|
Saturday, January 4, 2003
Previous topic
|
Next topic
|
|
 Saturday, January 4, 2003
started 1/4/2003; 10:08:07 AM - last post 1/15/2003; 12:59:16 AM
|
|
Doc Searls - Saturday, January 4, 2003 
1/4/2003; 2:08:07 PM (reads: 4274, responses: 4)
|
|
I figure it's there anyway 
| |  There's a new little bumper sticker at the bottom of the blogroll on the right (same as here in this post), which means I've put everything on the blog, going back to November '99 when I started this thing, in the public domain. (Here's the Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication.) |
| | Call it NEA (Nobody owns it, Everybody can use it, Anybody can improve it) at work. |
| | And hey, aren't blogs kinda born public anyway? With their linky back-and-forth qualities, they're closer to conversation than publication. Nearly all of them are also amateur efforts, in the best meaning of the adjective. We do other stuff for money. |
| | To make things clear here, I'm not saying a public domain license is good for everything. If your purposes are commercial, you'll want a commercial license of some sort. But even there, we need to be mindful of the strategic opportunities of moving creative goods up to the right on the Burton Matrix as the advantage shifts from making money to ubiquitizing the goods. If the goal is creating infrastructure, or ubiquitizing something, or just enriching the public domain, a license shift is called for at some point. Hey, why freeze your compost? |
Becuase for every lobby there will be an equal and opposite antilobby
| | The Business Software Alliance and Computer Systems Policy Project -- two prominent high-tech trade groups representing Intel, Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft and other industry heavyweights -- are forming a new coalition and working to enlist support from consumer and business groups. |
| | They hope to convince Congress that strict copy-protection legislation that sets technological mandates would stifle innovation, harm consumers and threaten an already suffering tech industry. |
Widentity
Blowing bubbles
| | ...a lot of us techies are circumspect about another bubble, especially the efforts of some to create one around WiFi, blogging, and related mobile computing and personal publishing stuff... |
| | Investors aren't going back into the market until they're confident, and a robust business press is key to developing this confidence. I suppose it will have to come from the blogs. The business press reads us -- Neil Cavuto's Fox News show invited me to appear based on these musings -- but we're going to have to do a lot better than cheerleading for WiFi or knee-jerk boosting Open Everything to win credibility. |
| | This is going to take some time. |
discuss
|
|
Michael Bernstein - Re: Burton Matrix
1/4/2003; 11:46:46 PM (reads: 565, responses: 3)
|
|
|
Doc, I asked you during OSCON what lies in the Public Domain/Closed quadrant, and you said that you had an example, but couldn't recall it at the moment.
Any better luck this time around?
discuss
|
|
Michael Bernstein - Re: Burton Matrix
1/14/2003; 5:49:53 PM (reads: 658, responses: 2)
|
|
|
Still waiting for an example of the Public Domain/Closed quadrant in the 'Burton Matrix'.
discuss
|
|
Doc Searls - Re: Burton Matrix
1/14/2003; 11:33:23 PM (reads: 722, responses: 1)
|
|
|
Patents. Once issued they're in the public domain (you can go to the USPTO and review them). And they have no secrets about themselves. But they're closed. You can't change them. And you use them at your own risk.
Trade secrets would go on the lower left.
That's from Craig himself, by the way.
Sorry I didn't get back with that earlier.
discuss
|
|
Michael Bernstein - Re: Burton Matrix
1/15/2003; 4:59:16 AM (reads: 839, responses: 0)
|
|
|
Don't worry about the delay. I don't mind long running discussions. :-)
Hmm. Interesting. That's a bit different from what I've been assuming the definitions of open/closed and proprietary/public-domain were.
I would have described a patent as open, as it's visible, and you can actually patent new innovations based on it without permission of the patent holder (anybody can see it, and anybody can improve it) but proprietary, as it cannot be used except with permission of the patent holder. After it expires, of course, it moves to the open/public-domain quadrant, as it's no longer proprietary.
The innovations based on it have to expire in turn before they become public domain, of course.
discuss
|
|
|
Copyright 2009 The Doc Searls Weblog
|
