Singularity University Panel on Open Source 2009-07-28 The Commons as a collective intelligence meta-innovation Mike Links...
Creative Commons .ORG <ul><li>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 </li></ul>
Enabling Reasonable Copyright <ul><li>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 </li><ul><li>But with more restrictive options
Media is more diverse and at least a decade(?) behind software </li></ul></ul>
Six Mainstream Licenses
Lawyer Readable
Human Readable
Machine Readable <rdf:RDF xmlns=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/ns#&quot; xmlns:rdf=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rd...
Machine Readable (Work) <span xmlns:cc=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/ns#&quot; xmlns:dc=&quot;http://purl.org/dc/elemen...
DRMfree “ DRM Voodo” by psd licensed under CC BY 2.0 http://flickr.com/photos/psd/1806247462/
Software/Culture (i) Utilitarian/obvious but narrow reuse vs non-utilitarian but universal reuse possible <ul><li>Gecko in...
Device driver code in web application = Huh?
Cat photos and heavy metal = music video </li></ul>
Software/Culture (ii) Maintenance necessary vs rare <ul><li>Non-maintained software = dead
“Maintained” cultural work = pretty special
(Wikis are somewhat like software in this respect) </li></ul>
Software/Culture (iii) Roughly all or nothing modifiable form vs varied and degradable forms <ul><li>You have the source c...
Text w/markup > PDF > Bitmap scan
Multitracks > High bitrate > Low bitrate </li></ul>
Software/Culture (iv) Construction is identical to creating modifiable form vs. iteratively leaving materials on the cutti...
Software/Culture (v) Why NoDerivatives and NonCommercial? <ul><li>Legal sharing of verbatim works made interesting by file...
Maybe less emphasis on maintenance means </li><ul><li>Restrictions on field of use less impactful
Free commercial use more impactful on existing business models </li></ul></ul>
Sofware/Culture (vi) Commercial anticommons <ul><li>When distributed maintenance is important, NC is unusable for business...
Maybe some artists  want  a commercial anticommons: nobody can be “exploited” ... but most want to exploit commerce. NC ma...
History (i) Some evocative dates for software ... <ul><li>1983: Launch of GNU Project
1989: GPLv1
1991: Linux kernel, GPLv2
1993: Debian
1996: Apache
1998: Mozilla, “open source”, IBM </li></ul>
History (ii) ... evocative dates for software <ul><li>1999: crazine$$
2004: Firefox 1.0
2007: [AL]GPLv3
????: World Domination </li></ul>
History (iii) Open content licenses (some of them Free): <ul><li>1998: Open Content License
1999: Open Publication License
2000: GFDL, Free Art License
2001: EFF Open Audio License </li></ul>
History (iv) Other early 2000s open content licenses (some of them Free): Design Science License, Ethymonics Free Music Pu...
History (v) Versioning of Creative Commons licenses (some of them Free): <ul><li>2002: 1.0
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Singularity University Open Source Panel

5,298

Published on

Blogged at http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2009/08/01/singularityu/

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
5,298
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Singularity University Open Source Panel

  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 · http://flickr.com/photos/68242677@N00/2117153416/
  2. 2. Creative Commons .ORG <ul><li>Nonprofit organization, launched to public December 2002
  3. 3. HQ and ccLearn in San Francisco
  4. 4. Science Commons division at MIT
  5. 5. ~70 international jurisdiction projects, coordinated from Berlin
  6. 6. Foundation, corporate, and individual funding
  7. 7. Born at Stanford, supported by Silicon Valley </li></ul>
  8. 8. Enabling Reasonable Copyright <ul><li>Space between ignoring copyright and ignoring fair use & public good
  9. 9. Legal and technical tools enabling a “Some Rights Reserved” model
  10. 10. Like “free software” or “open source” for content/media </li><ul><li>But with more restrictive options
  11. 11. Media is more diverse and at least a decade(?) behind software </li></ul></ul>
  12. 12. Six Mainstream Licenses
  13. 13. Lawyer Readable
  14. 14. Human Readable
  15. 15. 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>
  16. 16. 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>
  17. 17. DRMfree “ DRM Voodo” by psd licensed under CC BY 2.0 http://flickr.com/photos/psd/1806247462/
  18. 18. Software/Culture (i) Utilitarian/obvious but narrow reuse vs non-utilitarian but universal reuse possible <ul><li>Gecko in Firefox, Thunderbird, Songbird... = Obvious
  19. 19. Device driver code in web application = Huh?
  20. 20. Cat photos and heavy metal = music video </li></ul>
  21. 21. Software/Culture (ii) Maintenance necessary vs rare <ul><li>Non-maintained software = dead
  22. 22. “Maintained” cultural work = pretty special
  23. 23. (Wikis are somewhat like software in this respect) </li></ul>
  24. 24. Software/Culture (iii) Roughly all or nothing modifiable form vs varied and degradable forms <ul><li>You have the source code or you don’t
  25. 25. Text w/markup > PDF > Bitmap scan
  26. 26. Multitracks > High bitrate > Low bitrate </li></ul>
  27. 27. Software/Culture (iv) Construction is identical to creating modifiable form vs. iteratively leaving materials on the cutting room floor
  28. 28. Software/Culture (v) Why NoDerivatives and NonCommercial? <ul><li>Legal sharing of verbatim works made interesting by filesharing wars
  29. 29. Maybe less emphasis on maintenance means </li><ul><li>Restrictions on field of use less impactful
  30. 30. Free commercial use more impactful on existing business models </li></ul></ul>
  31. 31. Sofware/Culture (vi) Commercial anticommons <ul><li>When distributed maintenance is important, NC is unusable for business (one explanation of why free software ≅ open source)
  32. 32. Maybe some artists want a commercial anticommons: nobody can be “exploited” ... but most want to exploit commerce. NC maybe does both. </li></ul>
  33. 33. History (i) Some evocative dates for software ... <ul><li>1983: Launch of GNU Project
  34. 34. 1989: GPLv1
  35. 35. 1991: Linux kernel, GPLv2
  36. 36. 1993: Debian
  37. 37. 1996: Apache
  38. 38. 1998: Mozilla, “open source”, IBM </li></ul>
  39. 39. History (ii) ... evocative dates for software <ul><li>1999: crazine$$
  40. 40. 2004: Firefox 1.0
  41. 41. 2007: [AL]GPLv3
  42. 42. ????: World Domination </li></ul>
  43. 43. History (iii) Open content licenses (some of them Free): <ul><li>1998: Open Content License
  44. 44. 1999: Open Publication License
  45. 45. 2000: GFDL, Free Art License
  46. 46. 2001: EFF Open Audio License </li></ul>
  47. 47. 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
  48. 48. History (v) Versioning of Creative Commons licenses (some of them Free): <ul><li>2002: 1.0
  49. 49. 2004: 2.0
  50. 50. 2005: 2.5
  51. 51. 2007: 3.0 </li></ul>
  52. 52. 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
  53. 53. Indicators (community) 1993: Debian :: 2001 : Wikipedia <ul><li>8 years
  54. 54. Wikipedia’s success came faster and more visibly
  55. 55. Does Wikipedia even need an Ubuntu (2004)?
  56. 56. But how typical is Wikipedia of free culture? </li></ul>
  57. 57. Indicators (business) 1989: Cygnus Solutions :: 2003 : Magnatune <ul><li>14 years
  58. 58. Cygnus acquired by Red Hat (1999); Magnatune’s long term impact TBD
  59. 59. Magnatune may not be Free enough for some, but it seems like the best analogy for now </li></ul>
  60. 60. Indicators (big business) 1998: IBM :: ???? : ? <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>1998: Microsoft :: 2008 : Big Media <ul><li>Could Microsoft’s attitude toward openness a decade ago be analogous to big media’s today? </li></ul>
  61. 61. Indicators (Wikitravel) Very cool round-trip story: <ul><li>2003: Launch, CC BY-SA
  62. 62. 2006: Acquired by Internet Brands
  63. 63. 2008: First Wikitravel Press paper titles </li></ul>Community is the new “IP”?
  64. 64. Indicators (NIN) Ghosts I-IV released 2008 under CC BY-NC-SA: <ul><li>$1.6m gross in first week
  65. 65. $750k in two days from limited edition “ultra deluxe edition”
  66. 66. This while available legally and easily, gratis.
  67. 67. NC doesn’t seem important in this story ... yet </li></ul>
  68. 68. 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
  69. 69. 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
  70. 70. Collective Intelligence Meta innovation?
  71. 71. Commons Meta innovation for Collective Intelligence?
  72. 72. $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
  73. 75. Cyber terrorism (Cyber terror war on) Privacy breaches Loss of Generativity Lock-in Surveillance DRM Censorship Suppression of innovation Electoral fraud Luddism
  74. 76. Threat categories <ul><li>Legitimate security issues
  75. 77. Protectionism
  76. 78. Politics and power
  77. 79. Security theater and fear-based responses (driven by all of above, not just legitimate security issues) </li></ul>
  78. 80. What digital freedoms needed for beneficial collective intelligence? <ul><li>Keep same rights online/digitally that we (should anyway) have offline/IRL
  79. 81. Permit innovation and participation enabled by digital world even if not possible before (probably follows from above) </li></ul>
  80. 82. How building the commons (free software, free culture, and friends) helps
  81. 83. Security <ul><li>Data shows FLOSS is more secure
  82. 84. Security through obscurity doesn’t work
  83. 85. FLOSS encourages a heterogeneous computing environment
  84. 86. Free software and free culture both allergic to DRM and other mechanisms that sacrifice security to other goals </li></ul>
  85. 87. Protectionism <ul><li>Peer production undermines policy arguments for protecting knowledge industries
  86. 88. Free software and free culture both allergic to DRM </li></ul>
  87. 89. Politics and power <ul><li>Free software and culture improve transparency
  88. 90. ... and the ability of all to participate
  89. 91. Peer production works against concentrated power — doesn’t require concentrated production structures and lowers barriers to entry </li></ul>
  90. 92. Security theater and fear <ul><li>Access to facts mitigates fear and allows rational evaluation of responses
  91. 93. Commons work against three previous threats that drive security theater and fear </li></ul>
  92. 94. Can the success of the (digital) commons alter how we view freedom and power generally?
  93. 95. “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
  94. 96. “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
  95. 97. i.e., we can form collective intelligences instead of forced collectives ... and still “change the world”
  96. 99. 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
  97. 100. A dominant commons makes many collective stupidity scenarios much less likely
  98. 101. Beneficial collective intelligence needs universal access to culture, educational resources, research ... in machine-readable form </li></ul>
  99. 102. License <ul><li>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ </li></ul>Attribution <ul><li>Author: Mike Linksvayer
  100. 103. Link: http://creativecommons.org </li></ul>Questions? <ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul>Detail of image by psd · Licensed under CC Attribution 2.0 · http://flickr.com/photos/psd/1805374441
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×