On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 9:15 AM, Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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?
There are diverse ideas within scientific circles around IP ranging
from maximalist restrictive to strongly public good oriented value
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.