Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Cc singularity u-panel_on_open_source
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Cc singularity u-panel_on_open_source

1,113

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 http://slidesha.re/9ZXtHl.

Linksvayer, M. (2009, July 28). Panel on Open Source, The Commons as a collective intelligence meta-innovation. Retrieved Retrieved May 7, 2010, from http://slidesha.re/9ZXtHl.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,113
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
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 http://slidesha.re/9ZXtHl.
  • Transcript

    • 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 · http://flickr.com/photos/68242677@N00/2117153416/
    • 2. Creative Commons .ORG
      • Nonprofit organization, launched to public December 2002
      • HQ and ccLearn in San Francisco
      • Science Commons division at MIT
      • ~70 international jurisdiction projects, coordinated from Berlin
      • Foundation, corporate, and individual funding
      • Born at Stanford, supported by Silicon Valley
    • 3. Enabling Reasonable Copyright
      • Space between ignoring copyright and ignoring fair use & public good
      • Legal and technical tools enabling a “Some Rights Reserved” model
      • Like “free software” or “open source” for content/media
        • But with more restrictive options
        • Media is more diverse and at least a decade(?) behind software
    • 4. Six Mainstream Licenses
    • 5. Lawyer Readable
    • 6. Human Readable
    • 7. Machine Readable <rdf:RDF xmlns=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/ns#&quot; xmlns:rdf=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#&quot;> <License rdf:about=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/nl/&quot;> <permits rdf:resource=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/ns#Reproduction&quot;/> <permits rdf:resource=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/ns#Distribution&quot;/> <requires rdf:resource=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/ns#Notice&quot;/> <requires rdf:resource=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/ns#Attribution&quot;/> <prohibits rdf:resource=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/ns#CommercialUse&quot;/> <permits rdf:resource=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks&quot;/> <requires rdf:resource=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/ns#ShareAlike&quot;/> </License> </rdf:RDF>
    • 8. Machine Readable (Work) <span xmlns:cc=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/ns#&quot; xmlns:dc=&quot;http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/&quot;> <span rel=&quot; dc:type &quot; href=&quot; http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text &quot; property=&quot; dc:title &quot;> My Book </span> by <a rel=&quot; cc:attributionURL &quot; property=&quot; cc:attributionName &quot; href=&quot; http://example.org/me &quot;> My Name </a> is licensed under a <a rel=&quot; license &quot; href=&quot; http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ &quot;>Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License</a>. <span rel=&quot; dc:source &quot; href=&quot; http://example.net/her_book &quot;/> Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at <a rel=&quot; cc:morePermissions &quot; href=&quot; http://example.com/revenue_sharing_agreement &quot;>example.com</a>. </span>
    • 9. DRMfree “ DRM Voodo” by psd licensed under CC BY 2.0 http://flickr.com/photos/psd/1806247462/
    • 10. Software/Culture (i)
      • Utilitarian/obvious but narrow reuse vs non-utilitarian but universal reuse possible
      • Gecko in Firefox, Thunderbird, Songbird... = Obvious
      • Device driver code in web application = Huh?
      • Cat photos and heavy metal = music video
    • 11. Software/Culture (ii)
      • Maintenance necessary vs rare
      • Non-maintained software = dead
      • “ Maintained” cultural work = pretty special
      • (Wikis are somewhat like software in this respect)
    • 12. Software/Culture (iii)
      • Roughly all or nothing modifiable form vs varied and degradable forms
      • You have the source code or you don’t
      • Text w/markup > PDF > Bitmap scan
      • Multitracks > High bitrate > Low bitrate
    • 13. Software/Culture (iv)
      • Construction is identical to creating modifiable form vs. iteratively leaving materials on the cutting room floor
    • 14. Software/Culture (v)
      • Why NoDerivatives and NonCommercial?
      • Legal sharing of verbatim works made interesting by filesharing wars
      • Maybe less emphasis on maintenance means
        • Restrictions on field of use less impactful
        • Free commercial use more impactful on existing business models
    • 15. Sofware/Culture (vi)
      • Commercial anticommons
      • When distributed maintenance is important, NC is unusable for business (one explanation of why free software ≅ open source)
      • Maybe some artists want a commercial anticommons: nobody can be “exploited” ... but most want to exploit commerce. NC maybe does both.
    • 16. History (i)
      • Some evocative dates for software ...
      • 1983: Launch of GNU Project
      • 1989: GPLv1
      • 1991: Linux kernel, GPLv2
      • 1993: Debian
      • 1996: Apache
      • 1998: Mozilla, “open source”, IBM
    • 17. History (ii)
      • ... evocative dates for software
      • 1999: crazine$$
      • 2004: Firefox 1.0
      • 2007: [AL]GPLv3
      • ????: World Domination
    • 18. History (iii)
      • Open content licenses (some of them Free):
      • 1998: Open Content License
      • 1999: Open Publication License
      • 2000: GFDL, Free Art License
      • 2001: EFF Open Audio License
    • 19. History (iv)
      • Other early 2000s open content licenses (some of them Free):
      • 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
    • 20. History (v)
      • Versioning of Creative Commons licenses (some of them Free):
      • 2002: 1.0
      • 2004: 2.0
      • 2005: 2.5
      • 2007: 3.0
    • 21. History (vi)
      • Anti-proliferation?
      • 2003: author of Open Content/Publication licenses recommends CC instead and PLoS adopts CC BY
      • 2004: EFF OAL 2.0 declares CC BY-SA 2.0 its next version
      • No significant new culture licenses since 2002
      • 2008+: Possible Wikipedia migration to CC BY-SA
    • 22. Indicators (community)
      • 1993: Debian :: 2001 : Wikipedia
      • 8 years
      • Wikipedia’s success came faster and more visibly
      • Does Wikipedia even need an Ubuntu (2004)?
      • But how typical is Wikipedia of free culture?
    • 23. Indicators (business)
      • 1989: Cygnus Solutions :: 2003 : Magnatune
      • 14 years
      • Cygnus acquired by Red Hat (1999); Magnatune’s long term impact TBD
      • Magnatune may not be Free enough for some, but it seems like the best analogy for now
    • 24. Indicators (big business)
      • 1998: IBM :: ???? : ?
      • No analogous investments have been made in free culture. Most large computer companies have now made large investments in free/open source software
      • 1998: Microsoft :: 2008 : Big Media
      • Could Microsoft’s attitude toward openness a decade ago be analogous to big media’s today?
    • 25. Indicators (Wikitravel)
      • Very cool round-trip story:
      • 2003: Launch, CC BY-SA
      • 2006: Acquired by Internet Brands
      • 2008: First Wikitravel Press paper titles
      • Community is the new “IP”?
    • 26. Indicators (NIN)
      • Ghosts I-IV released 2008 under CC BY-NC-SA:
      • $1.6m gross in first week
      • $750k in two days from limited edition “ultra deluxe edition”
      • This while available legally and easily, gratis.
      • NC doesn’t seem important in this story ... yet
    • 27. Indicators (Summary Guesses)
      • Free culture is at least a decade behind free software
      • Except where it has mass collaboration/maintenance aspects of software, where it may rocket ahead (Wikipedia)
      • Generally culture is much more varied than software; success will be spikey
    • 28. In Innovation, Meta is Max
      • “ The max net-impact innovations, by far, have been meta-innovations, i.e., innovations that changed how fast other innovations accumulated.”
      • Robin Hanson (Economist)
      • http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/meta-is-max---i.html
    • 29. Collective Intelligence
      • Meta innovation?
    • 30. Commons
      • Meta innovation for Collective Intelligence?
    • 31. $2.2 trillion
      • Value of fair use in the U.S. Economy
      • http://www.ccianet.org/artmanager/publish/news/First-Ever_Economic_Study_Calculates_Dollar_Value_of.shtml also see http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7643
    • 32.  
    • 33.  
    • 34. Cyber terrorism (Cyber terror war on) Privacy breaches Loss of Generativity Lock-in Surveillance DRM Censorship Suppression of innovation Electoral fraud Luddism
    • 35. Threat categories
      • Legitimate security issues
      • Protectionism
      • Politics and power
      • Security theater and fear-based responses (driven by all of above, not just legitimate security issues)
    • 36. What digital freedoms needed for beneficial collective intelligence?
      • Keep same rights online/digitally that we (should anyway) have offline/IRL
      • Permit innovation and participation enabled by digital world even if not possible before (probably follows from above)
    • 37. How building the commons (free software, free culture, and friends) helps
    • 38. Security
      • Data shows FLOSS is more secure
      • Security through obscurity doesn’t work
      • FLOSS encourages a heterogeneous computing environment
      • Free software and free culture both allergic to DRM and other mechanisms that sacrifice security to other goals
    • 39. Protectionism
      • Peer production undermines policy arguments for protecting knowledge industries
      • Free software and free culture both allergic to DRM
    • 40. Politics and power
      • Free software and culture improve transparency
      • ... and the ability of all to participate
      • Peer production works against concentrated power — doesn’t require concentrated production structures and lowers barriers to entry
    • 41. Security theater and fear
      • Access to facts mitigates fear and allows rational evaluation of responses
      • Commons work against three previous threats that drive security theater and fear
    • 42. Can the success of the (digital) commons alter how we view freedom and power generally?
    • 43.
      • “ 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.”
      • Eben Moglen
    • 44.
      • “ 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.”
      • Richard Stallman
    • 45. i.e., we can form collective intelligences instead of forced collectives ... and still “change the world”
    • 46.  
    • 47. Building the commons is key to achieving a good future
      • Politicians and corporations are unimaginative ... they need to see solutions, or they react in fear
      • A dominant commons makes many collective stupidity scenarios much less likely
      • Beneficial collective intelligence needs universal access to culture, educational resources, research ... in machine-readable form
    • 48.
      • License
      • http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
      • Attribution
      • Author: Mike Linksvayer
      • Link: http://creativecommons.org
      • Questions?
      • [email_address]
      Detail of image by psd · Licensed under CC Attribution 2.0 · http://flickr.com/photos/psd/1805374441

    ×