OpenContent Closes Its Doors

meta4 writes "After five years of pioneering the application of open source principles to stuff other than software, OpenContent is closing down. Project Lead David Wiley provides a rationale for the closing on the website, as well as a brief overview of the projects' successes. Wiley has joined Creative Commons as Project Lead for Educational Licensing."

Comments

Shame...

[byolinux]

...but Creative Commons is a useful license, and it's integration with tools like Movable Type meant that this was pretty inevitable, sadly.

Is there a copy?

[Chris_Stankowitz]

Will any of the content still be available anywhere on the web?

Re:Is there a copy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, on the Wayback Machine. ;) The licenses will also stay where they are for archival purposes.

As long as...

[Anonymous Coward]

Freshmeat doesn't closes his doors because Google inserts an "OpenSource" category, everything will be fine.

Re:As long as...

[autechre]

Funny, yes, but please do consider that freshmeat provides features other than a search engine. We edit the descriptions to ensure that they're sensible and (relatively) easy to read, and a human processes each new application or a change to an existing application. We also do have Category Reviews to highlight applications we list for a specific purpose/niche, and other original articles. And projects can announce new releases on the front page in order to get attention (and let existing users know a new release is out, of course [though if you subscribe to a project, you'll get an email]).

You may want to check out http://freshmeat.net/articles/view/495/ for more information on what we provide for users and developers.

Just as he says.

[Surak]

Wiley's closing down Open Content, because he thinks Creative Commons is doing a better job and making his group somewhat obsolete. He's joining Creative Commons, so its not like he's changed his mind or has stopped working on the goals Open Content provided.

It's kind of sad to see it go, but I have to agree with Wiley -- and I know I'm going to piss off a WHOLE bunch of people when I say this -- I think Creative Commons is a better approach, and I think it's even a better approach than GPL/LGPL. The licenses are worded in a very common sense fashion, written by a team of IP experts, and give *you* the flexibility in determining what features you do and do not want in a license. It makes licensing a no-brainer for the software developer (or content developer) that doesn't spend so much time worrying about the license.

Re:Just as he says.

[lfourrier]

yeh, but if licensing become easy, will we see lawyers as the next endangered occupation ?
I think they'll rather sue.

Re:Just as he says.

[jkrise]

I think there's more to this than meets the eye. Creative Commons seems designed with vultures like MS in mind. Somewhat like BSD style licensing. Miight scae less people, but they don't appear to have enuff chutzpah to stand up for their beliefs.

Re:Just as he says.

[Surak]

Really? Have you seen the board of director's list for Creative Commons? It reads like a who's-who list of Open Source-supporting IP lawyers, including Lawrence Lessig, James Boyle, and Eric Saltzman. And Creative Commons licenses aren't just BSD-licenses. They have licenses with features VERY much like GPL. They also have BSD-like licenses. It's your choice. You decide.

Re:Just as he says.

[Jetifi]

I think Creative Commons is a better approach, and I think it's even a better approach than GPL/LGPL. The licenses are worded in a very common sense fashion, written by a team of IP experts, and give *you* the flexibility in determining what features you do and do not want in a license.

What you've got to remember is that software developers already have a plethora of licenses to choose from, based on what freedoms and flexibilities they want to keep/grant/whatever. A good summary of the "licensing ecosystem" is this table, although I'm sure there are better onces out there.

The "open content" licensing scene never had the choice between a good number of licenses all worked on by professional IP lawyers. CC provides the creative equivalent of the BSD, Apache, LGPL and GPL licenses, and maybe one or two more.

Re:Just as he says.

[jkrise]

"Open Source-supporting IP lawyers, including Lawrence Lessig, James Boyle, and Eric Saltzman."

I only recall Lessig in that list...and he's the one who lost out against RIAA, despite all the publicity and his blog. I'm not being harsh or anything - I also remember references to him in an article in TheRegister - Googlewashing, Jimmy Moore, Googlewash article. Lessig didn't come across very highly over there.

"And Creative Commons licenses aren't just BSD-licenses. They have licenses with features VERY much like GPL. They also have BSD-like licenses. It's your choice. You decide."

And therein lies the dilution of the Open Source philosophy. The GPL is more than enough and hugely popular. No reasons to move away from GPL, atleast IMO.

Re:Just as he says.

[ahfoo]

Well, if anybody is familiar with Creative Commons licenses and how they're similar and dissimilar from the GPL, could you help me out with a question about their licenses?
I like the copy-left part of the GPL and I can see how the Share Alike license would be similar to the GPL if the Non-Commercial clause was added, but what about in the case where you have a share-alike license and permit commercial use? That would just be commercial license right? Where's the part about and there must also be an open version? That seems to be missing in the case where you use a Share Alike license, but permit commercial use and that seems different from the GPL. The way I'm reading it, you're forced to choose between free and not free where the GPL would allow you to have the open version and sell it at the same time.
Perhaps I'm just not reading it clearly, or I'm describing the difference too vaguely to make my point understood but if you think you get the gist of my confusion, I'd appreciate some clarification as I've been asked for guidance on this exact issue in an educational setting and I was recommending the GPL, but this does seem more appropriate. I'm just concerned that it's not a copy-left license in the sense that it doesn't insist on an open version while allowing commercial use.

Re:Just as he says.

[Surak]

I agree. Creative Commons is more geared at the content scene than the software scene. But I think you could apply a CC license to a software project just as easily as you could to other creative content. The only thing I think is missing is the explicit statement that source code must be provided.

Re:Just as he says.

[Anthony Boyd]

I like the copy-left part of the GPL and I can see how the Share Alike license would be similar to the GPL if the Non-Commercial clause was added, but what about in the case where you have a share-alike license and permit commercial use? That would just be commercial license right?

No, that would be more like the GPL. The GPL doesn't block any commercial use -- it just requires people/companies to open-source the code if they distribute the product. I can take Red Hat's GPL'd code, and create a derivative product, and sell it. In fact, that's exactly what Mandrake did. Their only requirement was that they too had to GPL their code.

Re:Just as he says.

[ahfoo]

Okay, I think the best thing is for me to be a bit more specific. I don't think I implied that the GPL did block commercial use because I don't believe that it does. Let's get down to the nitty gritty to keep things as clear as possible.
The issue we're dealing with is students creating content and then having researchers comes along and use the student's content as samples in curricula that the researchers then charge schools thousands of dollars to license. We feel that if the basis of the curricula is the work of the students then it should be possible for the students to keep the rights through a license.
So, what we want is something like the GPL where the researchers would have the right to sell their work, but could not force the schools to have to pay licensing fees while using students work as their examples.
This seems very similar to the case of the GPL, but doesn't seem to fit with what I'm seeing in Creative Commons license options.

Re:Just as he says.

[Jetifi]

Makes you think, what constitutes source code for different types of content?

It might be interesting to have music tracks that come with (for example) the samples and vocal tracks that make up the thing, under a GPL/sharealike license i.e. tracks using those samples must give away all their samples in turn.

Just food for thought.

WHAT?!?!?!

[SuperDuG]

Okay this guy must be new to the opensource world. This mindset doesn't make sense what-so-ever. If it did, we wouldn't have KDE and Gnome. We wouldn't have OpenOffice and KOffice. We wouldn't have Mozilla and Konqueror. We wouldn't have RPM and Deb. We wouldn't have Linux and BSD (okay I know it's stretching)

I'm not trying to troll here, it just seems to me that there are numerous other examples of redundant projects that both have their merits. Yet none of these projects is willing to admit the other might be headed in a stonger supported area.

I say Kudos to you and way to take the focus to a project that will more than benifit. You've shown that it's not a matter of pride, but more of common sense.

Good show ...

unfortunate

[Boromir son of Faram]

It's too bad to see such a good project come to an end. It's heartening that some of the people involved will be absorbed into the CreativeCommons project, but I think we all prefer to see variety and choice in the Open Source community (Linux and FreeBSD, KDE and GNOME, Ray Stallman and Ed Richards).

Some people will doubtlessly conclude from OpenContent's demise that the Free Stuff (including non-software here) movement is collapsing in complete disarray. I'm more hopeful. Only by trimming the wheat from the shaft can we crystalize our impact on the world. CreativeCommons will pick up where OpenContent left off, and the way is unimpeded for the eventual dismantling of today's outdated IP laws.

Now is not the time to lose hope. Our vision will keep us strong.

Re:unfortunate

[dramaley]

>wheat from the shaft

Do you mean "wheat from the chaff?"

Re:unfortunate

[NineNine]

Only by trimming the wheat from the shaft can we crystalize our impact on the world.

If you're going to write bullshit that makes you come across as a pretentious blowhard, you should at least use correct metaphors. It's "wheat from the chaff", jackass.

Re:unfortunate

[Cyno]

Our vision will keep us strong.

Now I'm curious. Which vision is that? The one where everything is free? Or the one where everyone is free to steal other people's work and profit from it?

Re:unfortunate

[GigsVT]

If you're going to write bullshit that makes you come across as a pretentious blowhard, you should at least use correct metaphors.

I wonder if that will fit in my .sig? :)

Re:unfortunate

[Anonymous Coward]

No! The one where everyone is free to troll on Slashdot, like you're doing!

Re:unfortunate

[NineNine]

Looks like it fits! I'm flattered.

Re:unfortunate

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiots...the guy's a troll...a good one, but an obvious troll. Ray Stallman? That's the first clue right there. Second clue is his complete screw up in his name. Boromir and Faramir are brothers, they're princes of Gondor, not kings, and Minas Tirith is one of Sauron's towers.

Mod this guy down. Oh, and look at all his other posts, too. all trolls.

Re:unfortunate

[Anonymous Coward]

Score:5, Insightful. You are a genius. No doubt about it. Ray Stallman and Ed Richards totally killed me. You are my hero. -mb.

Embrace!

[nepheles]

Change like this is inevitable, and indeed to be encouraged, in the internet. If this project is really worth something, it will be continued by someone else. More probably, it's good points will be incorporated into another project. This is what drives innovation. COBOL and Fortran were great at the time, but do we regret their demise? No. We still have their benefits.

See the bigger picture.

Good news for Linux?

[PhysicsGenius]

I always thought that there were too many OS licenses out there anyway. Sure, there were websites that tracked which ones were and weren't compatible, but a) those websites are not legal authorities and b) who wants to read a bunch of legal E's every time they install some software? While I'm of course saddened that any project with "Open" in the name has ended, I feel that the resulting simplification of license space might provide a much-needed boost to Linux on the workplace desktop. Because so much of the Linux world already uses, I suppose the GPL is an OK choice, but personally I think BSD is really more free, being non-viral.

Just my $.02

Ahh...

[srichter]

I just started writing a book under the Open Publication License. I just hope the publisher will let me change that. I think the worst problem with the shutdown is that I am not offered a migration path, like "The OPL is compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution License." or something like that.

I gave the license a quick scan and it seems very nice and Creative Commons makes a point of not being an involved party, something I find annoying in some other licenses.

I switched to CC also

[MarkWatson]

I understand Wiley's actions.

I used to publish my free web books as Open Content, but I switched over to a CC license also (BTW, I was CC's 'featured commoner' last week - a real honor, because CC is a great group.)

By nature, people want to share, and the CC licenses and agenda helps a lot.

-Mark

Re:I switched to CC also

[kin_korn_karn]

By nature, people want to share
My god, the smell of bullshit is overpowering.

Re:I switched to CC also

[MarkWatson]

I think that you don't understand human nature.

If people are not living in crowded, overpopulated environments, then yes, by nature people are generous by nature.

I will try to make it simple for you: try comparing how people interact in a small town versus in a very large city: in a small town, people talk to strangers, generally friendly, etc. It seems that in large cities, in crowded environments, people are still friendly, but there is definitely a barrior.

If you have ever travelled to non-industrialized areas and interacted with non-industrialized people, then you would now what I am talking about.

By nature, people really are good.

Re:I switched to CC also

[Anonymous Coward]

Do your books really comply with the creative commons licence, your Lisp book doesn't mention the CC license anywhere in the text, neither do the page s that links to the mirrors.

Your plain text of the your terms do seem to follow the CC license but you have to go a few pages back to see that they are under a CC license.Your license does allow distribution but if the text is distributed then the user might not know the license conditions on the text

You also have "Open content" on one of the pages, not CC.

Re:I switched to CC also

[kin_korn_karn]

I grew up in a non-industrialized small town. You obviously didn't if you think that people there are inherently nice. They are backstabbers. When they're not being friendly to you, they are talking shit behind your back and plotting ways to ruin your life. They have no other options for entertainment other than fucking with other people so they throw themselves into that full-bore.

I offer you a guided tour of the place I'm talking about. You will see what it's like, unless you're on so much goddamn crack that you don't recognize reality anymore.

Re:I switched to CC also

[Ryan Amos]

People are good in smaller communities because their neighbor's opinion is more powerful. If they're greedy and not good, their neighbors will ostracize them and they won't get what they want. By contrast, in a crowded city, you can be piss-all mean and there's not too many negative consequences. People only do good things because it gets them what they want. Plato's fable of the Ring of Gyges is a good illustration of this. I'll not repeat it here, as it's long and rather complicated, but basically if you could do anything you wanted and get away with it, most people would. It's easy to have hippie idealism and believe "the simple man is a good man," but he is only good because it is ruinous for him to be bad.

Re:I switched to CC also

[Anonymous Coward]

They are backstabbers. When they're not being friendly to you, they are talking shit behind your back and plotting ways to ruin your life.

Yeah, I can see what you're saying but you have to realise that they only behaved like that towards you. They're nice to everyone else, but they do have to draw the line somewhere.

Re:I switched to CC also

[MarkWatson]

I just fixed the license in the books themselves - thanks.

Re:WHAT?!?!?!--Bullpucky

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you assume anyone is new to OS just because he or she makes a decision different from how you (think you) would do things? It sounds to me like Wiley made a very mature decision, based on real-world considerations and along-term view.

Perhaps you disagree with his decision because you're new to real world, or that way of thinking.

He stood up for me once.

[AtariDatacenter]

I publish a number of arcade documents under the Open Content license. Some people have used the license fairly. One person blatently stole a bunch of stuff for a commercial site. Worse, they were in England.

I'm pleased to say that he went to bat for me and, as a third party, convinced the other person to take down the material, where I as an individual was unsuccessful.

I'll look into the Creative Commons, but I'm sorry to see this go.

The web pages that I had published are gone, but I'm working on something new. An Arcade Gameroom Design Information website. I need to change my OC license links... they're bad. But take a look! And, yes, "cox.net" is COX cable. ;)

Re:He stood up for me once.

[chrisbtoo]

One person blatently stole a bunch of stuff for a commercial site. Worse, they were in England.

Forgive my ignorance, but how does the person being in England make it worse?

Re:He stood up for me once.

[David Hume]

Forgive my ignorance, but how does the person being in England make it worse?

Obviously, I can't speak for AtariDatacenter, but I can take an educated guess. I suspect the person being in England made it worse because as a practical matter it made it much more difficult, if not impossible, to sue him for copyright infringement or to credibly threaten to do so.

Re:He stood up for me once.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or to go round to his house and butcher any household pets.

Re:He stood up for me once.

[Istealmymusic]

The language barrier.

Re:He stood up for me once.

[AtariDatacenter]

You are correct, David. The most you can do is *threaten* someone overseas, unless you're willing to put a lot of time and money into the problem. (Although I found someone else's comment about the language barrier to be funny.)

Re:He stood up for me once.

[chrisbtoo]

The most you can do is *threaten* someone overseas, unless you're willing to put a lot of time and money into the problem.

Ah, right. I briefly had visions of you fighting the redcoats over our evil imperialist attitude towards copyright, or something.

/me steals AtariDatacenter's stuff.

Re:He stood up for me once.

[AtariDatacenter]

Yup. BTW, you've got a SCARY mug.

where the GPL excells ..

[Anonymous Coward]

is actually in web design and the code of web pages and NOT in the source code of things that need to be compiled! Basically where anything is "open" in it's very nature the GPL etc is good for licensing. anything "closed" in it's very nature (aka -> proprietory software) makes it good as useless. "closed" as in the "compiled" software schematic and GPL are about as similar as brick is to water, both require solid foundations to shine through and both can cause havock if left to bleed too long! the GPL is essentially useless for things that spend most of it's time "CLOSED" (aka compiled, aka software) but it's GREAT for things that spend most of it's time OPEN aka - Lyrics to songs, content of songs, web pages, general digital media. all of that content should remain open but protected by something like the GPL. if that's what Creative Commons attempts to do, hats off to them. As a musician and creative person, I will greatly consider joining *that* cause! Open source creative, closed proprietory .. it's the only way to go!

Re:WHAT?!?!?!--Bullpucky

[SuperDuG]

Perhaps you disagree with his decision because you're new to real world, or that way of thinking.

Okay ... perhaps you're new to reading ... so here it is again ...

I say Kudos to you and way to take the focus to a project that will more than benifit. You've shown that it's not a matter of pride, but more of common sense.

I was saying I agree and maybe others might want to follow suit. I commend him not condemn him for what he did. What so I say the word "troll" and automatically that's supposed to be a disclaimer for an excuse to be a jerkoff in a comment? Nope.

Am I the only one who's shocked and disappointed?

[Florian]

As a lecturer in the humanities and net activist who has been evangelizing open content internationally in lectures, papers and as the moderator of congress panels since 1999, I feel like being slapped into my face. It is terrible if you educate people about open content and the necessity of copylefting public information resources, pointing them again and again to opencontent.org and their licenses and now see that reference dissolve.

It is especially not funny to see the Open Publication License go away. It had a considerable momentum among book publishers - being used, among others, by O'Reilly and the Bruce Perens book series of Prentice Hall. I myself put all my papers under the OPL, encouraged other people to do so as well, and now feel severly f*cked and betrayed by this move. The instability and unreliability now associated with open content copylefts could severely damage the whole movement. As someone who managed to convince a large German public library to release its online content under the Open Content License, I am severely pissed & awaiting to take the beating for opencontent.org's irresponsibility.

The Creative Commons licenses, in my view, are not an alternative because they are too many and incompatible to each other, thus creating confusion and preventing exchange between work copylefted under its terms. What's still worse is that most Creative Commons licenses are not free in the sense of the Free Software definition of the FSF, the Debian Free Software Guidelines or the Open Source Definition.

I urge the initiator of opencontent.org to keep the website alive, and if only as a central link repository to other sites, and provide a smooth/sensible upgrade path from the Open Content License and the Open Publication License to particular Creative Common Licenses, for example by developing a license which would simultaneously be "Open Publication License v2.0" and "Creative Commons License foo". Given the amount of work that already circulates under either the Open Content License or the Open Publication License, anything else would be utterly irresponsible.

Imagine the FSF suddenly abandoning/stalling the GPL in favor for someyet-unwritten different license, leaving ten thousands of Free Software developers in the legal lurch & betraying their trust. What is an unlikely horror scenario for free software is now the reality of open content.

Bravo, opencontent.org, Microsoft, the RIAA, the MPA, SCO and all other old copyright regimes now have another reason to cheer and point at copyleft culture as immature, unreliable, not viable for serious publishing, etc.. Please wake up and release that you have taken up a responsibility which you cannot so easily throw away!

think positively

[Anonymous Coward]

we've all heard it before but some of us didn't hear it: there is power in thinking positively.

the front page of the opencontent.org website should say something like, "we're making things even better by joining Creative Commons. come join us".

it's just that simple. what he wrote instead is depressing and inspires feelings of FUD. Spin is important, and not all spin is bad. Put your best foot forward, and don't air dirty laundry. All projects and movements have dirt: people don't need to hear about it.

Re:think positively

[sgtrock]

the front page of the opencontent.org website should say something like, "we're making things even better by joining Creative Commons. come join us".

Strange. I thought that's exactly what he was doing.

it's just that simple. what he wrote instead is depressing and inspires feelings of FUD. Spin is important, and not all spin is bad. Put your best foot forward, and don't air dirty laundry.

Wow. I didn't get this impression at all. Did you read the same thing I did? I thought it was a very positive statement.

Re:think positively

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it was just too long, and the original poster has too short an attention span.

He read the first line, and the last line, and concluded that the overall tone was 'depressing'.

wrong reply button

[goats_in_boats]

was supposed to be directed at the bRa2Il1An... http://www.reir0m.hpg.ig.com.br/index.html

Ayn Rand would be the first to point out

[Anonymous Coward]

That giving away your product is the absolute worst type of business model. As clearly happened here, the best and brightest follow the money, leaving only incompetents and moochers...and then only moochers once the incompetents decide that they want in on the 'money train' that they see the productive members of society riding.

Re:Ayn Rand would be the first to point out

[BelugaParty]

Umm, wouldn't an Ayn Rand's buisness model be something like: Be brilliant, make brilliant things, make brilliant things happen; be mocked; let the culture catch up in the form of a fad, be brilliant and make a lot of money; once the fad wears off, be broke; be mocked; be brilliant and broke and die crazy.

the end.

Re:Ayn Rand would be the first to point out

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the Ayn Rand business model would be: Make brilliant things, see your hard work get stolen away by less brilliant people, say "to hell with it" and move to the mountains of Colorado with all your brilliant friends, watch as the non-brilliant people of the world hose the entire economy, broadcast a sixty page diatribe over the radio, return from the mountains of Colorado as saviors to humankind.

Oh, and get John Galt in the sack. The book was very clear on that point.

One question:

[TrollBridge]

What the hell is "copyleft"??

It almost sounds to me like those "Womyn's" groups who are offended by the presence of "men" in the proper spelling of the word.

Re:Am I the only one who's shocked and disappointe

[Jester99]

If a bomb was dropped on Boston and the FSF headquarters was vaporized and fsf.org went down today, nothing would change tomorrow. Linux would still be free for download, under the same license it's always been under.

The wording of the GPL is still valid. The GPL wouldn't "dissapear".

Similarly, if you like the OPL, keep using it. It's still a perfectly valid, legal license.

Re:Am I the only one who's shocked and disappointe

[ball-lightning]

Correct me if I'm wrong (I may very well be) but even though he's closing the site, can't you still use the license? Also note he is keeping the site up, he mentioned it on the page.

Copyleft, was Re:One question:

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html

for a definition of "copyleft".

COBOL's Demise???

[Chanc_Gorkon]

COBOL is still kicking. There are alot of mainframe shops that swear by it and even a few UNIX programs that are written in it. COBOL is like lpd. It ain't pretty, but it gets the job done....usually! ;)

Good reference, but 'copyleft' isn't more 'free'

[TrollBridge]

"Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to further copy and change it."

That pretty much summed it up, until:

"Proprietary software developers use copyright to take away the users' freedom; we use copyright to guarantee their freedom. That's why we reverse the name, changing 'copyright' into `copyleft.'"

Honestly I believe this is a childish, not to mention inaccurate, portrayal of copyrights. Not that I'd expect anything less from RMS, but stating that the purpose of copyrights is to take away some perceived right of software users to modify and redistribute it simply isn't true. In fact, I'd say it's every bit as restrictive as copyright, in the fact that anyone using 'copylefted' software MUST redistribute any alterations publicly.

I have no problem with the concept of 'copyleft'; in fact I think it's a great idea. But all it is is a different kind of lisense, like the GPL and LGPL. It has nothing to do with being more free than copyright.

It just burns me up when a new concept in software is sold on its being more 'free', because in most cases, it's not.

Re:Am I the only one who's shocked and disappointe

[the endless]

Imagine the FSF suddenly abandoning/stalling the GPL in favor for someyet-unwritten different license, leaving ten thousands of Free Software developers in the legal lurch & betraying their trust.

Okay... so I start imagining this... and then one microsecond later I start wondering why the licence.gpl file I distribute with my software has supposedly just gone up in smoke.

Oh, wait, it hasn't...

Ayn Rand can suck me off

[Anonymous Coward]

You Randian monkeys crack me up. Seriously, how the fuck do you manage you get your polotics from a crappy bunch of badly written novels is beyond me. Its almost as bad as Scientology getting their shit from a bunch of badly written Sci Fi novels.

In conclusion, Libertarians are Scientologists.

Re:Am I the only one who's shocked and disappointe

[Florian]

> The wording of the GPL is still valid. The GPL wouldn't "dissapear".
> Similarly, if you like the OPL, keep using it. It's still a perfectly valid, legal license.

Yes, but unmaintained legal code is as problematic as unmaintained program code. No organization will enforce these licenses or, if necessary, defend them in court; nobody will update them if new legal or technical conditions make it necessary (as in GPL v2.0 vs. GPL v1.0 vs. the upcoming GPL v3.0). Which renders opencontent.org's licenses worthless IMHO.

Re:Good reference, but 'copyleft' isn't more 'free

[runderwo]

in the fact that anyone using 'copylefted' software MUST redistribute any alterations publicly.

Bullshit. Only if you redistribute the modified GPL/LGPL software must you make your changes public. You can make all the changes you want for your own internal use and the world will never see it.

Re:Good reference, but 'copyleft' isn't more 'free

[Anonymous Coward]

"Only if you redistribute the modified GPL/LGPL software must you make your changes public."

If the GPL/LPGL already handles this, then what's the purpose of 'copyleft'? What's the difference?

Re:Am I the only one who's shocked and disappointe

[mrybczyn]

This move points out extremely short sighted thinking on the part of these lawyers, this license system will stagnate, and its users will be left in dire straits -- continue using an unsupported system, or spend lots of time (aka money), to convert to another license scheme.

Hello Microsoft "thinking".

IP lawyers, Corporate lawyers, OSS lawyers, there is no difference.

Router guy

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the linux router project guy http://www.linuxrouter.org/ could step in and keep it going. He seems all fired up about open sores.

Re:Am I the only one who's shocked and disappointe

[bcrowell]

Am I the only one who's shocked and disappointed?
Yes, quite possibly. I have six books licensed under OPL and two under GFDL, and I think what Dave Wiley has done is probably a good decision. The proliferation of licenses is bad, and he's helping to simplify things by making more of a focus on CC licenses. I might want to change the licenses on my own books to CC now, as a matter of fact. The GFDL is kind of goofy, too, and probably deserves to die as well -- it tries to define what it means for a copy to be "transparent," i.e., editable with free software, which is a completely ill-defined concept.

leaving ten thousands of Free Software developers in the legal lurch
The license is still valid. What were you expecting Dave Wiley to do for you that he won't be doing for you now? He's not a lawyer, and he never promised you any legal services.

for example by developing a license which would simultaneously be "Open Publication License v2.0" and "Creative Commons License foo"
You can do this yourself. It's called dual licensing. Lots of software projects are dual licensed, e.g., with the GPL and a BSD-style license. You don't need Dave Wiley's permission to do this. Your readers just have to decide which license they're agreeing to when they download your stuff.

Re:WHAT?!?!?!--make up your mind

[Anonymous Coward]

You said:

Okay this guy must be new to the opensource world. This mindset doesn't make sense what-so-ever.

And then you said:

I say Kudos to you and way to take the focus to a project that will more than benifit. You've shown that it's not a matter of pride, but more of common sense.

Which is it? Does it appeal to common sense or does it make no sense whatsoever?

huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you own the copyright then do whatever you please with it.

Re:Good reference, but 'copyleft' isn't more 'free

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyleft is a characteristic of some licenses (including the GPL), which states that derivative works must ensure the same user rights as the original work.

So:
"Free Software" - ensures certain rights at the outset (could be GPL or similar)
"Copyleft" - ensures that the rights pertaining to the original work apply to all derivative works as well (this process is sometimes called "viral").

So Perl is Free Software, but not Copyleft, because its license does not require subsequent derivative works to be Free Software. The Free Music Philosophy is Semi-Free (because it is only free for non-commercial use and therefore discriminates against 'type of endeavor'), but is Copyleft because it requires derivative works to have the same Semi-Free status as the original work.

Copyleft is the characteristic of the GPL (and other licenses) that "already handles this" - it's not a separate license or anything like that.

Freudian Typo

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like our friend Wiley just couldn't quite let it go after all....

The nav bar at the top of the page contains a link called content.

"Hmm..." I thought, "maybe it's not gone after all?" Turns out that link should have read contact (as the bottom nav bar reads).

Maybe because...

[Anonymous Coward]

...after five years of paying hundreds of dollars hosting and domain registration fees, he's just asking, "whats the point???"

Send him an Ayn Card!

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest we send him an Ayn card just to make sure he gets the point. :D

I believe this is for the best

[FinalCut]

I have known David for quite a while, dating back to 1996, and he is a pretty bright guy. I have faith in his judgement and figure if he thinks this is the best course of action toward reaching the goals he was eyeballing so long ago then it probably is the best path for him to take at the moment. I think his addition to the CreativeCommons team will be a great benifit to CreativeCommons and the Open[Anything] community.

FORTRAN's demise?

[joib]

FORTRAN is still kicking in the engineering market. A large fraction of numerical code is still being written in fortran.

Re:WHAT?!?!?!--make up your mind

[SuperDuG]

You said:

Okay this guy must be new to the opensource world. This mindset doesn't make sense what-so-ever.

Sarcasm ...

And then you said:

I say Kudos to you and way to take the focus to a project that will more than benifit. You've shown that it's not a matter of pride, but more of common sense.

Not sarcasm ...

Which is it? Does it appeal to common sense or does it make no sense whatsoever?

It's the truth ... hidden in the context ... weird stuff I tell ya

In related news

[Anonymous Coward]

CloseContent Opens Its Doors

What about sites like POPNT.COM?

[Junkster Julian]

How does the current state of OpenContent and Creative Content licenses affect site like popnt.com which do not clearly fall into either "program" nor "ebook" categories? Should POPNT look to (somehow) qualify as both? Was there something that OpenContent did not offer that Creative Content now can due to OpenContent having closed its doors?

Re:Am I the only one who's shocked and disappointe

[smallclaims]

I agree: this announcement of the "closing of Opencontent" seems to signal that a concept has been disproved or given up on, and might tend to undermine the work people have done in association with the term and with the OPL license.

While there are no doubt good reasons for joining efforts with the well-organized and -funded Creative Commons, I think that the practical side shouldn't be confused with the conceptual project of settling on and evangelizing the *terms*, whether Open Content, Copyleft, or whatever.

On the conceptual front, I believe that with Open Content, we're in about the same place that Open Source was ten years ago: there are competing terms floating around, few people have even heard of it, many who do hear of it dismiss the basic principle out of hand (copyleft facilitating the creation of content other than code), and the terminological confusion hampers the wider dissemination of and examination of the idea.

> The Creative Commons licenses, in my view, are not
> an alternative because they are too many and
> incompatible to each other, thus creating confusion
> and preventing exchange between work copylefted
> under its terms.

right, aside from the practical issue of interchange, the variety of licenses means that you absolutely need an overarching term, by which people can discuss the concept -- just as people now say "open source" in most contexts, where the distinctions between GPL and BSD and Apache licenses would be unimportant.

So, what are the contenders -- analogous to "Free Software" and "Open Source" -- in this battle for terminology?

There's the "commons" idea, being promoted of course by Creative Commons, and also in the work of Public Knowledge/David Bollier and James Boyle, among others. On the pro side, it's an appealing moral concept, and suggests strong helpful metaphors (the village commons) and historical traditions (the Anti-Enclosure movement, for example), and it brings together a lot of different constituencies. However, it's not very precise -- it could be understood to mean simply Public Domain, doesn't make the probably useful distinction between code and non-code, etc., and also covers a broad array of other issues such as oil drilling on public land. Also, the historical/ideological baggage can be a disadvantage in many situations, just as "Free software" was deemed to be unsuitable for use around some portion of the Capitalists.

"Free Culture" is rather vague, and perhaps a bit revolutionary -- see Capitalist objection above.

There's "copyleft": excellently clever inversion of "copyright", but certainly not widely known, and applies neutrally to code or non-code.

"Open Content": nice piggy-backing upon the now well-propagated term Open Source, and it focuses attention on matters other than software code. Minus points for possible odiousness of how term "content" gets used in new-media settings. In my opinion, however, it's probably the best suggestion so far, because it's somewhat but not explicitly suggestive of the moral issues, and can be given a precise, process-oriented definition, analogous to Open Source.

My $0.02,

Tim

Is Michael Sims The Webmaster?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to check and see who holds the domain registration...