[pdb-discuss] Yikes - introduction page

[Michael Holloway]

No problem for me to edit the page to reflect this.

On 2/16/07, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks for pointing this out Tom -- and I agree with you. Though a mea
> culpa as
>
> a) I used this approach in my 'Value of the Public Domain' essay (to be
> honest that was because I couldn't choose the title and wanted to be
> able to talk about all kinds of open knowledge (that is why I tended to
> say things like 'public domain approaches').
>
> b) I should have thought about this more carefully before replying to
> Michael's previous mail where he proposed this approach.
>
> It isn't a huge deal but I think you are completely right that we should
> keep a distinction, particularly for this project, between:
>
> a) public domain works (those that are legally public domain)
>
> b) open knowledge (be that content, data, etc etc)
>
> Furthermore we are definitely focusing on the (a). Later on, should it
> seem a good idea, we can always discuss expanding to (b).
>
> ~rufus
>
> Tom Chance wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > The new site is looking really nice, but I'm worried about a
> > paragraph in the introduction page:
> >
> > "Redefining the Public Domain Traditionally the public domain was
> > defined as all intellectual works that could be copied, used and
> > reused freely without legal restriction. In line with contemporary
> > academia, we subscribe to an expanded notion which instead equates
> > the public domain with 'open' knowledge, that is, all ideas and
> > information that can be freely used, redistributed and reused. The
> > notion of 'free' in this context should be loosely interpreted to
> > include, for example, licence terms that require derivative works
> > (e.g. Mash-ups) must themselves be published under 'open' terms."
> > http://blog.publicdomainworks.net/?page_id=8
> >
> > That argument has its place (Benkler has given a similar argument a
> > big boost, Pam Samuelson suggested it is a sensible default in
> > general public discourse) but I don't think that place is on the PDW
> > web site. PDW is, so far as I understand, just for works in the
> > legal/constitutional public domain, i.e. works out of copyright.
> > Unless PDW also intends to host a wide variety of copyleft/CC works
> > then I suggest we stick to explaining that we mean the legal public
> > domain, and perhaps have a footnote explaining that visitors might be
> > interested in a wider discussion about the term, maybe linking to
> > Samuelson's excellent paper on the subject?
> >
> http://www.ischool.berkeley.edu/~pam/papers/enriching%20discourse%20on%20public%20domains.pdf
> >
> >
> > Regards, Tom
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________ pdb-discuss mailing
> > list pdb-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> > http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> pdb-discuss mailing list
> pdb-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-discuss
>



-- 
Michael H Holloway
+44 (0) 7974 566 823

http://www.openbusiness.cc/
http://www.openrightsgroup.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/pd-discuss/attachments/20070216/b442aa89/attachment.html>