Beta
×

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!

OpenContent Closes Its Doors

CmdrTaco posted more than 11 years ago | from the lotta-good-done dept.

News 101

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."

cancel ×

101 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FP (-1)

JismTroll (588456) | more than 11 years ago | (#6338706)

Lol Dudes!11!1!! mE am brazil!11! well after twelve years on the emuscene my dream is making real here is the first screen shot of REAS the KILL OF ALL EMULATORS ,WELL I HAVE TO CONGRATULATE THE GREAT BRAZILIAN CODER REGIS REZENDE TO AGREE JOINING THIS HARD PROJECT , he is the most experient coder in brazil, ONCE I WANT TO TELL ALL PEOPLE THAT HELP ME ABOUT THE REAS A GREAT HUGE,ACTUALLY THE EMU IS RUNNING ONLY FEW SYTEMS BUT WAIT VERY SOON GREAT PROGRESS ,IF U ARE A CODER AND WANT TO COLOBORATE WITH REGIS CONTACT ME BECAUSE HE IS VERY BUSY . THE SOURCE DONT WILL BE PUBLIC. THE EMU IS RUNNING UNDER ASM WITH SOME THINGS IN ALEGRO ,IS FOR WINDOWS , AND IS OPTIMIZED FOR A PENTIUM OR AMD 900 WITH 128 RAM AND GEOFORCE 2,BUT THIS SPEC IS ONLY TO RUN ALL SYSTEMS I WILL PUT HERE SOME ROMS TOO,I WANT DONATORS TO KEEP THE REAS ALIVE I SPENT MANY TIME AND REGIS TOO,IF U ARE AN EMULOVER DONATION SOME MONEY OR HOST THIS SITE AND GIVE BANNERS TO IT. PUT IN YOUR MINDS THAT THIS EMU ISNT FAKE,DONT BELIEVE IN SOME EMULATION SITE,TRUST ME AND WE WILL GET THE BEST EMU EVER. IF U HAVE ANY IDEA TO I MAKE CASH WITH THIS SITE TO CONTINUE SUPPORTING REAS TELL ME THE EMU LANGUAGE IS ENGLISH BUT I TOLD TO REGIS PUT A TRANSTALOR OUTPUT.THE REAS SUPPORT ZIP AND FUTURE NETPLAY VIA MODEM IP.

CPS2 ROMS

http://www.reir0m.hpg.ig.com.br/index.html

please in-form me good sire. exactly how 'iced out' is your bling bling this fine winter's evening?

Yay! (-1, Offtopic)

nepheles (642829) | more than 11 years ago | (#6338710)

First post

FAIL! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6338733)

As with everything else in your life, YOU FAIL IT

Re:FAIL! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6338762)

The public want to be able to install stuff without using a command prompt. Hence Linux fails.

Re:FAIL! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6338930)

Linux was borked from the outset
It's borked now
and it will always remain borked.
Command prompt, or not!

BORK, BORK!

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6338720)

Mine ! Mine ! My preciousss...

YOU ARE THE FAILURE!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6339979)

Silly bitchtits, you are the failure. And your mother hates you.

She loves my cock all up in that ass though.

ps, eat a dick.

Cliff Notes version. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6338725)

I succeeded at my goals, and now it's time to move on.

Obviously (-1, Offtopic)

binarytoaster (174681) | more than 11 years ago | (#6338727)

this is SCO's doing, no matter what anyone says...

No doubt (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6339033)

Microsoft clearly also has a hand in this.

Shame... (4, Interesting)

byolinux (535260) | more than 11 years ago | (#6338734)

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

Shame? Slashdot Readers in the NEWS (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6338841)

P-O grads guilty of field-trip homosexual assault
By Mike Joseph
mjoseph@centredaily.com

Two former Philipsburg-Osceola Area High School students were found guilty Monday of homosexual assault with intent to rape and and related charges by a Massachusetts jury that deliberated more than two days.

The charges against the two students stemmed from oral and anal sexual assaults on two male classmates during a four-day school field trip to the Boston area in April 2001.

During the trial, Assistant District Attorney Nathaniel Yeager presented evidence that the defendants flashed one student and attempted to force him to give them oral sex and anally assaulted him and another student over two nights of the field trip.

After deliberating Friday and most of the day Monday, the jury reached this verdict:

Broberg was found guilty of one count of homosexual assault with intent to rape; guilty of four of six counts of indecent assault and battery; guilty of three of four counts of open and gross behavior; and guilty of three of four counts of oral sex assault and battery. Broberg was a Philipsburg-Osceola senior in April 2001.

Benjamin Walker, 20, of Philipsburg, was found guilty of one count of assault with intent to rape; guilty of four of six counts of indecent assault and battery; guilty of four of six counts of disgusting and gross homo behavior; and guilty of three of four counts of assault and battery. Walker also was a Philipsburg-Osceola senior at the time.

Trial judge Mitchell Sikora scheduled sentencing for Sept. 12.

Emily LaGrassa, a spokeswoman for the Middlesex district attorney, said Broberg and Walker face a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison each for assault with intent to rape, the most severe of the charges. The problem is they will enjoy the prison atmosphere and the open homosexuality therein, she said.

Broberg's defense attorney, Edward P. Ryan Jr., said through a spokeswoman that he would not comment either on the verdict or on whether an appeal is planned. Walker's attorney could not be reached for comment.

Is Michael Sims The Webmaster? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6346347)

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

Is there a copy? (4, Interesting)

Chris_Stankowitz (612232) | more than 11 years ago | (#6338738)

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

Re:Is there a copy? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6338765)

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

As long as... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6338739)

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

Re:As long as... (2, Informative)

autechre (121980) | more than 11 years ago | (#6339646)

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.

Thank God I stayed with Microsoft!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6338742)

You know they'll be around for a long time, unlike most OSS sweatshops.

Just as he says. (4, Interesting)

Surak (18578) | more than 11 years ago | (#6338752)

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. (0)

lfourrier (209630) | more than 11 years ago | (#6338790)

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. (2, Insightful)

jkrise (535370) | more than 11 years ago | (#6338796)

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. (4, Informative)

Surak (18578) | more than 11 years ago | (#6338915)

Really? Have you seen the board of director's list [creativecommons.org] 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 [creativecommons.org] . They also have BSD-like licenses. It's your choice. You decide.

Re:Just as he says. (1)

jkrise (535370) | more than 11 years ago | (#6338965)

"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. (2, Interesting)

ahfoo (223186) | more than 11 years ago | (#6339113)

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. (1)

Anthony Boyd (242971) | more than 11 years ago | (#6339863)

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. (1)

ahfoo (223186) | more than 11 years ago | (#6340090)

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. (4, Informative)

Jetifi (188285) | more than 11 years ago | (#6338928)

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 [opensource.org] , 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. (1)

Surak (18578) | more than 11 years ago | (#6339250)

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. (1)

Jetifi (188285) | more than 11 years ago | (#6342745)

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?!?!?! (4, Insightful)

SuperDuG (134989) | more than 11 years ago | (#6338756)

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 ...

Re:WHAT?!?!?!--Bullpucky (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6338882)

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.

Re:WHAT?!?!?!--Bullpucky (1)

SuperDuG (134989) | more than 11 years ago | (#6338912)

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.

Re:WHAT?!?!?!--make up your mind (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6339889)

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?

Re:WHAT?!?!?!--make up your mind (1)

SuperDuG (134989) | more than 11 years ago | (#6341450)

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

unfortunate (5, Insightful)

Boromir son of Faram (645464) | more than 11 years ago | (#6338760)

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 (1)

dramaley (20773) | more than 11 years ago | (#6339218)

>wheat from the shaft

Do you mean "wheat from the chaff?"

Re:unfortunate (0, Flamebait)

NineNine (235196) | more than 11 years ago | (#6339376)

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 (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 11 years ago | (#6339629)

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 (1)

NineNine (235196) | more than 11 years ago | (#6339864)

Looks like it fits! I'm flattered.

Re:unfortunate (0, Troll)

Cyno (85911) | more than 11 years ago | (#6339568)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6339699)

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

Re:unfortunate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6340801)

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.

ok folks... (-1, Troll)

goats_in_boats (655991) | more than 11 years ago | (#6338763)

...slashdot this joker ;-)

wrong reply button (0)

goats_in_boats (655991) | more than 11 years ago | (#6339052)

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

Embrace! (1)

nepheles (642829) | more than 11 years ago | (#6338774)

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.

COBOL's Demise??? (1)

Chanc_Gorkon (94133) | more than 11 years ago | (#6339196)

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! ;)

FORTRAN's demise? (1)

joib (70841) | more than 11 years ago | (#6340870)

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

open content? (-1, Offtopic)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 11 years ago | (#6338785)

was he the open anus [goatse.cx] guy? good riddance! This web site needs fewer links to gross [tubgirl.com] pictures.

Linux/Slashdot readers in the NEWS (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6338806)

P-O grads guilty of field-trip sex assault
By Mike Joseph
mjoseph@centredaily.com

Two former Philipsburg-Osceola Area High School students were found guilty Monday of homosexual assault with intent to rape and and related charges by a Massachusetts jury that deliberated more than two days.

The charges against the two students stemmed from sexual assaults on two male classmates during a four-day school field trip to the Boston area in April 2001.

During the trial, Assistant District Attorney Nathaniel Yeager presented evidence that the defendants flashed one student and attempted to force him to give them oral sex and anally assaulted him and another student over two nights of the field trip.

The attorney representing defendant Garrett Broberg, 20, of Philipsburg, argued that some of the accusations against his client were fabrications by the victims and that other incidents were juvenile pranks but not criminal acts.

After deliberating Friday and most of the day Monday, the jury reached this verdict:

Broberg was found guilty of one count of homosexual assault with intent to rape; guilty of four of six counts of indecent assault and battery; guilty of three of four counts of open and gross behavior; and guilty of three of four counts of oral sex assault and battery. Broberg was a Philipsburg-Osceola senior in April 2001.

Benjamin Walker, 20, of Philipsburg, was found guilty of one count of assault with intent to rape; guilty of four of six counts of indecent assault and battery; guilty of four of six counts of disgusting and gross homo behavior; and guilty of three of four counts of assault and battery. Walker also was a Philipsburg-Osceola senior at the time.

Trial judge Mitchell Sikora scheduled sentencing for Sept. 12.

Emily LaGrassa, a spokeswoman for the Middlesex district attorney, said Broberg and Walker face a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison each for assault with intent to rape, the most severe of the charges. The problem is they will enjoy the prison atmosphere and the open homosexuality therein, she said.

Broberg's defense attorney, Edward P. Ryan Jr., said through a spokeswoman that he would not comment either on the verdict or on whether an appeal is planned. Walker's attorney could not be reached for comment.

Good news for Linux? (2, Insightful)

PhysicsGenius (565228) | more than 11 years ago | (#6338832)

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... (5, Interesting)

srichter (120728) | more than 11 years ago | (#6338834)

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.

huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6339920)

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

Summary: (-1, Troll)

mao che minh (611166) | more than 11 years ago | (#6338854)

"I'm stopping work on my pro-bono goodwill campaign to go make lots of money and get a cool title to put on my business cards. Plus, they give out 17 vacation days a year. Ciao."

I switched to CC also (4, Informative)

MarkWatson (189759) | more than 11 years ago | (#6338864)

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 (0, Troll)

kin_korn_karn (466864) | more than 11 years ago | (#6338991)

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

Re:I switched to CC also (2, Interesting)

MarkWatson (189759) | more than 11 years ago | (#6339220)

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 (1)

kin_korn_karn (466864) | more than 11 years ago | (#6341226)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6342451)

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 (1)

Ryan Amos (16972) | more than 11 years ago | (#6341257)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6340493)

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 (1)

MarkWatson (189759) | more than 10 years ago | (#6349661)

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

He stood up for me once. (4, Interesting)

AtariDatacenter (31657) | more than 11 years ago | (#6338888)

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 [cox.net] ! And, yes, "cox.net" is COX cable. ;)

Re:He stood up for me once. (1)

chrisbtoo (41029) | more than 11 years ago | (#6339682)

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. (1)

David Hume (200499) | more than 11 years ago | (#6339925)


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. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6342493)

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

Re:He stood up for me once. (1)

AtariDatacenter (31657) | more than 11 years ago | (#6343082)

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. (1)

chrisbtoo (41029) | more than 11 years ago | (#6347417)

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. (1)

AtariDatacenter (31657) | more than 11 years ago | (#6347508)

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

Re:He stood up for me once. (1)

Istealmymusic (573079) | more than 11 years ago | (#6342532)

The language barrier.

where the GPL excells .. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6338909)

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!

Am I the only one who's shocked and disappointed? (5, Insightful)

Florian (2471) | more than 11 years ago | (#6338959)

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!

One question: (0, Troll)

TrollBridge (550878) | more than 11 years ago | (#6339073)

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.

Copyleft, was Re:One question: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6339155)

Look at
[gnu.org]
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html

for a definition of "copyleft".

Good reference, but 'copyleft' isn't more 'free' (0, Troll)

TrollBridge (550878) | more than 11 years ago | (#6339264)

"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:Good reference, but 'copyleft' isn't more 'free (1)

runderwo (609077) | more than 11 years ago | (#6339350)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6339467)

"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:Good reference, but 'copyleft' isn't more 'free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6340053)

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.

Re:Am I the only one who's shocked and disappointe (3, Insightful)

Jester99 (23135) | more than 11 years ago | (#6339086)

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 (1)

Florian (2471) | more than 11 years ago | (#6339344)

> 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:Am I the only one who's shocked and disappointe (1)

mrybczyn (515205) | more than 11 years ago | (#6339469)

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.

Re:Am I the only one who's shocked and disappointe (1)

ball-lightning (594495) | more than 11 years ago | (#6339092)

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.

Re:Am I the only one who's shocked and disappointe (1)

the endless (412967) | more than 11 years ago | (#6339293)

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...

Re:Am I the only one who's shocked and disappointe (3, Insightful)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 11 years ago | (#6339703)

Am I the only one who's shocked and disappointed?
Yes, quite possibly. I have [lightandmatter.com] 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:Am I the only one who's shocked and disappointe (1)

smallclaims (574193) | more than 11 years ago | (#6342315)

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

Mozilla closes it's doors! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6338977)

The Mozillabird browser was scrapped today because of competition from Konqueror. Apple has spent millions of dollars developing it and the mozilla guys just can't compete. The gnome project is now using gtk html so mozilla is useless. As for winodws, Opera kicked its ass from day one.

think positively (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6338998)

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 [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 (1)

sgtrock (191182) | more than 11 years ago | (#6339415)

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? [opencontent.org] I thought it was a very positive statement.

Re:think positively (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6343600)

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'.

Ayn Rand would be the first to point out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6339062)

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.

Ayn Rand can suck me off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6339343)

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.

Send him an Ayn Card! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6340443)

I suggest we send him an Ayn card [saintaardv...rpeted.com] just to make sure he gets the point. :D

Re:Ayn Rand would be the first to point out (1)

BelugaParty (684507) | more than 11 years ago | (#6341154)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6344883)

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.

Router guy (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6339535)

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.

Freudian Typo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6340197)

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

The nav bar at the top of the page [opencontent.org] 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... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6340249)

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

I believe this is for the best (0, Troll)

FinalCut (555823) | more than 11 years ago | (#6340522)

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.

In related news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6341944)

CloseContent Opens Its Doors

What about sites like POPNT.COM? (1)

Junkster Julian (672631) | more than 11 years ago | (#6342106)

How does the current state of OpenContent and Creative Content licenses affect site like popnt.com [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?

What does this mean (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6342304)

After five years of pioneering the application of open source principles...

What does that mean; give your stuff away for free and starve ? I mean really, how stupid do you have to be ?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>