Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Austin, Roger" <rda AT rti.org>]

 I think the analogy to open source and web design is flawed. Open
source was neither paid for by a client nor sold by a vendor. It is free
to the downloader and available everywhere with the point of free
distribution.
 I do understand your thoughts that the web is a sharing place where
people find the best ideas and try to use them in their work. However,
just as in art or science, you build upon those things to produce your
own work rather than simply copy the work without attribution. The
samples that appeared earlier today showed byte-for-byte stealing of a
site. This showed no concept of building upon other people's work, but
was a closed-book case of theft. These web "developers" are stealing
design and "selling" it as their own work. This is simple plagarism. It
is being attributed as their design and schema for sale.

 This exact thing is happening a lot in the arts and crafts community.
We had some woodturners who were taking classes with internationally
known craftspeople to learn how their work was made. Then, they copied
the work and tried to sell it in galleries as their own design. The
public was purchasing this as original work and getting defrauded since
the work was not original (as they later learned.) This is not a good
thing. If they make it fine, just don't try to sell it as original work.
As in web design, you can copy it, but just don't try to sell it on the
market as original. Hell, at least change some of the copy.

 Policing plagarism is problem, but it doesn't make it right. In the
craft community, the policing is through national and international
organizations where the public (especially collectors and gallery
owners) is educated in the history of the craft. I have no idea how web
content creators would ever try to educate the public on this topic.

 Thanks for the thought provoking comments. Roger (geezer geek at RTI)

PS: I must say that all the software (I think) that is on my systems are
properly licensed. Anyone using software that is unlicensed at a profit
making enterprise must have a highly developed sense of rationalization
and/or some pretty soft policies. 

"j. alfred prufrock" wrote:
> 
> Steven Champeon wrote:
> > Yep. It's extremely common.
> 
> i'm ill-advised to make the following long-winded comments. i don't even
> know most of whom i address here. please indulge me this obvious
> mistake.
> 
> i think the street ethics of the net community at large encourage
> copying.
> 
> when people learn to program or design pages, what are they told? "find
> some well written source and look at it to see how well written source
> is put together." most web humor consists of detourning already existing
> web material. material on the web is easily copied, and ease is a form
> of encouragement. the open source movement actively promotes giving your
> work away. in large software companies, does a large project ever start
> from ground zero? no, we're made to take the last project and see what
> we can cannibalize out of it to save time, even if it sucks or the
> people on the last project were laid off. then there's the formalized
> push, however possibly misguided, for 'reusable' software components.
> how many people work for a company where -every- piece of software
> you've been given to use, or asked to use, has been properly paid for
> and licensed for every person or machine that uses it? i'm sure there's
> at least a couple. in the world.
<snip>

> chris calloway, inventor of helvetica

-- 
Roger Austin   rda AT rti.org    (919)541-7476    192 MCB/HLB
Research Triangle Institute, POB 12194, RTP, NC 27709-2194