[LINK] Wide Open - Open source methods and their future potential
Deus Ex Machina
vicc at cia.com.au
Mon Apr 25 01:05:49 EST 2005
Brendan Scott [brendansweb at optusnet.com.au] wrote:
> 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.
no because if you perform work for reward then that is presumably right
of contract. under law you have created a bit of privatised output,
if you chose to gift the output then that is your choice.
> 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.
rubish you are puting your usual inverse spin on things.
> >the problem I have with CC is that the underlying insinuation is that
> >creative things can have value with all rights expressly striped. rights
> >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.
why??? you are extremly fond of preventing anyone from selling anything
above marginal cost of production which in this case would be zero.
free for all CC guarantees that price would never get far above MCoP.
this is right up your alley!
>But at its highest it
> creates a free market for content - which is something you seem to be
> afraid of.
why would I care????
my claim is simply that if your content cant be converted to property then the
value is going to be small compared to what it would be as property,
assuming it could have property value in the first place.
asking if you can tack on secondary services around it to make up for
the lack of revenue is like asking can a free harry potter movie make money
selling maintenance contracts for the dvds.
> >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.
is that right?
most gpl are not modification to source code. imo the bsd licence will take over
from gpl over time now that stallman has shot himself in the butt.
> >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.
I didnt say unbridled freedom to create rights. Mercantilism was not
about classifying creative output as tradeable property.
>Market based systems seem to be the most successful, which is why you should support OSS.
OSS is a bunch of tools not a religion.
More information about the Link