×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Open Source Beer Served Cold, With a Heated Licensing Discussion

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the drink-up dept.

Beer 112

sethopia writes "Sam Muirhead enjoys a couple of open source beers and delves into their licenses (Creative Commons BY-NC-SA) and the recent CC Non Commercial license controversy. As Sam writes, 'Depending on your point of view, the Non Commercial license is either the methadone that can wean copyright junkies off their all-rights-reserved habit, or it is a gateway drug to the psychedelic and dangerously addictive world of open source and free culture.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

112 comments

What's next? (1)

cormandy (513901) | about a year and a half ago | (#41258047)

What's next? Open-source chocolate chip cookies?

Which meaning of "free"? (5, Funny)

200_success (623160) | about a year and a half ago | (#41258065)

Is that Free as in beer, or Free as in beer?

Re:Which meaning of "free"? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#41258211)

free as in it's free if you do all the work and buy the ingredients to something that has a recipe that's not secret.

next up open source pizza.

Re:Which meaning of "free"? (1)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about a year and a half ago | (#41258251)

Pizza is already open sauce pie. How deep do you want to go?

Re:Which meaning of "free"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41258837)

That is funny but only if you say it in a New England or a posh English accent.

Re:Which meaning of "free"? (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | about a year and a half ago | (#41258363)

As you aptly put it, we lack a free beer with "free" as in "freedom".

Re:Which meaning of "free"? (4, Informative)

realityimpaired (1668397) | about a year and a half ago | (#41258435)

no we don't [google.com].

Recipes aren't copyrightable. Any recipe you can find is "free as in freedom".

Re:Which meaning of "free"? (1)

melstav (174456) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259469)

Recipes aren't copyrightable. Any recipe you can find is "free as in freedom".

Not quite. Recipes are sets of instructions on how to combine and process ingredients into a finished product.

That makes a recipe a description of a description of a METHOD, which is patentable in the United States. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Which meaning of "free"? (0)

Dragonslicer (991472) | about a year and a half ago | (#41260127)

Not quite. Recipes are sets of instructions on how to combine and process ingredients into a finished product.

That makes a recipe a description of a description of a METHOD, which is patentable in the United States. [wikipedia.org]

More importantly, it's a method for transforming matter. It is a patentable subject, but overcoming prior art is usually quite difficult.

Re:Which meaning of "free"? (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about a year and a half ago | (#41265179)

And since patents have absolutely nothing to do with copyrights the parent's post stands, at least for a minimalist bare-bones recipe.

In truth the actual wording of a recipe is in fact copyrightable, provided that it expresses sufficient creativity to clearly be a distinct product from the method information it contains.

Re:Which meaning of "free"? (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about a year and a half ago | (#41270145)

That makes a recipe a description of a description of a METHOD, which is patentable in the United States.

Except for all the prior art...

Free beer as in free free beer. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41258993)

Or maybe beer as in free beer beer. It's so difficult.

Re:Which meaning of "free"? (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#41260469)

Is that Free as in beer, or Free as in beer?

I came for that comment, and now I can leave.

Copyrightable? (2, Interesting)

lisaparratt (752068) | about a year and a half ago | (#41258109)

I thought recipes weren't copyrightable anyway, and only particular encodings of recipes could be copyrighted.

Re:Copyrightable? (4, Interesting)

dargaud (518470) | about a year and a half ago | (#41258139)

There are some high profile chefs who have complained about having their recipes 'stolen' and are pushing for copyright on recipes [foodandwine.com]. Never mind that they wouldn't be allowed to boil an egg if that was the case as the recipe would belong to some copyright troll...

Re:Copyrightable? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41258533)

The skill of a good chef is not in the recipe, but in the execution.

Anyone can follow a recipe; that doesn't make you a chef.

Re:Copyrightable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41258675)

"Anyone can follow a recipe; that doesn't make you a chef."

Go back to the kitchen, chef !

Re:Copyrightable? (2)

need4mospd (1146215) | about a year and a half ago | (#41260189)

I think you mean:

Zee skeell ooff a guud cheff is nut in zee receepe-a, boot in zee ixecooshun. Bork Bork Bork!

Re:Copyrightable? (1)

skine (1524819) | about a year and a half ago | (#41260823)

I think you mean:

The fuck were you thinking working from a fucking cookbook, you fucking donkey?

FTFY

Re:Copyrightable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41261771)

I would have gone with:

Awee de sskiil uhf a sweedeesh sheff iz a roocipee bort bort bort!

Re:Copyrightable? (0)

Mister Whirly (964219) | about a year and a half ago | (#41261117)

Every chef I have ever known, including myself, never follows recipes - they just mess you up. I go by taste and experience. If you can't taste it and know what it needs, you aren't a chef. If this is the case, follow the recipe...

Re:Copyrightable? (0)

Creepy (93888) | about a year and a half ago | (#41261363)

By the time you get to be a chef, you've probably got a good handle on how to make a lot of different things and don't need a recipe. I'm not a chef, but I can bake most pastries, breads, and pizza dough without a recipe and often don't even measure ingredients. A recipe is often bad - it gives you an idea, but it takes experience to know when a dough is too hard or soft, for instance, and that may be due to, say, eggs being slightly larger or smaller than the ones in the recipe.

I've also gotten to the point where I brew beer without a recipe, though I'm still a bit of a novice on all grain brews and look up timings. What's really funny is my beers have been a huge hit, even among non beer drinkers and I tend to make low hop brews (but even my 60 IBU ESB was a hit). My summer Saison was destroyed at a party in 30 minutes, and that was about 32 IBU (and 9% alcohol). A friend who loves hoppy brews brought a 90IBU IPA and still had half a 5 gallon keg left at the end of that party.

Re:Copyrightable? (1)

houghi (78078) | about a year and a half ago | (#41263019)

Reminds me of the guy who showed some pictures to a chef. The chef said "Wow, great pictures. You must have a great camera." The guy said nothing and after the meal said:
"Wow, great food. You must have a great kitchen."

Re:Copyrightable? (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year and a half ago | (#41258585)

The crime was that they ever thought they "owned" the recipe to begin with. Imagine if Chocolate cake had a screwed up license like the song "happy birthday" does... That's right, lets ruin everyones birthday even further with more copyright law.

Re:Copyrightable? (1)

gr8_phk (621180) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259075)

Since they are "pushing for copyright on recipes" that suggest there is none today. Hence any "open source" license for a recipe is misleading and setting a bad precedent. It's also flawed in the sense that it would have to effectively say "by reading this recipe you agree to these terms" - worse than any EULA. Once you see a recipe, the cat's out of the bag. This could only work if you make reading and agreeing to a license a precondition of being able to get the recipe.

I'm all for open source, but could people at least THINK before they go slapping licenses where none belong?

Re:Copyrightable? (1)

ByronHope (2669333) | about a year and a half ago | (#41258143)

I agree, broken the golden rule and read the article... This is insidious, Meir should not be able to force copyright on a beer recipe, protect the trademark, yes, but claiming copyright on a beer recipe is going too far.

The recepie is copyrightable. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41259333)

But there's no copyright infringement in copying the reciepe. In exactly the same way as a dictionary is copyrightable, despite the facts being uncopyrightable. As long as you don't copy the explanations (unless they too are uncopyrightable, as in de minimis or non-expressive).

Dictionaries, maps, and so on have been "copyrighted" in the same way as this reciepe is copyrighted for years.

Re:Copyrightable? (3, Insightful)

Neil_Brown (1568845) | about a year and a half ago | (#41258155)

I would agree — it might be clearer in some countries than in others, but the mere list of ingredients, and the process of putting them together, is not capable of being the subject of copyright in itself. Here, there seems to be a greater emphasis on the aspect of transparency, and the publication of something which, for many, probably amounts to a trade secret. As such, irrespective of the copyrightability of the recipe, the real joy for me is that it is the manufacturer publishing the recipe, for others to make, enjoy and modify.

Whether a licence should be placed on that recipe is more of a concern, though, is more of a concern — it attempts to impose protection on something incapable of protection. For those who argue that these licences are contracts, there's perhaps less of an issue, but for those who see them as simple licences, which only work because of the permission to perform an otherwise restricted act, it is perhaps not ideal.

Conversely, could one argue that this is the licensing of a trade secret? Potentially a tough argument, on the basis that it would seem to flaunt one of the core tenets of secrecy, given that it is published, and an argument which could be problematic through an over-extension of copyright, but, in spirit, this seems closer to what is being done here than copyright licensing.

Re:Copyrightable? (3, Interesting)

DRJlaw (946416) | about a year and a half ago | (#41258525)

Here, there seems to be a greater emphasis on the aspect of transparency, and the publication of something which, for many, probably amounts to a trade secret.

Conversely, could one argue that this is the licensing of a trade secret? Potentially a tough argument, on the basis that it would seem to flaunt one of the core tenets of secrecy, given that it is published.

Uniform Trade Secrets Act (not itself a law, but a model law which has been adopted by many states with minor modifications):
"'Trade secret' means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that:
      (i) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and
      (ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

It is no longer a trade secret. Period. None of the obligations of the CC licence impose a secrecy obligation, therefore the recipe lost whatever claim it had to trade secret protection. It is readily ascertainable by proper means, and not subect to reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy.

So long as you don't use this particular copy of the recipie to manufacture your commercial beer, you're free to use the ingredients and process to manufacture your commercial beer. Reduce the recipie to a bare list of ingredients and a minimal description of the process, remaining as objectively factual as possible. Avoid quoting anything that you absolutely do not need to. Then go about your business.

The law concerning recipies is clear and settled. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 is your friend.

Re:Copyrightable? (1)

Neil_Brown (1568845) | about a year and a half ago | (#41258731)

Uniform Trade Secrets Act ... The law concerning recipies is clear and settled. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 is your friend.

Thanks — particularly for those of you in the US, those two things are worth knowing.

Re:Copyrightable? (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259487)

I hate to play devil's advocate, because I think copyrights are fucked up beyond measure thanks to Disney hitting the snooze alarm, but if we are gonna force the creators to list the ingredients in order of amount (thus pretty much forcing them to include the recipe) shouldn't they get something for that?

After all we give limited protections in the form of patents to the others that we force to give us the info, but food and drink we force to give the info without anything in return.

Re:Copyrightable? (1)

dargaud (518470) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259631)

food and drink we force to give the info without anything in return.food and drink we force to give the info without anything in return.

What do you mean. If it's in a restaurant, you are paying the chef for the food. Otherwise where do you see recipes ? In cooking books or magazines. Which you pay for. It's not a case of something for nothing.

Re:Copyrightable? (1)

Neil_Brown (1568845) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259737)

if we are gonna force the creators to list the ingredients in order of amount (thus pretty much forcing them to include the recipe) shouldn't they get something for that?

I'm not sure which law forces a company to provide a list of ingredients — some kind of consumer protection / food standards law?

If that's the case — and I speculate completely here — I would have thought that the "something" that the company gets is the ability to sell the product; the trade off is that, in exchange for the ability to sell the product, the company is required to provide a bare minimum of information about its content, so that potential purchasers can make informed decisions about whether they wish to eat/drink it. To justify giving an additional right to the producer, in the form of copyright protection for the list of ingredients, there must be some additional public benefit purpose in doing so.

(I use copyright as an example, but it's a bad example — do I infringe the copyright in that list of ingredients if I make a product up in those quantities, even though I have had to work out the method of combination myself, as it may not be as simple as chucking them all together in a bowl, and then try to sell the product, thereby forcing me to publish the list which, oddly enough, is identical to the one on which I based my product?)

I hate to play devil's advocate

Far better than slavishly following something, never questioning it.

Re:Copyrightable? (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year and a half ago | (#41266983)

Well I simply hated playing devils advocate here because I think copyrights have been made a disgusting land grab thanks to Disney and the mouse, but I question everything.

Its not the listing of ingredients that I question, I get that because you may have an allergy to rose hips or whatever, its the "forcing to list in order of amount" that I question. After all if you WERE allergic to rose hips then it really doesn't matter if you have 10% or 25% does it? You'll avoid that product.

But by forcing them to list the amounts from greatest to least (look at a TV dinner sometime, they even make them list from most to least on every component like breading on the chicken) anybody can just sit there with a few minutes and a piece of paper and figure out exactly what you made it of and by what amount. I don't have a problem with listing what its made of, its the amount part which makes no damned sense to me.

Re:Copyrightable? (1)

Neil_Brown (1568845) | about a year and a half ago | (#41271663)

its the amount part which makes no damned sense to me

Again pure speculation on my part, but it seems to be down to informed choice — I'd have thought consumers would want to know if their sausages are 99% meat or 10% meat, and whether their fruit juice contains a mostly water, a lot of sugar and a mere hint of apple, or is actually pure pressed apple.

To argue with myself, even if that were the case, arguably it is something the market could regulate itself — if a consumer were sufficiently unsure, they would not buy, and companies with high percentages of "good" things in products would shout about it from a marketing / competitive advantage purpose. Those which did not shout would be treated as being of low quality, and subject just to the requirement to label composition, not quantity.

Interesting discussion!

Re:Copyrightable? (1)

DocZayus (1046358) | about a year and a half ago | (#41258487)

What about KFC and the Colonel's secret spice mix?

Re:Copyrightable? (1)

Kharny (239931) | about a year and a half ago | (#41258647)

That's exactly why they work so hard to keep it secret.
There is no copyright on it.
of course, they can put a heavy clause in anyone's contract before they get to see it.

Re:Copyrightable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41258649)

As the name implies, that's a trade secret, not a copyrighted piece of information. I'm sure the precise hop schedule for Stone's Arrogant Bastard Ale is a trade secret as well, but if I happen to come across the same ingredient set through reverse engineering and blind taste tests, I should still be allowed to use it.

Re:Copyrightable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41258661)

What about KFC and the Colonel's secret spice mix?

It's a trade secret.
The clue is in the name.

Re:Copyrightable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41258703)

The part that makes this doubly stupid is that not only is it impossible to copyright a recipe, but this is a beer recipe. Homebrewers are generally not legally allowed to sell their beer commercially in the first place! And commercial brewers are going to need to modify the recipe anyway to scale up the batch size and match the technique given in the recipe to the equipment on hand. The entire argument is idiotic.

Re:Copyrightable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41258815)

Not to mention in brewing the process is a hughe part of it. Give the same recipe to 10 different brewers you will get 10 different beers.

Brewers don't sue over recipes (2)

ByronHope (2669333) | about a year and a half ago | (#41258129)

Beer recipes are generally not that secret, visit a brewery and you're generally shown the full process and ingredients. It's true that most don't give the recipe away, but if you know your brewing it's not hard to reproduce. If you get talking to a brewer and show some interest they'll point you in the right direction. I might be ignorant, but I've never heard of a brewer suing another brewer over a recipe or beer making process. Most brewers are happy to share. Yeast is another matter, many breweries closely guard their yeast, but others give it away.

Re:Brewers don't sue over recipes (0)

sd4f (1891894) | about a year and a half ago | (#41258145)

Theres so many different beers, and reality is, how many variations on piss can you achieve? I like the open source movement, but this is just becoming stupid. Lots of people have been doind home brew (beer) and it's no secret how to make grog.

Re:Brewers don't sue over recipes (1)

miffo.swe (547642) | about a year and a half ago | (#41258329)

You would be surprised of just how different taste beers can have. And getting the right recipe is not an easy feat, it takes many brews before you have something drinkable. Just a different strain of yeast can affect the taste to a large degree. If you start mixing in other ingredients than malt, yeast, water and hops it becomes n hard.

Re:Brewers don't sue over recipes (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#41258953)

How many variations?

Is it an ale or a lager? Since you said piss we can assume you are a lager drinker. Is it filtered or not? Again you said piss so filtered. What kind of hops and how are they used? You said piss so we are going with extract and added after the boil. Are we using adjuncts or not? You said piss, so most of the grainbill will be rice and corn.

You have made budweiser, hope you are happy. If you want a beer that tastes like something stop buying beer that looks like piss.

Depending on your point of view...? (1)

Havenwar (867124) | about a year and a half ago | (#41258141)

Can't it be both?

Re:Depending on your point of view...? (4, Funny)

Neil_Brown (1568845) | about a year and a half ago | (#41258235)

Can't it be both?

Quantum beer — my favourite!

Re:Depending on your point of view...? (1)

Havenwar (867124) | about a year and a half ago | (#41258253)

My favourite beer is Schroedinger's beer.

Re:Depending on your point of view...? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41258615)

I suspect it is also not your favorite beer.

Re:Depending on your point of view...? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#41258255)

Can't it be both?

Yeap... my thoughts exactly... like in "copyright junkies, with their all-rights-reserved habit, opening the gateway to dangerously addictive world of open source and free culture"... right? Right!!!
(where was I?...Oy, pot heat... pass on that spliff, will yea?)

Eh... (4, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#41258215)

CC 'non-commercial' strikes me as actually overwhelmingly different, in terms of objectives and in terms of the interactions being planned for(or against) than the more software-focused GPL/LGPL/BSD/MIT crowd:

With the software-focused licenses, the thinking(regardless of which camp you fall into on the questions of which interests you value most highly) is really about the relationship between the original developer, intermediate bundlers/distributors, and end users. Some licenses(ie. BSD) prefer to impose basically no restrictions beyond attribution on the intermediate users, considering it sufficient that the original developer can do what they want, and the end user(while they may or may not have any access to the guts of whatever binaries they get from the intermediate bundlers) does have access to the original project. LGPL is more aggressive about protecting the interests of the original project; by requiring intermediate distributors of works that include the original to make their changes available; but doesn't go much further than BSD in terms of watching over the end user. GPL explicitly demands that the end user's interest in access to the code be preserved, and the AGPL and GPL3 address the same interests in the context of 'cloud' and 'tivoized' scenarios.

However, across all of that, 'commercial/noncommercial' isn't an area of distinction. Obviously, these licenses have an effect on the viability of certain commercial schemes; but they have no explicit objectives in that area: If you can find a way to make money by selling software that is available in source form under the GPL3, rock on. If your freedom to add whatever proprietary features to FreeBSD can't save you from being crushed by generic upstream FreeBSD, sucks to be you.

By contrast, the whole idea of 'commercial' vs. 'noncommercial' reflects an explicit focus on matters that the software focused licenses leave implicit or simply consider an irrelevant detail to be worked out by what people can actually manage to succeed or fail at making money on. The closest analog, perhaps, is the bit in GPL compliance where it applies only if you distribute, not if you use internally. "Commercial/noncommercial" is a sort of much broader extension of that, positing that there is a 'noncommercial' area of culture-as-something-that-people-do that is separate from, and not merely a 'cottage industry' scaled version of the 'commercial' culture-as-something-that-media-industries-do, which is a monetary phenomenon and distinct both in degree and in kind from the noncommercial flavor.

In the context of software, I have to admit that I like the conceptual frameworks of the software-oriented licenses much better. This isn't to say that software cannot be a cultural thing; but most software is tools, complex tools, and it seems both appropriate and pragmatic to think about tools in terms of "How can we get good tools?" and "How can we ensure that our labor in producing tools ends up putting tools in the hands we want them to end up in?" OSS/FOSS licensing is a rather novel technique, born of the peculiar economics of software, for answering these questions; but it's actually a fairly conservative conceptual framework.

If anything, the 'Commercial'/'Noncommercial' framework is much more radical: The implicit assertion that there are areas of cultural output that are simply not amenable to resolution along the lines of market commerce(while certainly supportable, if Team Anthropologist fancies a trip back from the tribal regions to inform us that people who don't even have currency somehow manage to have music...); but it isn't necessarily something that would be a natural fit in ye olde contemporary consumer capitalist economies of the early 21st century... By contrast, CC-sharealike, CC-attribution, and similar are practically analogous to the software-oriented concepts, just written to cover non-software more cleanly, in that they don't posit this commercial/noncommercial distinction; but are more focused on either the GPL-style protection of the downstream user and the upstream developer, or the BSD style protection of attribution without significant interference in the distribution process.

Re:Eh... (1)

tibman (623933) | about a year and a half ago | (#41258569)

I think it's more targeted. Noncommerical is targeted to end-users, not targeted at an organization to repackage and then sell to end-users. If someone wants to sell it, they have to ask the copyright owner. A lot of software is the same and gets around this problem by selling support for the "free" software.

Re:Eh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41258951)

Free software is a matter of user freedom. The gratis cost of many free software distributions is completely incidental to the principles of user freedom; it is not necessary to be available at gratis cost. Selling support for free software does not infringe on the principles of user freedom.

Re:Eh... (1)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | about a year and a half ago | (#41261987)

Exactly. If you want, you can for example burn Debian on a CD, and sell the CDs, if you like. Or sell any of the software that are in the distribution. There's nothing preventing it. Buyers would be a bit silly to buy something freely available, but that's perfectly legal to sell.

Re:Eh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41258751)

I can kind of understand why the Commercial/Noncommercial restrictions in CC Licenses do exist. With software, especially GPL software there's a certain chance that commercial use of a GPLed component actually leads to improvement of that component. With "cultural goods" there's rarely any improvement to the original, so I can understand if an artist wants some share of profits that may be made with his work.

Re:Eh... (1)

itsdapead (734413) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259229)

However, across all of that, 'commercial/noncommercial' isn't an area of distinction.

...

If you can find a way to make money by selling software that is available in source form under the GPL3, rock on.

In the case of software, commercial users - and re-sellers - will usually want some sort of guaranteed support if they're going to build a commercial product or service around somebody's open source project - or even use it in a business-critical role. In a sense, the commercial/noncommercial distinction sorts itself out: commercial users have an incentive to go back to the author. Third-parties selling support are, arguably, doing just that, selling support rather than re-selling the software. There is a very clear opportunities for software authors to 'monetize' their software while still giving away the source.

If the product is a photograph, or a book, or a piece of music then it's not so clear - especially when it has been released in digital form. You'll have a hard time selling "support contracts" for your novel. If you make it fully Open then a large e-book publisher could just take it, sell it for $5.99 per download and pocket several bucks (there will be some 'cost of sales' but that would be pretty small for an ebook download and largely 'crowdsourced' publicity) for anybody too lazy to google for the free version. I think, in that situation, the author might feel entitled to a slice of that money.

However, the main thing is choice: the Creative Commons initiative currently offer a really good choice of licensees from the "Noncommercial/NoDerivs" (which is still one hell of an improvement from 'all rights reserved and I'd sue you for reading it to your kid if I thought I could get away with it' status quo) to full-blown 'copyleft' if you want it. It would be a pity if that was wrecked by idealism.

Re:Eh... (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year and a half ago | (#41260935)

However, the main thing is choice: the Creative Commons initiative currently offer a really good choice of licensees from the "Noncommercial/NoDerivs" (which is still one hell of an improvement from 'all rights reserved and I'd sue you for reading it to your kid if I thought I could get away with it' status quo) to full-blown 'copyleft' if you want it. It would be a pity if that was wrecked by idealism.

All rights reserved doesn't prevent you from posting your story online and letting everyone read it. NoCommercial/NoDerivs is basically All Rights Reserved in the end. You put your story online and to the reader, there's no functional difference. They can't commercially sell it under either license (NoCommercial), and they can't make much beyond fair use (NoDerivs).

The only difference is that someone running a non-commercial website (i.e., a personal blog, but not say /.) can copy and post it up and say "here's a cool story I found" without having to ask for permission first if it was All Rights Reserved. Everyone else, it's pretty much all rights reserved and the same rules would apply.

Short of that really narrow exception (which practically speaking isn't a big deal - since blogs lift all rights reserved content all the time and such, but get away with it because it's some small time thing that few know about).

Practically speaking, using CC-NC is the same as All Rights Reserved - a site like /. can't take your content withour your permission. CC-ND pretty much says "only use my work vebatim, do not adapt" which while allows for distribution beyond NC, really isn't in the spirit of CC (it's a "commons" to share and build upon other's work. ND doesn't allow that.).

Also remember that CC is supposed to give users rights beyond that of standard copyright law (all rights reserved is default - you can use CC or copyleft to give users more rights than they have under all rights reserved, but not take away what's already allowed), hence stuff like NC and ND are already redundant because that stuff is already prohibited.

Re:Eh... (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about a year and a half ago | (#41266095)

I think most artists (and publishers) in any medium would disagree with your analysis of CC-NC-ND: there's a dramatic difference between just giving you a free copy, and also giving you perpetual rights to give other people free copies. Not to mention giving the same rights to everyone downstream. I'm sure librarians appreciate the distinction at least as much as well, basically you're saying that as long as at least one copy of the work exists it can be freely copied among fans, regardless of the state of copyright law.

A CC-ND license goes one step further and says such copies can also be distributed commercially, which in the presence of free copies mostly amounts to enabling format-shifting into physical things like printed books or sheet music and the incorporation into commercial libraries/compendiums (think pre-packaged content servers for things like the OLPC project operating in places with poor internet connectivity) . Basically any use that has a non-negligible production cost you want to recoup: even being a non-profit does not legally translate into being non-commercial

As for CC-NC, sure, in terms commercial re-use it is essentially identical to all rights reserved, you have to get the artists permission, but then that's the point isn't it? However, for the wider community it's almost public domain - do whatever you want with it, incorporate it in derivative works, mash-ups, YouTube videos, whatever, just don't use it commercially without permission. (Okay, if the artist wanted to be a stickler they could argue YouTube itself is using it commercially, so call it a personal blog instead).

As for NC/ND being redundant, I think you're misunderstanding the license - the basic CC license is essentially public domain, it strips all rights from a work, then the various add-on clauses add certain specific restrictions back into the license in a standardized way to allow easy integration - any derivative works can be distributed under the most-restrictive combined terms of the component works. The idea is simple, but without a standardized license actually doing so in a way that lets downstream users make further derivative works is a hideous legal nightmare.

Re:Eh... (1)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | about a year and a half ago | (#41261937)

Well, it's more easy than this. If you have a "non-commercial use" license, then it's not free software. Remember we have the following freedom (nothing new):
0- Use
1- Studdy and modify
2- Redistribute and share
3- Redistribute modified copies

In the case of non-commercial clause, you loose freedom 2 and 3. In Debian, we all agree to the DFSG: Debian Free Software Guidelines: http://www.debian.org/social_contract [debian.org] which clearly specify that we shouldn't "Discrimination Against Persons or Groups". Such license with a non-commercial clause is discriminating for the freedom 2 and 3 of RMS. We consider this type of license as non-free. Full stop!

Re:Eh... (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about a year and a half ago | (#41266337)

I think that comes down to a philisophical distinction - you don't lose freedoms 2 and 3, you simply have them restricted to non-commercial redistribution. That does make it incompatible with the GPL, but it doesn't make it "non-free" any more than the GPL's restriction against being incorporated into proprietary products.

Information freedom covers a lot of ground over a multi-dimensional spectrum - the endpoints are fixed at full public domain (maximally free) and all rights reserved in perpetuity (minimally free), but as the GPL itself shows there are a lot of intermediate positions that can not be strictly classified as being "between" them. To stand anywhere other than full public domain and dismiss all other positions within the spectrum as "non-free" is the height of arrogance.

Re:Eh... (1)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | about a year and a half ago | (#41273233)

Well, as you say, it's a philisophical distinction. For us (eg: Debian contributors), any software that discriminates people or groups of people for its license is non-free. The line has to be drawn somewhere. We decided that it each time a software is non-free in some condition, then it's non-free and that's it. And I really like that we think this way.

Open Source != Free Culture (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41258267)

Just sayin'. Open Source is FAR FAR FAR removed from "free culture."

Re:Open Source != Free Culture (1)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | about a year and a half ago | (#41262045)

Don't over generalize. Some of it is, some of it isn't, depending on the authors and their involvement.

"Yeastie Boys" (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | about a year and a half ago | (#41258315)

is a rip off of the American band "Beastie Boys" and does irreparable damage to the band by associating it with a New Zealand beer.

The band's lawyers have been notified and this craft brew will be sued into oblivion.

Now that we got that over with... what's the topic of this discussion?

Re:"Yeastie Boys" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41258579)

So I wrote a bit of doggerel in '77 that started "What a wonderful beastie the yeastie is", you gonna tell me if I publish it today some band's lawyers are come after me? Fuck 'em.

Re:"Yeastie Boys" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41258965)

Nobody could possibly have any trademark issues with the Beastie Boys and the Yeastie Boys, the former is a musical ensemble and the latter is a beer.

Re:"Yeastie Boys" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41264433)

Just a fool being a tool... We don't even hae lawyers, so it'll be hard to notify them!!

Cheers from NZ!

Stu
Yeastie Boys

Money Causes Tunnel Vision (1)

Kotoku (1531373) | about a year and a half ago | (#41258345)

If they didn't want you making money off it (so that they could make more money) then they certainly don't want you out there NOT making money off of it (which would make you much stiffer competition at the unbeatable price point of free).

Pretentiousness^100! (4, Insightful)

antifoidulus (807088) | about a year and a half ago | (#41258517)

So basically he is doing what people have been doing for eons(sharing how to brew beer), but he has added the secret ingredient, pretentiousness and psuedo-intellectual drivel! Just what I always wanted with my suds.

Re:Pretentiousness^100! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41258725)

Here some recipes the pretentiousness.

http://www.brewmasterswarehouse.com/recipes
http://www.mrmalty.com/bcs/index.html

All the recipes from norther brewer are listed on the website including there pro series.
http://www.northernbrewer.com/shop/brewing/recipe-kits

Re:Pretentiousness^100! (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41258931)

Stone has been bottling pretentiousness all along. It works well if you include it with really excellent beer.

Re:Pretentiousness^100! (1)

fatphil (181876) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259345)

And on our side of the Atlantic, BrewDog have been taking Stone's pretentiousness and ice distilling it. Unfortunately a significant proportion of their beers suck (unlike the Stone beers that I've had, which have almost all been hits).

Re:Pretentiousness^100! (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259503)

Found the stone 18th anniversary IPA yet? nom nom

Re:Pretentiousness^100! (1)

fatphil (181876) | about a year and a half ago | (#41268279)

Here are my Stones: http://www.ratebeer.com/user/51287/ratings/112/2/
Apparently nobody's had any 18th Anniversary: http://www.ratebeer.com/brewers/stone-brewing-co/76/
However, as the 16th anniversary only appeared a month ago, perhaps that was a typo: http://www.ratebeer.com/beer/stone-16th-anniversary-ipa/182049/1/25/
The chances of it reaching Estonia are slim. It might hit Utobeer in London, for example, and I try to go there at least once a year. Perhaps bierkompass.de will get it too, who knows? I'll look out for it.

Re:Pretentiousness^100! (1)

heson (915298) | about a year and a half ago | (#41264279)

Stone old guardian, drinking it now, most probably the best beer in the world.

No thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41258545)

I like my beer without dogma, thanks.

Non-free Free beer?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41258609)

Non commercial does not qualify as Open Source ("No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor") and not Free either..... so how can a CC NC beer be a Free beer?! //fatal

Re:Non-free Free beer?! (1)

flimflammer (956759) | about a year and a half ago | (#41258873)

Sure it does. Open source can mean nothing more than the source (in this case the recipe) is available. The whole Free Software definition of open source isn't the only valid one, or even the first.

On a side note, given that recipes can't be protected by copyright, I have to wonder if they can even enforce a non-commercial clause in the license. Seems anyone could recreate the beer from the recipe and sell it if they saw fit.

Google should patent this idea . . . (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year and a half ago | (#41258779)

Free beer, served over a Internet "series of tubes". They could make money by selling information about what and how much you drink to anyone interested.

Like, the police, for example.

Wording... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41258799)

"Wean copyright junkies off their all-rights-reserved habit"? Am I the only one who actually felt embarrassed to read this and the next sentence?

.SEX WITH A TrOLL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41258827)

Usenet posts. rules t0 follo3 the fruitless

What's noncommercial? (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259015)

While the intention of the CC licences may have been to encourage reuse by standardization, I find that in many areas, it's still quite murky.

For one, what's non-commercial? The FAQ [creativecommons.org] doesn't quite say, other than to point you to a survey [creativecommons.org] of what some people think non-commercial means, which is all over the map. If you've got a picture, and you merely reprint it, is that non-commercial? If you have ads on a page? If you're a non-profit? A non-profit selling (selling=dollars) tickets for a concert using an NC picture on a poster? Or is it only "commercial" if you're trying to resell the picture, either individually or on a CD, but mere use is not "commercial"?

It seems that NC actually restricts use to nothing more than school reports. Or would that be "commercial" if you go to a private school? Would use in a report (that you're not selling) be OK within a corporation? In the annual report? In a brochure for customers?

Then there's ND: "No Derivatives" The FAQ is equally muddy there, basically just saying that means no adaptations or modifications. OK, what's that? Can you crop or scale a picture? Or you can, if you're a lawyer?

Now, taking Wikipedia's BY-SA license: Attribution isn't a big deal, but Share Alike is a minefield: What's a derivative work? "Alter, transform, or build upon". If you incorporate portions (or even all) of the Wikipedia article on, say, Canola oil, into your annual report, is the report now CC? Or if you incorporate some or all of a Wiki article on a webpage as background info on your topic? Is the rest of the page, which you wrote, now virally infected with CC-BY-SA?

The two biggest sources of CC material are Flickr and Wikipedia. And, in the matter of a user being able to quickly know how he can use a picture or a Wiki article, he's left absolutely clueless. (Again, other than for school reports.)

Re:What's noncommercial? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41261217)

Copyright law being murcky (wrt derivative works)? Blame CC!

A Beer is Not the Recipe! (2)

ElWojo (904121) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259613)

I have been a homebrewer for 4+ years - and I have brewed with commercial brewers. I have taken commercially-produced wort (pre-beer) home and fermented it at home. I have gotten the "commercial" recipes for beers and replicated them on my homebrew equipment. All this I have done - and I can guarantee you that you will never replicate a beer. You could get close...but to say that "open source" beer gives you the same beer they produce is just not true. If you are going to make beer - there are tons of reasonable free places to get good recipes meant for homebrewers. "Pope" Jamil Zainasheff is a great resource to start with for simple, proven recipes.

The reason why you can't just replicate a beer is simple: *everything* matters. Variables that aren't related to a "recipe" include (from memory): water chemistry, mash temperature, mash duration, sparge temperature, sparge method, sparge rate, boiling rate, hopping method, cooling method, yeast pitching rate, fermentation temperature, fermentation length, fermentation vessel, filtering method, bottling/kegging conditioning method. Some of these are equipment dependent - but some are also *their* equipment dependent - and how they use their equipment as well!

The fact that Budweiser can come across as Budweiser from all of its production plants year after year is nothing short of a *very* involved and active brew-master. Despite its poor reputation in the beer community - they really are good at their job...of producing a yellow-ish, slightly malty, slightly hoppy, corn-flavored beer.

Why is it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41260369)

That every story concerning Open Source anything:

A: has to contain some silly stunt product as a representative of a bigger realm/idea/market? (Open Source beer? Give me a break, it's freaking stunt.)
B: has to use B.S. metaphors to get it's ideas across while making Open Source seem bad concerning it's image?

Seriously...this is neutral journalism? "the Non Commercial license is either the methadone that can wean copyright junkies off their all-rights-reserved habit, or it is a gateway drug to the psychedelic and dangerously addictive world of open source and free culture."

^That is utter horseshit, period. Never-mind that there is no such thing as a gateway drug, not scientifically at least. The whole idea that it's linked to addiction in this manner is completely offensive, and I will say it now...Sam Muirhead is an asshat.

The "recipe" for beer is hardly proprietary (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#41260533)

It's getting decent ingredients and buying proper equipment and spending enough time that makes the end product work.

I'm more of a cider man, and the recipe there's even simpler: chuck a ton of rotten apples in a barrel, add a couple of rats, then strain off the liquid when it starts bubbling. Something like that anyway.

This is stupid (1)

Captain Centropyge (1245886) | about a year and a half ago | (#41262543)

Brewing beer at home has been around for millenia. Sharing of recipes online is huge within the homebrewing community. What good is an "open-source" beer? A recipe cannot be copyrighted. The brew itself cannot be patented. The only thing they're doing is sharing the recipe, along with a sample of the beer. Big deal. Many microbreweries share recipes for their brews on their own web sites. Saying the beer is "open-source" simply means you look like a pretentious douche by calling it "open-source".
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...