 |
 |
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 9:15 AM, Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Friends, > > One thought does occur to me. > > If the creative and performing arts are to have the glory and stature of > physics and the natural sciences, then why should we not use IP models as > they do? > > Yours, > > Ken There are diverse ideas within scientific circles around IP ranging from maximalist restrictive to strongly public good oriented value sets. Some people and organisations argue for control of the idea or the implementation of the idea and see their value in control and restriction of access to either of those. Some people and organisations see the ideas and implementations more as a coral reef of which we are all a part and make value through the specific contexts, services, experiences related to the ideas.The opporunity to participate and collaborate is a direct value outcome of open approaches to licensing. Collaborative projects which use maximalist restrictive IP models are likely to reach a point in a project where someone controls access to every movable part. This generates a kind of atrophy. imho. Making value in open practice is different and is often closely related to the level of participation or contribution from a wide user base which would be seen as a diffusion of ownership in a closed single point of value model. Diversity connection reputation and opportunity are pieces of a value proposition for open practice. Janet