[cc-community] Intellectual Highway Department

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Wed May 31 16:14:02 EDT 2006

On Wednesday 31 May 2006 02:24 pm, Greg London wrote:
> On 5/31/06, rob at robmyers.org <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:
> > Quoting Greg London <teloscorbin at gmail.com>:
> > > Yes. This morning on the commute to work, the idea of using
> > > a sunset approach to a certain niche of projects could possibly
> > > modify the terrain on which it's built. The specific project that
> > > came to mind was "Elephant Dreams".
> >
> > Elephants dream was paid for by pre-sales (effectively SPP)
> > and is now available BY as a torrent. I believe that a sunset clause
> > would have killed interest and pre-sales.
> I did mention I'd like to see a sunset license tried on the the
> other side of a blast-door first, didn't I? If it blows up in someone's
> face, which I'm not entirely convinced that it wouldn't, I'd rather not
> be pulling shrapnel out of CC for the next few years, that and end
> up walking with a limp.
> > The project would not have happened. Sunset is bad for people who
> > use it, as they create uncertainty around their own sales. People will
> > just wait for the sunset.
> Well, I think some software businesses GPL the old versions of code,
> but you have to pay to get the latest rev, so the idea seems to be
> workable, I just question whether implementing an artificial barrier via a
> sunset will have the same effect that comes naturally from software
> revisions.
> Some people will just wait for the current version of the software to
> get released GPL rather than pay for it. But that doesn't mean that
> you couldn't stilll make an income on the people who are willing ot pay.
> > most software is written in-house, not for external sales.
> > Money is not made directly on it.
> I also believe I said this would be a niche thing, right?
> > But movies are chunkable. The average blockbuster is now
> > rendered by a number of different effects houses. The script
> > is derived multiple times before shooting.  And actors need
> > never meet. I'm not saying this is a good way of doing things,
> > but it is chunked. :-)
> Yes, yes. When I use a word, it means exactly what I want it
> to mean. And when I say "chunkable", I mean chunkable to the
> point that a complete newbie to the project could surf to the site,
> find something valuable (entertaining) to them, and then see an
> "edit" button, and spend all of two minutes adding some improvement
> to the project that would be equivalent to two minutes of contribution
> by the most experienced editor. And have none of that two minutes
> be lost by overhead trying to integrate it into the project.
> Wikipedia is chunkable. Grandma could go to an article about
> knitting because she wants to learn something about knitting,
> and then notice a spelling error and fix it in less than a minute.
> No overhead is involved rolling this contribution into the project.
> Maybe chunkable isnt the right word, but it's all I got so far.
> It basically means a project that fails to follow the mythical
> man-month that inter-person communication/overhead goes
> exponential as you add people to the project. That overhead
> remains relatively constant regardless of the number of people
> because the project requires little or not communication and
> coordination.
> And if you want a hundred thousand people all contributing
> one hour's worth of work to your project and end up with
> a 90,000 hour result (10 percent overhead), then you need
> to figure out how to make the project chunkable or
> (insert better terminology here)

Greg, if this is what you mean by chunkable, do you know of any significant 
GPL software that is chunkable?

All of the ones I want to make changes to generally take some significant 
effort at understanding and getting up to speed before I can even think of 
making some real changes.
> > > but there isn't a natural boundary for versioning that makes a
> > > new version better than an older version.
> >
> > They could get some money to fix the character animation.
> > I'd pay for that.
> Yeah, I don't know. some people would pay for a re-released version
> of an old disney cartoon with the images cleaned up and recolored.
> Maybe it translates.  I did purchase a leather bound copy of
> Hitchhiker's guide even though I owned the individual paperbacks.

Will someone be so kind as to comment of possible outcomes if CC were to 
change from licensing the "work" to the "instance" and if that would allow 
the purchasing of the "freedom" of multiple quality versions of the work in a 
planned fashion?
> > Back to the old Flash Gordon shorts then. Yay! :-)
> We showed a Flash short at my old university
> in the main movie theater before every main attraction.
> Imagine my surprise when the first short started
> and I saw the Star Wars crawl of text and thought,
> HEY! But! You! He! How! What!
> After that initial shock, they were actually entertaining
> in their own way.

Some of the movies available on the internet archive are not bad to watch 
> > Yes, it is a licensing solution to a perceptual problem.
> Well, there may be a real problem that is preventing
> a project from succeeding as a simple commons model,
> such as a lack of chunkability. but I would say that
> licenses don't fix those problems.
> Licenses don't change the terrain.
> > http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/
> I've been out of the loop for a bit, apparently.

all the best,

Record a song and you might win $1,000.00

More information about the cc-community mailing list