoo! but when Netscape brought the ODP it thought it best if the name was changed to stop Yahoo! complaining. Then it became 'directory.mozilla.org', but that was a bit of mouthful so it was shortened the the new URL of http://dmoz.org.

If you would like to use the ODP content on your website, there is a whole range of tools to enable you to use the content on your pages - some of them (like P.O.D.) don't even require you to download the huge RDF dumps.

I hope all this has been informative to people, but I stil fail to see the relevance to Slashdot.

What about the other part of this question: "Are the existing open content licenses practical?"

• Are there content licenses other than Open Content?
• Has anyone actually improved on a work under this license?
• Would this license work for the Open Directory Project?

YES! This is in the License FAQ. Please read it. If the original poster had, this discussion would not even be taking place.

You have to go with your gut. Nothing is forever on the Internet. But I don't know how the Open Directory Project could be much clearer that they have no eeeevil intent. You can use the ODP data pretty much as is. You can grab the whole RDF dump and frame it and repackage it with advertising revenue going to you. You can make derivative works. And the FAQ says that your right to do so is perpetual. Even if Netscape discontinues the project. All they ask is that you acknowledge your use of the volunteer editors' work by putting up a small notice inviting people to become editors.

IMHO, the only reason that the ODP was able to get as big as it is, is precisely because it is not commercial. There is no advertising on ODP. There is no fee for licensing. Ordinary netizens can make a difference just by adding links and describing them, in areas of their interest and expertise.

So, if you are a cynic, you will stay away, because it is already owned by AOL/Time Warner, and you can never put your trust in institutions.

But if you have an ounce of idealism left, you'll apply in hopes of making the Net a better place, for as long as this project remains free of corporate agendas, or until your own interest in helping other surfers find the "good stuff" this way wanes.

this appears to be a simple derivative of the NPL. since the netscape public license is classified as an open source license, i'd say that this project is open source too. http://dmoz.org/license.html

Is this really the right place to be asking this? Maybe you could just read the license instead. It's not like it isn't exactly two clicks away from the dmoz frontpage.
~luge(I know it's a slow news day, but c'mon guys...)

Is this really the right place to be asking this? Maybe you could just read the license instead. It's not like it isn't exactly two clicks away from the dmoz frontpage.
~luge(I know it's a slow news day, but c'mon guys...)

Anybody got a source for good replacement switches?

Try Mouser Electronics. They've always been great for me. If that doesn't work for you, there's one other big one I'm familiar with - but the name escapes me.

Also, here's a DMOZ listing for electronics distributors & vendors.

Rather than an attempt at a comprehensive "Ask Jeeves" replacement, perhaps a generic version of the software would be more appropriate. A natural language parser, and natural language query engine, with conversion utilties to go from this format to a variety of backends (RDBMS, maybe LDAP, perhaps even a front-end to commercial/popular search engines).

I think the Open Directory Project does a ot of what you have mentioned; what is missing is the ability to feed it natural language queries and fully structured sentences.

If the idea for a new database/repository were to go forward, a very important aspect would be making it very easy to contribute. Perhaps an API that can be easily embedded in software (something like CDDB does), with a dedicated protocol, and maybe even dedicated server software to collect the information.

darren

PS Why is the "n" silent?

Then I took a closer look at how google worked. It is also moderated, but in the sense that your click-through counts as a vote for the site you searched. My idea would have done that, but with extra "manual" moderation(i.e. if you think that site "Y" belongs higher than position 27 for search "X" you could vote for it) I also would give higher points based on how much a person used and participated.

I'm not so sure I want to do that anymore since google is such a great search engine. If you think this is an idiotic idea, let me know why. If you think its a good idea even considering that we already have google I'd like to know as well.

There would then have to be some law against using a .com address for adult material. (I'm sure that won't fly!)

It might if the IANA or whatever writes it into a domain registration company's TOS.

Who isn't tired of getting stuff like "GENNIFER FLOWERS NAKED!!!!!!!!!" when trying to find a place to order flowers online?

People who use the Google search engine don't have to put up with pr0n spamming the index because Google counts links to the pages. Links from directories like Yahoo! and Open Directory carry a bit more weight because more pages link to them. Here are Google results for florist and flowers. GoogleScout (find similar pages) is your friend.

The directory, created by the Open Directory Project, is Open Content... so anyone can use it for free. And many do. (Including Google.)

Read this article... it gives an introduction to the Open Directory Project.

The directory, created by the Open Directory Project, is Open Content... so anyone can use it for free. And many do. (Including Google.)

Read this article... it gives an introduction to the Open Directory Project.

The directory, created by the Open Directory Project, is Open Content... so anyone can use it for free. And many do. (Including Google.)

Read this article... it gives an introduction to the Open Directory Project.

The directory, created by the Open Directory Project, is Open Content... so anyone can use it for free. And many do. (Including Google.)

Read this article... it gives an introduction to the Open Directory Project.

The directory, created by the Open Directory Project, is Open Content... so anyone can use it for free. And many do. (Including Google.)

Read this article... it gives an introduction to the Open Directory Project.

That said, you can find some nanotech links here:

• * My think tank's Innovation page has links to stories and other related sites.

  * The Open Directory Project has a number of great links here, including a link to the important Foresight Institute.

  * And, of course, there is Ralph Merkle's page.

Good luck. I wish /. had some rule that we would only offer assistance to students who let us read their finished products.

A. Keiper
Washington, D.C.

Or maybe Altavista's just a crappy search engine. Actually...

http://directory.mozilla. org/Computers/Internet/WWW/Anonymous_Surfing/

Does anyone know whether the open directory has this bubbling?

Do I truly hate computers? Not completely, but for devices that are supposed to be so organised, they sure are bundles of discord. The internet runs on standards, yet there is no standard for submitting websites. There is no standard for dropping stale links out of search engines or combing for 404s. This is the part of computers I hate. But at least they get the job done.

It would be far easier to simply search for "cphack" or "cp4hash" and ban those sites.

Yes, but how many mirrors does eg anonymizer.com have?

And why isn't there a blocking category that just says "Information how to circumvent/disable Cyperpatrol"? Then it would be more transparent why these sites are blocked. And the company does not have lame excueses for listing them in every category.

I think it's futile to try to monitor such things with software given the size and variety of the web. The best thing is for parents to take charge and web surf WITH their kids.

I agree. A single company just can't do this job while maintaining high quality also in respect to false positives.
On the other hand, blocking based on self-given PICS labels might be possible. Another approach would be to have a vast majority of web users vote on the classification of sites. So, whenever a user who cares steps on a site s/he believes inappropriate to children, s/he can submit the site to that database and rate it. (Hm, wouldn't that be similar to the Open Directory Project?) Of course, that would have to integrated into the browser.

I don't personally like the idea of censoring either. But as long as a adult user can access whatever s/he like, I don't have a great problem with parents wanting to do that for their children, although I don't think I'd do it myself (but maybe this is just because I don't have children, ask again in 10, 20 years).

Try the Map Server section at dmoz.org for a list o' links.

If you are a developer look at these OGDI specs, and this library for reading shape files which might work well with some of the toolkits listed at freegis.org.

You should also cross post this question to the GRASS (grasslist@baylor.edu) and Remotesensing.org (osrs@remotesensing.org) mailing lists.

cheers,

-matt

They are also serving directory information with search results. Try searching for Linux. It puts suse and redhat in the Computers/Software/Operating_Systems/Linux/Distrib utions category, etc.

Very nice!