Blogged at http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2009/08/01/singularityu/

1. Singularity University Panel on Open Source 2009-07-28 The Commons as a collective intelligence meta-innovation Mike Linksvayer Creative Commons Photo by asadal · Licensed under CC Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 · http://flickr.com/photos/68242677@N00/2117153416/

3. HQ and ccLearn in San Francisco

4. Science Commons division at MIT

5. ~70 international jurisdiction projects, coordinated from Berlin

6. Foundation, corporate, and individual funding

7. Born at Stanford, supported by Silicon Valley

9. Legal and technical tools enabling a “Some Rights Reserved” model

11. Media is more diverse and at least a decade(?) behind software

12. Six Mainstream Licenses

13. Lawyer Readable

14. Human Readable

15. Machine Readable <rdf:RDF xmlns=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/ns#&quot; xmlns:rdf=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#&quot;> <License rdf:about=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/nl/&quot;> <permits rdf:resource=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/ns#Reproduction&quot;/> <permits rdf:resource=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/ns#Distribution&quot;/> <requires rdf:resource=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/ns#Notice&quot;/> <requires rdf:resource=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/ns#Attribution&quot;/> <prohibits rdf:resource=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/ns#CommercialUse&quot;/> <permits rdf:resource=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks&quot;/> <requires rdf:resource=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/ns#ShareAlike&quot;/> </License> </rdf:RDF>

16. Machine Readable (Work) <span xmlns:cc=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/ns#&quot; xmlns:dc=&quot;http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/&quot;> <span rel=&quot; dc:type &quot; href=&quot; http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text &quot; property=&quot; dc:title &quot; > My Book </span> by <a rel=&quot; cc:attributionURL &quot; property=&quot; cc:attributionName &quot; href=&quot; http://example.org/me &quot;> My Name </a> is licensed under a <a rel=&quot; license &quot; href=&quot; http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ &quot; >Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License</a>. <span rel=&quot; dc:source &quot; href=&quot; http://example.net/her_book &quot; /> Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at <a rel=&quot; cc:morePermissions &quot; href=&quot; http://example.com/revenue_sharing_agreement &quot;>example.com</a>. </span>

17. DRMfree “ DRM Voodo” by psd licensed under CC BY 2.0 http://flickr.com/photos/psd/1806247462/

19. Device driver code in web application = Huh?

20. Cat photos and heavy metal = music video

22. “Maintained” cultural work = pretty special

23. (Wikis are somewhat like software in this respect)

25. Text w/markup > PDF > Bitmap scan

26. Multitracks > High bitrate > Low bitrate

27. Software/Culture (iv) Construction is identical to creating modifiable form vs. iteratively leaving materials on the cutting room floor

30. Free commercial use more impactful on existing business models

32. Maybe some artists want a commercial anticommons: nobody can be “exploited” ... but most want to exploit commerce. NC maybe does both.

34. 1989: GPLv1

35. 1991: Linux kernel, GPLv2

36. 1993: Debian

37. 1996: Apache

38. 1998: Mozilla, “open source”, IBM

40. 2004: Firefox 1.0

41. 2007: [AL]GPLv3

42. ????: World Domination

44. 1999: Open Publication License

45. 2000: GFDL, Free Art License

46. 2001: EFF Open Audio License

47. History (iv) Other early 2000s open content licenses (some of them Free): Design Science License, Ethymonics Free Music Public License, Open Music Green/Yellow/Red/Rainbow Licenses, Open Source Music License, No Type License, Public Library of Science Open Access License, Electrohippie Collective's Ethical Open Documentation License

49. 2004: 2.0

50. 2005: 2.5

51. 2007: 3.0

52. History (vi) Anti-proliferation? 2003: author of Open Content/Publication licenses recommends CC instead and PLoS adopts CC BY 2004: EFF OAL 2.0 declares CC BY-SA 2.0 its next version No significant new culture licenses since 2002 2008+: Possible Wikipedia migration to CC BY-SA

54. Wikipedia’s success came faster and more visibly

55. Does Wikipedia even need an Ubuntu (2004)?

56. But how typical is Wikipedia of free culture?

58. Cygnus acquired by Red Hat (1999); Magnatune’s long term impact TBD

59. Magnatune may not be Free enough for some, but it seems like the best analogy for now

62. 2006: Acquired by Internet Brands

63. 2008: First Wikitravel Press paper titles Community is the new “IP”?

65. $750k in two days from limited edition “ultra deluxe edition”

66. This while available legally and easily, gratis.

67. NC doesn’t seem important in this story ... yet

68. Indicators (Summary Guesses) Free culture is at least a decade behind free software Except where it has mass collaboration/maintenance aspects of software, where it may rocket ahead (Wikipedia) Generally culture is much more varied than software; success will be spikey

69. In Innovation, Meta is Max “The max net-impact innovations, by far, have been meta-innovations, i.e., innovations that changed how fast other innovations accumulated.” Robin Hanson (Economist) http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/meta-is-max---i.html

70. Collective Intelligence Meta innovation?

71. Commons Meta innovation for Collective Intelligence?

72. $2.2 trillion Value of fair use in the U.S. Economy http://www.ccianet.org/artmanager/publish/news/First-Ever_Economic_Study_Calculates_Dollar_Value_of.shtml also see http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7643

75. Cyber terrorism (Cyber terror war on) Privacy breaches Loss of Generativity Lock-in Surveillance DRM Censorship Suppression of innovation Electoral fraud Luddism

77. Protectionism

78. Politics and power

79. Security theater and fear-based responses (driven by all of above, not just legitimate security issues)

81. Permit innovation and participation enabled by digital world even if not possible before (probably follows from above)

82. How building the commons (free software, free culture, and friends) helps

84. Security through obscurity doesn’t work

85. FLOSS encourages a heterogeneous computing environment

86. Free software and free culture both allergic to DRM and other mechanisms that sacrifice security to other goals

88. Free software and free culture both allergic to DRM

90. ... and the ability of all to participate

91. Peer production works against concentrated power — doesn’t require concentrated production structures and lowers barriers to entry

93. Commons work against three previous threats that drive security theater and fear

94. Can the success of the (digital) commons alter how we view freedom and power generally?

95. “The gate that has held the movements for equalization of human beings strictly in a dilemma between ineffectiveness and violence has now been opened. The reason is that we have shifted to a zero marginal cost world. As steel is replaced by software, more and more of the value in society becomes non-rivalrous: it can be held by many without costing anybody more than if it is held by a few.” Eben Moglen

96. “If we don’t want to live in a jungle, we must change our attitudes. We must start sending the message that a good citizen is one who cooperates when appropriate, not one who is successful at taking from others.” Richard Stallman

97. i.e., we can form collective intelligences instead of forced collectives ... and still “change the world”

100. A dominant commons makes many collective stupidity scenarios much less likely

101. Beneficial collective intelligence needs universal access to culture, educational resources, research ... in machine-readable form