[OpenDesign] question on the definition scope

Thu Nov 8 07:49:00 UTC 2012

Dear Aymeric
Dear list

@Aymeric -- good to meet you here as well ... I think we should set up a f2f meeting soon in Rotterdam

@list
regarding the different "departments" in design, I recently came across a what older paper that studies how various design "departments" handle IP -- one of the few IP studies looking beyond OS and IP in software. Worth a read in this context (taking into account that it was written 6 years ago and from a US perspective)

Raustiala, Kal, Sprigman, Christopher (2006). The Piracy Paradox. Innovation and Intellectual Property in Fashion Design. Virginia Law Review, 92, 8, pp. 1687-1777. Available online at http://www.virginialawreview.org/content/pdfs/92/1687.pdf 

There has also been some noise, off and on, on one of the Creative Commons mailing lists, about including creative works in software, I could try to dig this up.  The discussion usually evolves around compatibility of licenses.

Then, there is this issue of how IP protection works: automatically (copyright) or by registration (patents) -- where a lot of design is in a that space with registered and unregistered (community) design rights.  Anything copyright-like lends itself to licensing à la GPL and CC, anything patent-like requires other strategies for "opening" (such as defensive publication).

And finally, I am currently thinking a lot about "IP traps" -- contractual agreements that prevent individuals from "opening" what they do (be it employment contracts or subcontracting agreements). This is not strongly Open Design *Definition* related, but has an enormeous impact on the possibilities of open design practice.

/ Peter

On 7 Nov 2012, at 13:01 , Aymeric Mansoux wrote:

> Dear list,
> 
> 
> TL;DR: Is the definition meant to address the different fields of
> design, or is it only focussed on the production of physical objects and
> the technolegal infrastructure required for it, therefore excluding
> other areas and practices such as graphic design?
> 
> 
> 
> Long: Hello everyone, I've been involved in free culture related
> projects for more than a decade (Puredyne,[^1] make art,[^2]
> FLOSS+Art,[^3] a.o.) currently researching the impact of free and open
> source software on art/design/music/writing practices as part of a PhD
> at Goldsmiths, University of London.[^4]
> 
> The reason for this mail is my current role as advisor for a new BA
> curriculum at the Willem de Kooning Academie in Rotterdam, NL. One
> component of the curriculum is on open design.  One question that we are
> asking ourselves is the actual scope of open design. It seems to me
> that, while the effort of your project mentions several areas of
> design,[^5] the open design community, as a whole, still feels very
> close to the open hardware and 3D printing scenes. In that sense, a
> definition would be, indeed, very much welcome.
> 
> However as we are drafting the curriculum at the moment, we would very
> much like to align our effort with yours to avoid adding more noise and
> reinvent the wheel (possibly 3D printing it eventually). So I would be
> very grateful if you could tell me if this has already been
> discussed/agreed or if the scope of the definition is still being
> debated. I am also wondering if next to the github repos, there has been
> any draft of the definition produced yet.
> 
> This is quite crucial for us as we need to address open design from
> several angle in this educational context. For instance, one thing that
> comes to my mind when associating open design in the context of graphic
> design is the effort from one of our graduate student at the Piet Zwart
> Institute, Emanuele Bonetti, who researched collaborative graphic design
> processes borrowing ideas from different software development
> practices.[^6] Another example would be the work of Máirín Duffy, at Red
> Hat, who has been busy with the role, methodologies, and platforms
> necessary for graphic designers to contribute to FLOSS projects.[^7]
> 
> To sum up, any hints on how you are approaching this issue would be very
> helpful to us! I did find an issue on github that asks the same question,
> but there was no follow-up.[^8]
> 
> (Additionally, I am also curious about which licenses you might be
> eventually suggesting for open design, more precisely if you intend to
> point to the OKFN's in-house OKD or if you will also integrate other
> efforts such as the defition for free culture works/licenses)
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Best,
> a.
> --
> http://su.kuri.mu
> 
> [^1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puredyne
> 
> [^2]: http://makeart.goto10.org
> 
> [^3]: http://people.makeart.goto10.org/
> 
> [^4]: http://su.kuri.mu/2011/my-lawyer-is-an-artist/
> 
> [^5]: http://okfestival.org/open-design
> 
> [^6]: http://p2pdesignstrategies.parcodiyellowstone.it/
> 
> [^7]: http://mairin.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/contributing-to-free-open-source-software-as-a-designer/
> [^8]: https://github.com/OpenDesign-WorkingGroup/Open-Design-Definition/issues/12
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenDesign mailing list
> OpenDesign at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/opendesign
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/opendesign