Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Thanks Jeff. I was handed a paper copy by a RedHat employee and have never seen the online copy. Yes. This is a long article but it explores a lot of the issues. My fault with the author is that he has difficulty understanding that the web per se is not a commons but an amalgamation of different contributions from different contributors which unfortunately have historically been attributed to a single owner. Private interests and public profits are also a working model. He understands that the original work was done at DARPA, BBN, etc. but doesn't account for future contributions fusing into that whole. As I said, the owner must decide to grant land use rights. All a patent policy is is exactly that: the terms under which contributing parties negotiate in the W3C. A bazaar doesn't have to be a ghetto, but without profits, it becomes that quite quickly. len -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Lowery [mailto:jlowery@s...] Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 2:34 PM To: Bullard, Claude L (Len); xml-dev@l... Subject: RE: Re: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents > The tragedy of the commons concept was first mentioned in the > context of the "Public Assets Private Profits" article by David > Bollier and in that article, he has difficulty working out > when something is public and when the public has appropriated > it for its own without regard to the rights of the owner. A very pertinent article to this thread, Len. Here's the link: http://www.newamerica.net/events/transcripts_texts/PA_Report.pdf
|
