[LINK] Wide Open - Open source methods and their future potential
brendansweb at optusnet.com.au
Sun Apr 24 23:19:36 EST 2005
Deus Ex Machina wrote:
> Auer, Karl James [karl.auer at id.ethz.ch] wrote:
> what makes some commons useful as you say is a platform for developing
> further stuff that has value. for example research. for
> commons to be useful they must be able to be privatised or lead to
> privatisation. and until they start approaching the path of privatisation
> they have little value. research that has no effect on our everyday lives
> it has only potential value.
This statement is false. If I perform a work in the commons for reward, then that is developing further stuff that has value without privatisation. Your model is flawed. Think about every American rip off of foreign movies. The problem with your model is that it is not based on granting rights, but on the removal of rights.
> the problem I have with CC is that the underlying insinuation is that
> creative things can have value with all rights expressly striped. rights create
> value. striping rights removes value.
No. Rights are not stripped. That would be public domain. I don't want to defend CC because I'm not comfortable with it. But at its highest it creates a free market for content - which is something you seem to be afraid of.
> looking at OSS. GLP imo by enforcing a striping of rights has itself now become its own
> worst enemy, effectively ensuring that few if any commercial products will
> fork by modifying gpl source.
Most GPL-sourced code are commercial products. You just happen to define commercial to mean something other than commercial.
> prosperity comes about from the freedom to create rights, not just from
> unbridled freedom.
No, it doesn't. Mercantilism was unbridled freedom to create rights and it was and remains a demonstrable failure. Market based systems seem to be the most successful, which is why you should support OSS.
More information about the Link