Cc singularity u-panel_on_open_source


Published on

Linksvayer, M. (2009, July 28). Panel on Open Source, The Commons as a collective intelligence meta-innovation. Retrieved Retrieved May 7, 2010, from

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Linksvayer, M. (2009, July 28). Panel on Open Source, The Commons as a collective intelligence meta-innovation. Retrieved Retrieved May 7, 2010, from
  • Cc singularity u-panel_on_open_source

    1. 1. Singularity University Panel on Open Source 2009-07-28 The Commons as a collective intelligence meta-innovation Mike Linksvayer Creative Commons Photo by asadal · Licensed under CC Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 ·
    2. 2. Creative Commons .ORG <ul><li>Nonprofit organization, launched to public December 2002 </li></ul><ul><li>HQ and ccLearn in San Francisco </li></ul><ul><li>Science Commons division at MIT </li></ul><ul><li>~70 international jurisdiction projects, coordinated from Berlin </li></ul><ul><li>Foundation, corporate, and individual funding </li></ul><ul><li>Born at Stanford, supported by Silicon Valley </li></ul>
    3. 3. Enabling Reasonable Copyright <ul><li>Space between ignoring copyright and ignoring fair use & public good </li></ul><ul><li>Legal and technical tools enabling a “Some Rights Reserved” model </li></ul><ul><li>Like “free software” or “open source” for content/media </li></ul><ul><ul><li>But with more restrictive options </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Media is more diverse and at least a decade(?) behind software </li></ul></ul>
    4. 4. Six Mainstream Licenses
    5. 5. Lawyer Readable
    6. 6. Human Readable
    7. 7. Machine Readable <rdf:RDF xmlns=&quot;; xmlns:rdf=&quot;;> <License rdf:about=&quot;;> <permits rdf:resource=&quot;;/> <permits rdf:resource=&quot;;/> <requires rdf:resource=&quot;;/> <requires rdf:resource=&quot;;/> <prohibits rdf:resource=&quot;;/> <permits rdf:resource=&quot;;/> <requires rdf:resource=&quot;;/> </License> </rdf:RDF>
    8. 8. Machine Readable (Work) <span xmlns:cc=&quot;; xmlns:dc=&quot;;> <span rel=&quot; dc:type &quot; href=&quot; &quot; property=&quot; dc:title &quot;> My Book </span> by <a rel=&quot; cc:attributionURL &quot; property=&quot; cc:attributionName &quot; href=&quot; &quot;> My Name </a> is licensed under a <a rel=&quot; license &quot; href=&quot; &quot;>Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License</a>. <span rel=&quot; dc:source &quot; href=&quot; &quot;/> Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at <a rel=&quot; cc:morePermissions &quot; href=&quot; &quot;></a>. </span>
    9. 9. DRMfree “ DRM Voodo” by psd licensed under CC BY 2.0
    10. 10. Software/Culture (i) <ul><li>Utilitarian/obvious but narrow reuse vs non-utilitarian but universal reuse possible </li></ul><ul><li>Gecko in Firefox, Thunderbird, Songbird... = Obvious </li></ul><ul><li>Device driver code in web application = Huh? </li></ul><ul><li>Cat photos and heavy metal = music video </li></ul>
    11. 11. Software/Culture (ii) <ul><li>Maintenance necessary vs rare </li></ul><ul><li>Non-maintained software = dead </li></ul><ul><li>“ Maintained” cultural work = pretty special </li></ul><ul><li>(Wikis are somewhat like software in this respect) </li></ul>
    12. 12. Software/Culture (iii) <ul><li>Roughly all or nothing modifiable form vs varied and degradable forms </li></ul><ul><li>You have the source code or you don’t </li></ul><ul><li>Text w/markup > PDF > Bitmap scan </li></ul><ul><li>Multitracks > High bitrate > Low bitrate </li></ul>
    13. 13. Software/Culture (iv) <ul><li>Construction is identical to creating modifiable form vs. iteratively leaving materials on the cutting room floor </li></ul>
    14. 14. Software/Culture (v) <ul><li>Why NoDerivatives and NonCommercial? </li></ul><ul><li>Legal sharing of verbatim works made interesting by filesharing wars </li></ul><ul><li>Maybe less emphasis on maintenance means </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Restrictions on field of use less impactful </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Free commercial use more impactful on existing business models </li></ul></ul>
    15. 15. Sofware/Culture (vi) <ul><li>Commercial anticommons </li></ul><ul><li>When distributed maintenance is important, NC is unusable for business (one explanation of why free software ≅ open source) </li></ul><ul><li>Maybe some artists want a commercial anticommons: nobody can be “exploited” ... but most want to exploit commerce. NC maybe does both. </li></ul>
    16. 16. History (i) <ul><li>Some evocative dates for software ... </li></ul><ul><li>1983: Launch of GNU Project </li></ul><ul><li>1989: GPLv1 </li></ul><ul><li>1991: Linux kernel, GPLv2 </li></ul><ul><li>1993: Debian </li></ul><ul><li>1996: Apache </li></ul><ul><li>1998: Mozilla, “open source”, IBM </li></ul>
    17. 17. History (ii) <ul><li>... evocative dates for software </li></ul><ul><li>1999: crazine$$ </li></ul><ul><li>2004: Firefox 1.0 </li></ul><ul><li>2007: [AL]GPLv3 </li></ul><ul><li>????: World Domination </li></ul>
    18. 18. History (iii) <ul><li>Open content licenses (some of them Free): </li></ul><ul><li>1998: Open Content License </li></ul><ul><li>1999: Open Publication License </li></ul><ul><li>2000: GFDL, Free Art License </li></ul><ul><li>2001: EFF Open Audio License </li></ul>
    19. 19. History (iv) <ul><li>Other early 2000s open content licenses (some of them Free): </li></ul><ul><li>Design Science License, Ethymonics Free Music Public License, Open Music Green/Yellow/Red/Rainbow Licenses, Open Source Music License, No Type License, Public Library of Science Open Access License, Electrohippie Collective's Ethical Open Documentation License </li></ul>
    20. 20. History (v) <ul><li>Versioning of Creative Commons licenses (some of them Free): </li></ul><ul><li>2002: 1.0 </li></ul><ul><li>2004: 2.0 </li></ul><ul><li>2005: 2.5 </li></ul><ul><li>2007: 3.0 </li></ul>
    21. 21. History (vi) <ul><li>Anti-proliferation? </li></ul><ul><li>2003: author of Open Content/Publication licenses recommends CC instead and PLoS adopts CC BY </li></ul><ul><li>2004: EFF OAL 2.0 declares CC BY-SA 2.0 its next version </li></ul><ul><li>No significant new culture licenses since 2002 </li></ul><ul><li>2008+: Possible Wikipedia migration to CC BY-SA </li></ul>
    22. 22. Indicators (community) <ul><li>1993: Debian :: 2001 : Wikipedia </li></ul><ul><li>8 years </li></ul><ul><li>Wikipedia’s success came faster and more visibly </li></ul><ul><li>Does Wikipedia even need an Ubuntu (2004)? </li></ul><ul><li>But how typical is Wikipedia of free culture? </li></ul>
    23. 23. Indicators (business) <ul><li>1989: Cygnus Solutions :: 2003 : Magnatune </li></ul><ul><li>14 years </li></ul><ul><li>Cygnus acquired by Red Hat (1999); Magnatune’s long term impact TBD </li></ul><ul><li>Magnatune may not be Free enough for some, but it seems like the best analogy for now </li></ul>
    24. 24. Indicators (big business) <ul><li>1998: IBM :: ???? : ? </li></ul><ul><li>No analogous investments have been made in free culture. Most large computer companies have now made large investments in free/open source software </li></ul><ul><li>1998: Microsoft :: 2008 : Big Media </li></ul><ul><li>Could Microsoft’s attitude toward openness a decade ago be analogous to big media’s today? </li></ul>
    25. 25. Indicators (Wikitravel) <ul><li>Very cool round-trip story: </li></ul><ul><li>2003: Launch, CC BY-SA </li></ul><ul><li>2006: Acquired by Internet Brands </li></ul><ul><li>2008: First Wikitravel Press paper titles </li></ul><ul><li>Community is the new “IP”? </li></ul>
    26. 26. Indicators (NIN) <ul><li>Ghosts I-IV released 2008 under CC BY-NC-SA: </li></ul><ul><li>$1.6m gross in first week </li></ul><ul><li>$750k in two days from limited edition “ultra deluxe edition” </li></ul><ul><li>This while available legally and easily, gratis. </li></ul><ul><li>NC doesn’t seem important in this story ... yet </li></ul>
    27. 27. Indicators (Summary Guesses) <ul><li>Free culture is at least a decade behind free software </li></ul><ul><li>Except where it has mass collaboration/maintenance aspects of software, where it may rocket ahead (Wikipedia) </li></ul><ul><li>Generally culture is much more varied than software; success will be spikey </li></ul>
    28. 28. In Innovation, Meta is Max <ul><li>“ The max net-impact innovations, by far, have been meta-innovations, i.e., innovations that changed how fast other innovations accumulated.” </li></ul><ul><li>Robin Hanson (Economist) </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul>
    29. 29. Collective Intelligence <ul><li>Meta innovation? </li></ul>
    30. 30. Commons <ul><li>Meta innovation for Collective Intelligence? </li></ul>
    31. 31. $2.2 trillion <ul><li>Value of fair use in the U.S. Economy </li></ul><ul><li> also see </li></ul>
    32. 34. Cyber terrorism (Cyber terror war on) Privacy breaches Loss of Generativity Lock-in Surveillance DRM Censorship Suppression of innovation Electoral fraud Luddism
    33. 35. Threat categories <ul><li>Legitimate security issues </li></ul><ul><li>Protectionism </li></ul><ul><li>Politics and power </li></ul><ul><li>Security theater and fear-based responses (driven by all of above, not just legitimate security issues) </li></ul>
    34. 36. What digital freedoms needed for beneficial collective intelligence? <ul><li>Keep same rights online/digitally that we (should anyway) have offline/IRL </li></ul><ul><li>Permit innovation and participation enabled by digital world even if not possible before (probably follows from above) </li></ul>
    35. 37. How building the commons (free software, free culture, and friends) helps
    36. 38. Security <ul><li>Data shows FLOSS is more secure </li></ul><ul><li>Security through obscurity doesn’t work </li></ul><ul><li>FLOSS encourages a heterogeneous computing environment </li></ul><ul><li>Free software and free culture both allergic to DRM and other mechanisms that sacrifice security to other goals </li></ul>
    37. 39. Protectionism <ul><li>Peer production undermines policy arguments for protecting knowledge industries </li></ul><ul><li>Free software and free culture both allergic to DRM </li></ul>
    38. 40. Politics and power <ul><li>Free software and culture improve transparency </li></ul><ul><li>... and the ability of all to participate </li></ul><ul><li>Peer production works against concentrated power — doesn’t require concentrated production structures and lowers barriers to entry </li></ul>
    39. 41. Security theater and fear <ul><li>Access to facts mitigates fear and allows rational evaluation of responses </li></ul><ul><li>Commons work against three previous threats that drive security theater and fear </li></ul>
    40. 42. Can the success of the (digital) commons alter how we view freedom and power generally?
    41. 43. <ul><li>“ The gate that has held the movements for equalization of human beings strictly in a dilemma between ineffectiveness and violence has now been opened. The reason is that we have shifted to a zero marginal cost world. As steel is replaced by software, more and more of the value in society becomes non-rivalrous: it can be held by many without costing anybody more than if it is held by a few.” </li></ul><ul><li>Eben Moglen </li></ul>
    42. 44. <ul><li>“ If we don’t want to live in a jungle, we must change our attitudes. We must start sending the message that a good citizen is one who cooperates when appropriate, not one who is successful at taking from others.” </li></ul><ul><li>Richard Stallman </li></ul>
    43. 45. i.e., we can form collective intelligences instead of forced collectives ... and still “change the world”
    44. 47. Building the commons is key to achieving a good future <ul><li>Politicians and corporations are unimaginative ... they need to see solutions, or they react in fear </li></ul><ul><li>A dominant commons makes many collective stupidity scenarios much less likely </li></ul><ul><li>Beneficial collective intelligence needs universal access to culture, educational resources, research ... in machine-readable form </li></ul>
    45. 48. <ul><li>License </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li>Attribution </li></ul><ul><li>Author: Mike Linksvayer </li></ul><ul><li>Link: </li></ul><ul><li>Questions? </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul>Detail of image by psd · Licensed under CC Attribution 2.0 ·