Slashdot Mirror
Who Owns Dmoz?
C. Adam Kuether asks: "I like the concept of the open directory project
and am considering joining the effort and contributing my bit to
organizing the Web.
I am concerned about the ownership rights to this compilation. The useage agreements seem reasonable enough now, but what assurance is there that this work will not become just another asset of the Time/Warner/AOL (read Netscape) media empire?
Could this project convert to a legally enforceable open and free use license? Are the existing open content licenses practical? "
Maybe they'll put up banner ads and make some money off all your hard work.
2) Why are you being abusive? I'd wager I work a lot harder than you. And you appear to be the wanker in this exchange, because...
3) Like so many on Slashdot, you can't offer information, or even a coherent arguement, so you resort to name-calling and abuse. In person, you would be scorned for that. But here at Slashdot, you have found a home. Here you can spout off in ad hominem attacks and mindless, uninformed paranoia, and you'll often get moderated up for it. I'm sick of this and so...
4) It's time to take back Slashdot from people like you! I remember a couple of years ago, before accounts and moderation, when smart folks used to post intelligent arguements. There is no place here for your ad hominem attacks! Come back and post when you've read about the issues and have become informed.
I don't quite get why everyone is so up in arms over this. The solution is just so damned simple. Do not do anything that involves other people. You don't want your time to be wasted? Don't submit links to any search engine, usenet post, cddb, etc. Then there is nothing from the sweat of your brow for them to make money off of.
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...
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
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.
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!
Life is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
William Shakespeare
What about the other part of this question: "Are the existing open content licenses practical?"
It was actually a funkiness with the date. Sharp-eyed readers might have noticed that the story originally appeared with no date at all, because it had managed to be entered into the system with a date of April 31, 2000. This caused some weirdness, the story date was reset to be May 1, 2000.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Female Prison Rape in NY
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.
Female Prison Rape in NY
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)
Yeah I think its hilarious. I applied to be an editor for DMOZ a while ago. I filled in the form, found 8 websites they did not have listed, wrote original descriptions for them, and posted the results. They rejected me though, apparently because they thought I was not qualified.
I am in fact the editor for Maplesquare - A Canadian directory of websites (and probably the largest Canadian-owned and operated one at that). As well I am a programmer for Spaceref.com, doing some backend administration stuff.
But am I qualified to volunteer my time to work on DMOZ? Evidently not. Oh, well, it gives me more time to write code.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
I applied for a position in the PHP programming language category. I am a PHP programmer, and use it on a daily basis. I supplied 8 sites on the subject which were not listed in the directory under that category. All of the sites were directly related to PHP programming - many of them were well known sites that should be listed if that category of the directory was to be of any use to visitors.
I am not sure about what you mean by "competitors" - unless you are assuming I applied to edit the category on Canadian search engines/Directories - which I did not. Certainly if I had been editing a category which directly affected my work position I would have listed our competitors. The point of becoming an editor was to help the internet population as a whole - to give back to the community so to speak - not to advance my company or any such thing. I understand that this does happen, and that they might wish to avoid those sorts of situations. That is why I did not volunteer for that sort of category. I did not want to be rejected because someone perceived the potential for abuse as a cause to reject my application.
At the time I was somewhat miffed I admit, now I am just blase about it. I made the effort to volunteer - if they are stupid enough to reject my help then what can I do? Go on to other projects I suppose, its not like I have any free time anyways - the moment I finish one project I take up another.
I should mention that in addition to my listed employment activities, I also maintain a directory of my own as a hobby - http://www.omphalos.net. I suppose I have directories on the brain.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
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.
Richy C.
--
A more general question: Should people care who their startups/web sites get sold to? Is it moral to sell to just anyone?
When I started GeekPress, I wasn't opposed to at some later point selling to the highest bidder, whoever that would be. But as the site has grown, I've gotten fairly attached to it. I'm not sure under what circumstances and to whom I would be willing to sell it at this point.
The meat of the question: How much would Microsoft have to pay for your web site?
-- Diana Hsieh
-- Diana Hsieh
GeekPress: The Weirder Side of Tech News
If you're looking for examples of how something open can turn into something closed, just check the whole CDDB mess. Mirrors and a GNU license aren't enough to protect you when suits get in the way.
Just keep an eye on the licensing terms. If they start to mutate to the point where you think there should be a schism, take the last good version and set out on your own. But until that happens, why not follow the leader?
-Jason, posting AC because of my job.
YES! This is in the License FAQ. Please read it. If the original poster had, this discussion would not even be taking place.
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...)
IAAL,BIANLY
From the Ask Slashdot:
I am concerned about the ownership rights to this compilation. The useage agreements seem reasonable enough now, but what assurance is there that this work will not become just another asset of the Time/Warner/AOL (read Netscape) media empire?
Your post:
Is this really the right place to be asking this? Maybe you could just read the license instead.
Okay, I don't want to sound like an asshole but "What does your post have to do with the question?". The original poster is worried about how possible it would be for AOL, which has a liberal open content license with respect to dmoz currently, to decide to start exerting ownership rights and using proprietary practices with the dmoz project?
This is a very valid question and here's my answer. It is very possible for AOL to change the licensing agreements and become a ball buster with the dmoz project. Look no further than CDDB which changed it's license after being bought out by corporate interests and becoming a big enough entity. Of course, the solution to this is for there to be several such open services so that even if 1 of them becomes corrupted by greed the others will flourish and take it's place (like CD Index or FreeCDDB are replacements for CDDB).
The original poster also asks about Open Content Licenses and since I just read 30 posts and none of them mentioned this I'll also try to answer this question.
As to whether Open Content Licenses are practical, I say Yes, after all the dmoz project's license has proved this.
Also, given the directory license, you could (and in fact someone should) archive the project as insurance - if the terms change, you can continue the project under the old terms.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
If AOL were to start to misuse DMoz, then it would be possible (not
easy, the code for the ODP is closed source) to start a new volunteer
project based on these logs.
It may worth signing up just to be privvy to the arguments going on in
the editors fora around the whole openness/AOL controversy... Take
care on your application, though: about 90% of applications are
rejected.
Charles (http://achilles.bu.edu/cas)