KEMBAR78
Singularity University Open Source Panel | ODP
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/
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
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
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-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>
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>
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 Gecko in Firefox, Thunderbird, Songbird... = Obvious
Device driver code in web application = Huh?
Cat photos and heavy metal = music video
Software/Culture (ii) Maintenance necessary vs rare Non-maintained software = dead
“Maintained” cultural work = pretty special
(Wikis are somewhat like software in this respect)
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
Software/Culture (iv) Construction is identical to creating modifiable form vs. iteratively leaving materials on the cutting room floor
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
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.
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
History (ii) ... evocative dates for software 1999: crazine$$
2004: Firefox 1.0
2007: [AL]GPLv3
????: World Domination
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
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
History (v) Versioning of Creative Commons licenses (some of them Free): 2002: 1.0

Singularity University Open Source Panel

  • 1.
    Singularity University Panelon 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 .ORGNonprofit organization, launched to public December 2002
  • 3.
    HQ and ccLearnin San Francisco
  • 4.
  • 5.
    ~70 international jurisdictionprojects, coordinated from Berlin
  • 6.
    Foundation, corporate, and individual funding
  • 7.
    Born at Stanford,supported by Silicon Valley
  • 8.
    Enabling Reasonable CopyrightSpace between ignoring copyright and ignoring fair use & public good
  • 9.
    Legal and technicaltools enabling a “Some Rights Reserved” model
  • 10.
    Like “free software”or “open source” for content/media But with more restrictive options
  • 11.
    Media is morediverse and at least a decade(?) behind software
  • 12.
  • 13.
  • 14.
  • 15.
    Machine Readable <rdf:RDFxmlns=&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.
    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.
    DRMfree “ DRMVoodo” by psd licensed under CC BY 2.0 http://flickr.com/photos/psd/1806247462/
  • 18.
    Software/Culture (i) Utilitarian/obviousbut narrow reuse vs non-utilitarian but universal reuse possible Gecko in Firefox, Thunderbird, Songbird... = Obvious
  • 19.
    Device driver codein web application = Huh?
  • 20.
    Cat photos andheavy metal = music video
  • 21.
    Software/Culture (ii) Maintenancenecessary vs rare Non-maintained software = dead
  • 22.
  • 23.
    (Wikis are somewhatlike software in this respect)
  • 24.
    Software/Culture (iii) Roughlyall or nothing modifiable form vs varied and degradable forms You have the source code or you don’t
  • 25.
    Text w/markup >PDF > Bitmap scan
  • 26.
    Multitracks > Highbitrate > Low bitrate
  • 27.
    Software/Culture (iv) Constructionis identical to creating modifiable form vs. iteratively leaving materials on the cutting room floor
  • 28.
    Software/Culture (v) WhyNoDerivatives and NonCommercial? Legal sharing of verbatim works made interesting by filesharing wars
  • 29.
    Maybe less emphasison maintenance means Restrictions on field of use less impactful
  • 30.
    Free commercial usemore impactful on existing business models
  • 31.
    Sofware/Culture (vi) Commercialanticommons When distributed maintenance is important, NC is unusable for business (one explanation of why free software ≅ open source)
  • 32.
    Maybe some artists want a commercial anticommons: nobody can be “exploited” ... but most want to exploit commerce. NC maybe does both.
  • 33.
    History (i) Someevocative dates for software ... 1983: Launch of GNU Project
  • 34.
  • 35.
  • 36.
  • 37.
  • 38.
    1998: Mozilla, “opensource”, IBM
  • 39.
    History (ii) ...evocative dates for software 1999: crazine$$
  • 40.
  • 41.
  • 42.
  • 43.
    History (iii) Opencontent licenses (some of them Free): 1998: Open Content License
  • 44.
  • 45.
    2000: GFDL, FreeArt License
  • 46.
    2001: EFF OpenAudio License
  • 47.
    History (iv) Otherearly 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.
    History (v) Versioningof Creative Commons licenses (some of them Free): 2002: 1.0
  • 49.
  • 50.
  • 51.
  • 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.
    Indicators (community) 1993:Debian :: 2001 : Wikipedia 8 years
  • 54.
    Wikipedia’s success camefaster and more visibly
  • 55.
    Does Wikipedia evenneed an Ubuntu (2004)?
  • 56.
    But how typicalis Wikipedia of free culture?
  • 57.
    Indicators (business) 1989:Cygnus Solutions :: 2003 : Magnatune 14 years
  • 58.
    Cygnus acquired byRed Hat (1999); Magnatune’s long term impact TBD
  • 59.
    Magnatune may notbe Free enough for some, but it seems like the best analogy for now
  • 60.
    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?
  • 61.
    Indicators (Wikitravel) Verycool round-trip story: 2003: Launch, CC BY-SA
  • 62.
    2006: Acquired byInternet Brands
  • 63.
    2008: First WikitravelPress paper titles Community is the new “IP”?
  • 64.
    Indicators (NIN) GhostsI-IV released 2008 under CC BY-NC-SA: $1.6m gross in first week
  • 65.
    $750k in twodays from limited edition “ultra deluxe edition”
  • 66.
    This while availablelegally and easily, gratis.
  • 67.
    NC doesn’t seemimportant in this story ... yet
  • 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.
    In Innovation, Metais 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.
  • 71.
    Commons Meta innovationfor Collective Intelligence?
  • 72.
    $2.2 trillion Valueof 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.
  • 74.
  • 75.
    Cyber terrorism (Cyberterror war on) Privacy breaches Loss of Generativity Lock-in Surveillance DRM Censorship Suppression of innovation Electoral fraud Luddism
  • 76.
  • 77.
  • 78.
  • 79.
    Security theater andfear-based responses (driven by all of above, not just legitimate security issues)
  • 80.
    What digital freedomsneeded for beneficial collective intelligence? Keep same rights online/digitally that we (should anyway) have offline/IRL
  • 81.
    Permit innovation andparticipation enabled by digital world even if not possible before (probably follows from above)
  • 82.
    How building thecommons (free software, free culture, and friends) helps
  • 83.
    Security Data showsFLOSS is more secure
  • 84.
  • 85.
    FLOSS encourages aheterogeneous computing environment
  • 86.
    Free software andfree culture both allergic to DRM and other mechanisms that sacrifice security to other goals
  • 87.
    Protectionism Peer productionundermines policy arguments for protecting knowledge industries
  • 88.
    Free software andfree culture both allergic to DRM
  • 89.
    Politics and powerFree software and culture improve transparency
  • 90.
    ... and theability of all to participate
  • 91.
    Peer production worksagainst concentrated power — doesn’t require concentrated production structures and lowers barriers to entry
  • 92.
    Security theater andfear Access to facts mitigates fear and allows rational evaluation of responses
  • 93.
    Commons work againstthree previous threats that drive security theater and fear
  • 94.
    Can the successof the (digital) commons alter how we view freedom and power generally?
  • 95.
    “The gate thathas 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
  • 96.
    “If we don’twant 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
  • 97.
    i.e., we canform collective intelligences instead of forced collectives ... and still “change the world”
  • 98.
  • 99.
    Building the commonsis key to achieving a good future Politicians and corporations are unimaginative ... they need to see solutions, or they react in fear
  • 100.
    A dominant commonsmakes many collective stupidity scenarios much less likely
  • 101.
    Beneficial collective intelligenceneeds universal access to culture, educational resources, research ... in machine-readable form
  • 102.
  • 103.
    Link: http://creativecommons.orgQuestions? [email_address] Detail of image by psd · Licensed under CC Attribution 2.0 · http://flickr.com/photos/psd/1805374441