Philippe Laurent gave an overview of cases involving “Open Licences before European Courts”. He did not list one recent “open content” case, Gerlach vs. DVU.

Ambjörn Elder on “The Methods of FOSS Activism” spoke about political activism; a worthy topic, but I hope for more discussion of activism for software freedom, rather than against ever worse policy.

In place of Armijn Hemel’s “Goes into an Executable? Identifying a Binary’s Sources by Tracing Build Processes” (missed flight) Kuhn and Sandler excerpted from a presentation on and took questions regarding nonprofit homes for free software projects. Writing this reminded me to make a donation to Software Freedom Conservancy, of which Kuhn and Sandler are respectively ED and Secretary of. Somewhat tangentially, I don’t find the topic boring, but I do find the lack of information, informed-ness (including mine), and tools regarding it boring. I don’t know of any libre documentation on running a nonprofit — I’d love to see a series of FLOSS Manuals on this. OneClickOrgs is a fairly new free software project to handle some aspects of governing a small organization, but I don’t know how useful it is at this point. Related to lack of documentation, some of the Q&A emphasized how little people know of these topics across jurisdictions — nevermind rule minutiae, even the existence of relevant “home” organizations.

Dave Neary on “Grey Areas of Software Licensing” questioned whether one could legally do various things, using examples largely drawn from GIMP development. The answer is always maybe. Fortunately developers sometimes take that as yes.

Allison Randal gave an overview of FLOSS history with a focus on legal arrangements in “FLOSSing for Good Legal Hygiene: Stories from the Trenches”.

Michael Meeks on “Risks vs. Benefits on Copyright Assignment” made the case that assignment (and some non-assingment contributor agreements) is harmful to participation, and proprietary re-licensing has not proven a good business, so a corporate sponsored software project ought to either be free (sans assignment and potential for propreitary relicensing) or proprietary, and fully enjoy the benefits of one or the other, rather than neither. He also indicated that permissive licensing can be better than copyleft for a free software project with copyrights held by a corporation, as the former gives all effectively equal rights, while the latter abets proprietary relicensing and ridiculous claims that the corporate sponsor will protect the community. Meeks repeatedly called on the FSF to abandon assingment, as for-profits disingenuously cite FSF’s practice in support of their own (FSF ED John Sullivan responded that they are getting corrections made where FSF practice is inappropriately cited and will work on explaining their practice better). Finally, Meeks requested an “ALGPL” which would require sharing of modified sources used to provide a network service, like the AGPL, but allow modifications that only link to or the equivalent ALGPL codebase to not be shared. I don’t know whether he wants GPL or LGPL behavior if such modificaitons are distributed. I was somewhat chagrined (but understanding; just not enough time, and maybe nobody submitted a decent proposal) that this was the only discussion of network services!

Loïc Dachary on “Can for-profit companies enforce copyleft without becoming corrupt like MySQL AB?” said yes, if they aren’t the sole copyright holders; on projects he is hired to work on, he seeks out additional contributors who will hold copyright independently.

John Sullivan in “Is copyleft being framed?” presented some new data, apparently replicable (based on Debian package metadata), showing that GPL-family licenses are used in the vast majority (did I hear 87%?) of Debian packages.

Richard Fontana on “The (possible) decline of the GPL, and what to do about it” suggested the need to start thinking about GPLv4, but I’m not sure for what issues — doesn’t matter; if the particulars of licenses can make a big difference, requirements for the next version of important ones should always be a relevant topic, even if there is no expectation of creating another version for many years. Fontana also indicated that perhaps the next (massively adopted, presumably) copyleft might not be created by an existing steward (meaning the FSF, or obviously CC in many non-software fields), which I take as an indication that license innovation is possibly more important than compatibility and non-proliferation.

I don’t remember much of panels with Hugo Roy, Giovanni Battista Gallus, Bradley Kuhn, Richard Fontana on application stores and Ciarán O’Riordan, Benjamin Henrion, Deb Nicholson, Karen Sandler on software patents, as I was probably preparing for my talk, but I trust that free software is still important if mode of delivery changes slightly and that software patents ought be abolished.

I spoke on “⊂ (FLOSS legal/policy ∩ CC [4.0])” (slides: odp, pdf, slideshare). Contrary to my apology I didn’t blog much of the talk beforehand. I will get to all of the topics eventually.

Most of the slides from the day should be available soon on the DevRoom’s page. Some audio might be available as well eventually.

Kuhn demonstrated his qualifications for another fallback career: crowd crontol. Fontana blogged a summary of the devroom. Sandler gave the most important talk on FLOSS policy (but not at FOSDEM). Marble apparently did almost all the organizing. Thanks to all! There will be another legal/policy devroom next year.

A little over two years ago I had the idea for a “refutation blog”: after some number of years, a blogger might attempt to refute whatever they wrote previously. In some cases they may believe they were wrong and/or stupid, in all cases, every text and idea is worthy of all-out attack, given enough resources to carry out such, and passing of time might allow attacks to be carried out a bit more honestly. I have little doubt this has been done before, and analogously for pre-blog forms; I’d love pointers.

The last two Februaries have passed without adequate time to start refuting. In order to get started (I could also write software to manage and render refutations, and figure out what vocabulary to use to annotate them, and unlikely but might in the fullness of time, but I won’t accept the excuse for years more of delay right now) I’m lowering my sights from “all-out attack” to a very brief attack on the substance of a previous post, and will do my best to avoid snarky asides.

I have added a refutation category. I will probably continue non-refutation posts here (and hope to refute those 8 years after posting). I may eventually move my current blogging or something similar to another site.

Back to that first post, See Yous at Etech. “Alpha geeks” indeed. With all the unintended at the time, but fully apparent in the name, implication of status seeking and vaporware over deep technical substance and advancement. The “new CC metadata-enhanced application” introduced there was a search prototype. The enhancement was a net negative. Metadata is costly, and usually crap. Although implemented elsewhere since then, as far as I can tell a license filter added to text-based search has never been very useful. I never use it, except as a curiosity. I do search specific collections, where metadata, including license, is a side effect of other collection processes. Maybe as and if sites automatically add annotations to curated objects, aggregation via search with a license and other filters will become useful.

Existing copyleft licenses include conditions that would not exist (unless otherwise implemented) if copyright were abolished. In other words, copyleft does not merely neutralize copyright. But I occasionally¹ see claims that copyleft merely neutralizes copyright.

A copyleft license which only neutralized copyright would remove all copyright restrictions on only one condition: that works building upon a copyleft licensed work (usually as “adaptations” or “derivative works”, though other scopes are possible) be released under terms granting the same freedoms. Existing copyleft licenses have additional conditions. Here is a summary of some of those added by the most important (and some not so important) copyleft licenses:

I’ve read each of the above licenses at some point, but could easily misremember or misunderstand; please correct me.

There’s a lot more variation among them than is captured above, including how each condition is implemented. But my point is just that these coarse conditions would not be present in a purely copyright neutralizing license. To answer two obvious objections: “attribution”⁴ in each license above goes beyond the bare minimum license notice that would be required to satisfy the condition of releasing under sufficient terms, and “limit DRM” refers only to conditions prohibiting DRM or requiring parallel distribution (which all of those requiring modifiable form do in a way, indirectly; I’ve only called out those that explicitly mention DRM), not permissions⁵ granted to circumvent.

I’m not sure there’s a source for the idea that copyleft only neutralizes copyright. Probably it is just an intuitive reading of the term that has been arrived at independently many times. The English Wikipedia article on copyleft doesn’t mention it, and probably more to the point, none of the main FSF articles on copyleft do either. The last includes the following:

Proprietary software developers use copyright to take away the users’ freedom; we use copyright to guarantee their freedom. That’s why we reverse the name, changing “copyright” into “copyleft.”

Copyleft is a way of using of the copyright on the program. It doesn’t mean abandoning the copyright; in fact, doing so would make copyleft impossible. The “left” in “copyleft” is not a reference to the verb “to leave”—only to the direction which is the inverse of “right”.

Copyleft is a general concept, and you can’t use a general concept directly; you can only use a specific implementation of the concept.

This is very clear — the point of copyleft is to promote and protect (“guarantee” is an exaggeration) users’ freedom, and that includes their access to source. The major reason I like to frame copyleft as regulation⁶ is that if access to source is important to software freedom (or otherwise socially valuable), it probably makes sense to look for additional regulatory mechanisms which might (and appreciate ones that do) contribute to promoting and protecting access to source, as well as other aspects of software freedom. Such mechanisms mostly aren’t/wouldn’t be “copyleft” (though at this point, some of them would simply mandate a copyleft license), but the point is not a relationship with copyright, but promoting and protecting software freedom.

If software freedom is important, surely it makes sense to look for additional mechanisms to promote and protect it. As others have said, licenses are difficult to enforce and/or few people are interested in doing it, and copyleft can be made irrelevant through independent non-copyleft implementation, given enough desire and resources (which the largest corporations have), not to mention the vast universe of cases in which there is no free software alternative, copyleft or not. I leave description and speculation about such mechanisms for a future post.

⁶Regulation in the broadest sense, including at a minimum typical “government” and “market” regulation, as I’ve said before. By the way, it could be said that those who advocate only permissive licenses are anti-regulatory, and I imagine that if lots of people thought about copyleft as regulation, this claim would be made — but it would be a problematic claim, as permissive licenses don’t do much (or only do so “locally”, as Myers obliquely put it in the quote above) against the background regulation of copyright restrictions.

I repeat Evan as a reminder and apology. I’ve blogged many times about copyright licenses in the past, and will have a few detailed posts on the subject soon in preparation for a short talk at FOSDEM.

Given current malgovernance of the intellectual commons, public copyright licenses are important for freedom. They’re probably also important trials for post-copyright regulation (meant in the broadest sense, including at least “market” and “government” regulatory mechanisms), eg of ability to inspect and modify complete and corresponding source.

At the same time, the totemic and contentious role copyright licenses (and sometimes assignment or contributor agreements, and sometimes covering related wrongs and patents) play in free/libre/open works, projects, and communities often seems an unfortunate misdirection of energy at best, and probably looks utterly ridiculous to casual observers. I suspect copyright also takes at least some deserved limelight, and perhaps much more, from other aspects of governance, plain old getting things done, and activism around other issues (regarding the first, some good recent writings includes those by Simon Phipps and Bradley Kuhn, but the prominence of copyright arrangements therein reinforces my point). But this all amounts to an additional reason it is important to get the details of public copyright licenses right, in particular compatibility between them where it can be achieved — so as to minimize the amount of time and energy projects put into considering and arguing about the options.

Obviously the energy put into public licenses is utterly insignificant against that spent on other copyright/patent/trademark complex activities. But I’m not going to write about that in the near future, so it isn’t part of my apology and rationalization.

Someday I hope that knowing the ins and outs of both Internal Passports of the mind and international passports will be like knowing the rules of internal passports in Communist East Germany (presumably intricate; I did not look for details, but hopefully they exist not many hops from a Wikipedia article on Eastern Bloc emigration and defection).

I thought it would be easy and fun to run some queries on the WDC dataset to get an idea of how annotations associated with Creative Commons licensing are used. Notes below on exactly what I did. The biggest limitation is that the license statement itself is not part of the dataset — not as xhv:license in the RDFa portion, and for some reason rel=license microformat has zero records. But cc:attributionName, cc:attributionURL, and cc:morePermissions are present in the RDFa part, as are some Dublin Core properties that the Creative Commons license chooser asks for (I only looked at dc:source) but are probably widely used in other contexts as well.

Some quick takeaways:

• Low ratio of distinct attributionURLs probably indicates HTML from license chooser deployed without any parameterization. Often the subject or current page will be the most useful attributionURL (but 203 above would probably be much higher with canonicalization). Note all of the CC licenses require that such a URL refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work. Unless one has set up a side-wide license notice somewhere, a static URL is probably not the right thing to request in terms of requiring licensees to provide an attribution link; nor is a non-specific attribution link as useful to readers as a direct link to the work in question. As (and if) support for attribution metadata gets built into Creative Commons-aware CMSes, the ratio of distinct attributionURLs ought increase.
• 79% of subjects with both dc:source and cc:attributionURL (6,836^o) have the same values for both properties. This probably means people are merely entering their URL into every form field requesting a URL without thinking, not self-remixing.
• 47% of subjects with both cc:morePermissions and cc:attributionURL (3,977^p) have the same values for both properties. Unclear why this ratio is so much lower than previous; it ought be higher, as often same value for both makes sense. Unsurprising that cc:morePermissions least provided property; in my experience few people understand it.

I did not look at the provenance item at all. It’d be interesting to see what kind of assertions are being made across authority boundaries (e.g. a page on example.com makes a statements with an example.net URI as the subject) and when to discard such. I barely looked directly at the raw data at all; just enough to feel that my aggregate numbers could possibly be accurate. More could probably be gained by inspecting smaller samples in detail, informing other aggregate queries.

I look forward to future extracts. Thanks indirectly to Common Crawl for providing the crawl!

Please point out any egregious mistakes made below…

# a I don't really know if the October 2010 corpus is the
# entire 5 billion Common Crawl corpus

# download RDFa extract from Web Data Commons
wget -c https://s3.amazonaws.com/ccrdf1p/data/ccrdf.html-rdfa.nq

# Matches number stated at
# http://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/muehleis/ccrdf/stats1p.html#html-rdfa
wc -l ccrdf.html-rdfa.nq
1047250

# Includes easy to use no-server triplestore
apt-get install redland-utils

# sanity check
grep '<http://creativecommons.org/ns#attributionName>' ccrdf.html-rdfa.nq |wc -l
26404 

# Import rejects a number of triples for syntax errors
rdfproc xyz parse ccrdf.html-rdfa.nq nquads

# d Perhaps syntax errors explains fewer triples than above grep might
# indicate, but close enough
rdfproc xyz query sparql - 'select ?o where { ?s <http://creativecommons.org/ns#attributionName> ?o}' |wc -l
24942

# These replicated below with 4store because...
rdfproc xyz query sparql - 'select distinct ?o where { ?s <http://creativecommons.org/ns#attributionName> ?o}' |wc -l
990
rdfproc xyz query sparql - 'select ?o where { ?s <http://creativecommons.org/ns#attributionURL> ?o}' |wc -l
25082
rdfproc xyz query sparql - 'select distinct ?o where { ?s <http://creativecommons.org/ns#attributionURL> ?o}' |wc -l
3392
rdfproc xyz query sparql - 'select ?o where { ?o <http://creativecommons.org/ns#attributionURL> ?o }' |wc -l
203
rdfproc xyz query sparql - 'select ?o where { ?s <http://creativecommons.org/ns#morePermissions> ?o}' |wc -l
4791
rdfproc xyz query sparql - 'select distinct ?o where { ?s <http://creativecommons.org/ns#morePermissions> ?o}' |wc -l
253
rdfproc xyz query sparql - 'select ?o where { ?o <http://creativecommons.org/ns#morePermissions> ?o }' |wc -l
12

# ...this query takes forever, hours, and I have no idea why
rdfproc xyz query sparql - 'select ?s, ?o where { ?s <http://creativecommons.org/ns#morePermissions> ?o ; <http://creativecommons.org/ns#attributionURL> ?o }'

# 4store has a server, but is lightweight
apt-get install 4store

# 4store couldn't import with syntax errors, so export good triples from
# previous store first
rdfproc xyz serialize > ccrdf.export-rdfa.rdf

# import into 4store
curl -T ccrdf.export-rdfa.rdf 'http://localhost:8080/data/wdc'

# egrep is to get rid of headers and status output prefixed by ? or #
4s-query wdc -s '-1' -f text 'select ?s, ?o where { ?s <http://creativecommons.org/ns#attributionName> ?o}' |egrep -v '^[\?\#]' |wc -l
24942

#f
4s-query wdc -s '-1' -f text 'select ?s, ?o where { ?s <http://creativecommons.org/ns#attributionURL> ?o}' |egrep -v '^[\?\#]' |wc -l
25082

#j
4s-query wdc -s '-1' -f text 'select ?s, ?o where { ?s <http://creativecommons.org/ns#morePermissions> ?o}' |egrep -v '^[\?\#]' |wc -l
4791

#h
#Of course please use http://purl.org/dc/terms/source instead.
#Should be more widely deployed soon.
4s-query wdc -s '-1' -f text 'select ?s, ?o where { ?s <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/source> ?o}' |egrep -v '^[\?\#]' |wc -l
7235

4s-query wdc -s '-1' -f text 'select ?s, ?o where { ?s <http://purl.org/dc/terms/source> ?o}' |egrep -v '^[\?\#]' |wc -l
4

#e
4s-query wdc -s '-1' -f text 'select distinct ?o where { ?s <http://creativecommons.org/ns#attributionName> ?o}' |egrep -v '^[\?\#]' |wc -l
990

#g
4s-query wdc -s '-1' -f text 'select distinct ?o where { ?s <http://creativecommons.org/ns#attributionURL> ?o}' |egrep -v '^[\?\#]' |wc -l
3392

#k
4s-query wdc -s '-1' -f text 'select distinct ?o where { ?s <http://creativecommons.org/ns#morePermissions> ?o}' |egrep -v '^[\?\#]' |wc -l
253

#i
4s-query wdc -s '-1' -f text 'select distinct ?o where { ?s <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/source> ?o}' |egrep -v '^[\?\#]' |wc -l
574

#n
4s-query wdc -s '-1' -f text 'select ?o where { ?o <http://creativecommons.org/ns#attributionURL> ?o}' |egrep -v '^[\?\#]' |wc -l
203

4s-query wdc -s '-1' -f text 'select ?o where { ?o <http://creativecommons.org/ns#morePermissions> ?o}' |egrep -v '^[\?\#]' |wc -l
12

4s-query wdc -s '-1' -f text 'select ?o where { ?o <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/source> ?o}' |egrep -v '^[\?\#]' |wc -l
120

#m
4s-query wdc -s '-1' -f text 'select ?s, ?o where { ?s <http://creativecommons.org/ns#attributionURL> ?o ; <http://creativecommons.org/ns#morePermissions> ?o }' |egrep -v '^[\?\#]' |wc -l
1880

4s-query wdc -s '-1' -f text 'select distinct ?o where { ?s <http://creativecommons.org/ns#attributionURL> ?o ; <http://creativecommons.org/ns#morePermissions> ?o }' |egrep -v '^[\?\#]' |wc -l
122

4s-query wdc -s '-1' -f text 'select ?o where { ?o <http://creativecommons.org/ns#attributionURL> ?o ; <http://creativecommons.org/ns#morePermissions> ?o }' |egrep -v '^[\?\#]' |wc -l
8

#l
4s-query wdc -s '-1' -f text 'select ?s, ?o where { ?s <http://creativecommons.org/ns#attributionURL> ?o ; <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/source> ?o }' |egrep -v '^[\?\#]' |wc -l
5421

4s-query wdc -s '-1' -f text 'select distinct ?o where { ?s <http://creativecommons.org/ns#attributionURL> ?o ; <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/source> ?o }' |egrep -v '^[\?\#]' |wc -l
358

4s-query wdc -s '-1' -f text 'select ?o where { ?o <http://creativecommons.org/ns#attributionURL> ?o ; <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/source> ?o }' |egrep -v '^[\?\#]' |wc -l
11

#p
4s-query wdc -s '-1' -f text 'select ?s, ?o, ?n where { ?s <http://creativecommons.org/ns#attributionURL> ?o ; <http://creativecommons.org/ns#morePermissions> ?n }' |egrep -v '^[\?\#]' |wc -l
3977

#o
4s-query wdc -s '-1' -f text 'select ?s, ?o, ?n where { ?s <http://creativecommons.org/ns#attributionURL> ?o ; <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/source> ?n }' |egrep -v '^[\?\#]' |wc -l
6836

4s-query wdc -s '-1' -f text 'select ?s, ?o, ?n, ?m where { ?s <http://creativecommons.org/ns#attributionURL> ?o ; <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/source> ?n ; <http://creativecommons.org/ns#morePermissions> ?m }' |egrep -v '^[\?\#]' |wc -l
2946
4s-query wdc -s '-1' -f text 'select ?s, ?o where { ?s <http://creativecommons.org/ns#attributionURL> ?o ; <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/source> ?o ; <http://creativecommons.org/ns#morePermissions> ?o }' |egrep -v '^[\?\#]' |wc -l
1604

#c
4s-query wdc -s '-1' -f text 'select distinct ?s where { { ?s <http://creativecommons.org/ns#attributionURL> ?o } UNION { ?s <http://creativecommons.org/ns#attributionName> ?n } UNION { ?s <http://creativecommons.org/ns#morePermissions> ?m }  }' |egrep -v '^[\?\#]' |wc -l
26245

4s-query wdc -s '-1' -f text 'select distinct ?s where { { ?s <http://creativecommons.org/ns#attributionURL> ?o } UNION { ?s <http://creativecommons.org/ns#attributionName> ?n }}' |egrep -v '^[\?\#]' |wc -l
25433

#b note subjects not the same as pages data extracted from (158,184)
4s-query wdc -s '-1' -f text 'select distinct ?s where { ?s ?p ?o }'  |egrep -v '^[\?\#]' |wc -l
264307

# Probably less than 1047250 claimed due to syntax errors
4s-query wdc -s '-1' -f text 'select ?s where { ?s ?p ?o }'  |egrep -v '^[\?\#]' |wc -l
968786

4s-query wdc -s '-1' -f text 'select ?s where { ?s ?p ?s }'  |egrep -v '^[\?\#]' |wc -l
2415

4s-query wdc -s '-1' -f text 'select ?s where { ?s ?s ?s }'  |egrep -v '^[\?\#]' |wc -l
0

4s-query wdc -s '-1' -f text 'select ?s where { ?s ?s ?o }'  |egrep -v '^[\?\#]' |wc -l
0

Another, much bigger, tiresome rearguard action. I’m impressed by protesters’ nearly universal and exclusive focus on encouraging readers to contact U.S. Congresspeople. I hope it works. SOPA and PIPA really, really deserve to die.

But the protest also bums me out.

1) Self-censorship (in the case of sites completely blacked out, as opposed to those prominently displaying anti-SOPA messages) is not the Internet at its best. If that claim weren’t totally ridiculous, the net wouldn’t be worth defending. It isn’t even the net at its political best — that would be creating systems which disrupt and obviate power — long term offensives, not short-term defenses.

2) Near exclusive focus on supplication before 535 [Update: 536] ultra-powerful individuals is kinda disgusting. But it needs to be done, as effectively as possible.

3) I haven’t looked at a huge number of sites, but I haven’t seen much creativity in the protest. Next time it would be fun to see an appropriate site (Wikipedia? Internet Archive?) take what Flickr has done and add bidding for the “right” to darken particular articles or media as a fundraiser. Art would be nice too — I’d love to hear about anything really great (and preferably libre) from this round.

4) While some prominent bloggers have made the point that “piracy” is not a legitimate problem, overwhelmingly the protest has stuck to defense — SOPA and PIPA would do bad things to the net, and wouldn’t “work” anyway. Google goes much further, saying “End Piracy, Not Liberty” and “Fighting online piracy is important.” Not possible, wrong, and gives away the farm.

5) Nobody making the point that everyone can help with long-term offensives which will ultimately stop ratcheting protectionism, if it is to be stopped. Well, this nobody has attempted:

[I]magine a world in which most software and culture are free as in freedom. Software, culture, and innovation would be abundant, there would be plenty of money in it (just not based on threat of censorship), and there would be no constituency for attacking the Internet. (Well, apart from dictatorships and militarized law enforcement of supposed democracies; that’s a fight intertwined with SOPA, but those aren’t the primary constituencies for the bill.) Now, world dominationliberation by free software and culture isn’t feasible now. But every little bit helps reduce the constituency that wishes to attack the Internet to possibly protect their censorship-based revenue streams, and to increase the constituency whose desire to protect the Internet is perfectly aligned with their business interests and personal expression.
…
I’d hope that at least some messages tested convey not only the threat SOPA poses to Wikimedia, but the long-term threat the Wikimedia movement poses to censorship.

Also:

Bad legislation needs to be stopped now, but over the long term, we won’t stop getting new bad legislation until policymakers see broad support and amazing results from culture and other forms of knowledge that work with the Internet, rather than against it. Each work or project released under a CC license signals such support, and is an input for such results.

And:

Finally, remember that CC is crucial to keeping the Internet non-broken in the long term. The more free culture is, the less culture has an allergy to and deathwish for the Internet.

…

Of the five items I list above, the first three are admittedly peevish. Four and five represent not so much problems with the current protest as they do severe deficiencies in movements for intellectual freedom. Actually they are flipsides of the same deficiency: lack of compelling explanation that intellectual freedom, however constructed and protected, really matters, really works, and is really for the good. If such were well enough researched and explained so as to become conventional wisdom, rather than contentious and seemingly radical, net freedom activists could act much more proactively, provocatively, and powerfully, rather than as they do today: with supplication and genuflection.

I am not at all well read, but my weak understanding is that the withdrawal of economists from studying intellectual protectionism in the late 1800s was a great tragedy. To begin the encourage rectification of that century plus of relative neglect, today is a good day to start reading Against Intellectual Monopoly.

In the meantime, the actual and optimal counterfactual drift further apart, without any help from SOPA and PIPA.

People have noted for years that the King estate does their best to lock up and profit from his works. I even had a post that touched on this indirectly in 2004 (it appears that since then Eyes on the Prize has been re-aired and DVDs sold, result of an $850,000 grant to acquire the necessary licenses). But the King estate is simply doing what most heirs would do with an uninsured creative legacy. If societal governance of the knowledge commons were anything close to reasonable, all King’s works would now be in the public domain.

Perhaps ironically (but only if one cannot distinguish between King and his estate, and between citation and copyright restrictions), in his academic writing King was a very poor provider of intellectual provenance — in that context, he plagiarized:

I might conclude that none of this was fatal for King’s career as a preacher and powerful public speaker. Had he pursued an academic career, his heavy reliance on the authorities, often without citing them, could have been fatal. But in preaching, perhaps even in most public speech, genuine originality is more often fatal. A congregation, even a public audience, expects to hear and responds to the word once delivered to the fathers [and mothers]. It is the familiar that resonates with us. The original sounds alien and tends to alienate. The familiar, especially the familiar that appeals to the best in us, is what we long to hear. So,”I Have A Dream” was no new vision; it was a recension, quite literally, of his own “An American Dream.” And that dream, as we know, already had a long history. King’s vision was, perhaps, more inclusive than earlier dreams, but it appealed to us because we already believed it.

Indeed, far more interesting is the ubiquity of borrowing in King’s profession. On preachers borrowing liberally from each other and any other available source, listen to this week’s installment of WYNC On the Media, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the Public Imagination (about 15 minutes).

I did not know this about sermons, but upon hearing, it is completely unsurprising. But now I have questions:

• Do preachers now continue to borrow as heavily and as liberally as they did in King’s day and before? What about public speakers generally?
• Should preaching be added to magic, fashion, food, and comedy as examples of professions relying heavily on borrowing, and not so much on censorship?
• The development of King’s speeches, and of preacher’s sermons^* generally, highlight that in some contexts borrowing without citation is valuable, nevermind that it would be called plagiarism in other contexts. Should schools teach how to be a great artist in some classes? Doing so might help their anti-plagiarism rhetoric sink in better, as it would then appear contextually appropriate, rather than fanatic.

^* Daniel Dennet approvingly says that TED talks are secular sermons, pinpointing another reason I find them annoying (for being sermons, not for being secular). But I don’t want to censor any sermons.

I think that if microformats.org and the RDFa effort continue moving forward without coordinating their effort, the future looks kind of bleak.

I blogged about this at the time (and forgot and reblogged five months later). I recalled this upon reading a draft HTML Data Guide announced today, and trying to think of a tl;dr summary to at least microblog.

That’s difficult. The guide is intended to help publishers and consumers of HTML data choose among three syntaxes (all mostly focused on annotating data inline with HTML meant for display) and a variety of vocabularies, with heavy dependencies between the two. Since 2006, people working on microformats and RDFa have done much to address the faults of those specifications — microformats-2 allows for generic (rather than per-format) parsing, and RDFa 1.1 made some changes to make namespaces less needed, less ugly when needed, and usable in HTML5, and specifies a lite subset. In 2009 a third syntax/model, microdata, was launched, and then in 2011 chosen as the syntax for schema.org (which subsequently announced it would also support RDFa 1.1 Lite).

I find the added existence of microdata and schema.org suboptimal (optimal might be something like microformats process for some super widely useful vocabularies, with a relatively simple syntax but permitting generic parsing and distributed extensibility; very much like what Prodromou wanted in 2006), but when is anything optimal? I also wonder how much credit microdata ought get for microformats-2 and RDFa 1.1, due to providing competitive pressure? And schema.org for invigorating metadata-enhanced web-scale search and vocabulary design (for example, the last related thing I was involved in, at the beginning anyway)?

Hope springs eternal for getting these different but overlapping technologies and communities to play well together. I haven’t followed closely in a long time, but I gather that Jeni Tennison is one of the main people working on that, and you should really subscribe to her blog if you care. That leaves us back at the HTML Data Guide, of which Tennison is the editor.

My not-really-a-summary:

1. Delay making any decisions about HTML data; you probably don’t want it anyway (metadata is usually a cost center), and things will probably be more clear when you’re forced to check back due to…
2. If someone wants data from you as annotated HTML, or you need data from someone, and this makes business sense, do whatever the other party has already decided on, or better yet implemented (assuming their decision isn’t nonsensical; but if so why are you doing business with them?)
3. Use a validator to test your data in whatever format. An earlier wiki version of some of the guide materials includes links to validators. In my book, Any23 is cute.

(Yes, CC REL needs updating to reflect some of these developments, RDFa 1.1 at the least. Some license vocabulary work done by SPDX should also be looked at.)

Yesterday the W3C’s Provenance Working Group posted a call for feedback on a family of documents members of that group have been working on. Provenance is an important issue for the info commons, as I’ve sketched elsewhere. I hope some people quickly flesh out examples of application of the draft ontology to practical use cases.

Intellectual Provenance

Apart from some degree of necessity for current functioning of some info commons (obviously where some certainty about freedoms from copyright restriction is needed, but conceivably even moreso to outgrow copyright industries), provenance can also play an important symbolic role. Unlike “intellectual property”, intellectual provenance is of keen interest to both readers and writers. Furthermore, copyright and other restrictions make provenance harder, in both practical (barriers to curation) and attitudinal — the primacy of “rights” (as in rents, and grab all that your power allows) deprecates the actual intellectual provenance of things.

Postmodern Provenance

The umbra of provenance seems infinite. As we preserve scratches of information (or not) incomparably vast amounts disappear. But why should we only care for what we can record that led to current configurations? Consider independent invention and convergent evolution. Who cares what configurations and events led to current configurations: what are the recorded configurations that could have led to the current configuration, what are all of the configurations that could have led to the current configuration; what configurations are most similar (including history, or not) to a configuration in question?

.prov

In order to highlight the exposure of provenance information on the internet and provide added impetus for organizations to expose provenance in a way that can efficiently be found and accessed, I am exploring the possibility of a .prov TLD.

Open Hardware License. The open hardware movement received a boost when CERN published an Open Hardware License (“CERN OHL”). The CERN OHL is drafted as a documentation license which is careful to distinguish between documentation and software (which is not licensed under the CERN OHL) http://www.ohwr.org/documents/88. The license is “copyleft” and, thus, similar to GPLv2 because it requires that all modifications be made available under the terms of the CERN OHL. However, the license to patents, particularly important for hardware products, is ambiguous. This license is likely to the first of a number of open hardware licenses, but, hopefully, the open hardware movement will keep the number low and avoid “license proliferation” which has been such a problem for open source software.

But the CERN OHL isn’t the first “open hardware license”. Or perhaps it is the nth first. Several free software inspired licenses intended specifically for open hardware design and documentation have been created over the last decade or so. I recall encountering one dating back to the mid-1990s, but can’t find a reference now. Discussion of open hardware licenses was hot at the turn of the millennium, though most open hardware projects from that time didn’t get far, and I can’t find a license that made it to “1.0″.

People have been wanting to do for hardware what the GNU General Public License has done for software and trying to define open hardware since that timeframe. They keep on wanting (2006) and trying (2007, 2011 comments).

Probably the first arguably “high quality” license drafted specifically for open hardware is the TAPR Open Hardware License (2007). The CERN OHL might be the second such. There has never been consensus on the best license to use for open hardware. Perhaps this is why CERN saw fit to create yet another (incompatible copyleft at that — incompatible with TAPR OHL, GPL, and BY-SA), but there still isn’t consensus in 2012.

Licenses primarily used for software (usually [L]GPL, occasionally BSD, MIT, or Apache) have also been used for open hardware since at least the late 1990s — and much more so than any license created specifically for open hardware. CC-BY-SA has been used by Arduino since at least 2008 and Qi since 2009.

In 2009 the primary drafter of the TAPR OHL published a paper with a rationale for the license. By my reading of the paper, the case for a license specific to hardware seems pretty thin — hardware design and documentation files, and distribution of printed circuit boards seem a lot like program source and executables, and mostly subject to copyright. It also isn’t clear to me why the things TAPR OHL handles differently than most open source software licenses (disclaims strictly being a copyright license, instead wanting to serve as a clickwrap contract; attempts to describe requirements functionally, instead of legally, to avoid describing explicitly the legal regime underlying requirements; limited patent grant applies to “possessors” not just contributors) might not be interesting for software licenses, if they are interesting at all, nor why features generally rejected for open source software licenses shouldn’t also be rejected for open hardware (email notification to upstream licensors; a noncommercial-only option — thankfully deprecated late last year).

Richard Stallman’s 1999 note about free hardware seems more clear and compelling than the TAPR paper, but I wish I could read it again without knowing the author. Stallman wrote:

What this means is that anyone can legally draw the same circuit topology in a different-looking way, or write a different HDL definition which produces the same circuit. Thus, the strength of copyleft when applied to circuits is limited. However, copylefting HDL definitions and printed circuit layouts may do some good nonetheless.

In a thread from 2007 about yet another proposed open hardware license, three people who generally really know what they’re talking about each wondered why a hardware-specific license is needed: Brian Behlendorf, Chris DiBona, and Simon Phipps. The proposer withdrew and decided to use the MIT license (a popular non-copyleft license for software) for their project.

My bias, as with any project, would be to use a GPL-compatible license. But my bias may be inordinately strong, and I’m not starting a hardware project.

One could plausibly argue that there are still zero quality open hardware specific licenses, as the upstream notification requirement is arguably non-open, and the CERN OHL also contains an upstream notification requirement. Will history repeat?

Addendum: I just notice the existence of an open hardware legal mailing list, probably a good venue to follow if you’re truly interested in these issues. The organizer is Bruce Perens, who is involved with TAPR and is convinced non-copyright mechanisms are absolutely necessary for open hardware. His attempt to bring rigor to the field and his decades of experience with free and open source software are to be much appreciated in any case.