I wanted to create a post in response to Charles Dietrich’s comment on the previous post, and I am taking that comment and conversation here so that we can have a more focused discussion on this issue. His comment was:
Since you brought up the license issue, I’d love it if the user could specify the license they want to use, including ‘All rights reserved’, ‘BSD’, and ‘GPL’ for code (which pretty much covers the bases, since none of these things are libraries) and the licenses that Flickr lets you choose among for content (or a subset including ‘All rights reserved’ and ‘creative commons sharealike’, since it’s a big list):
None (All rights reserved)
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Creative Commons
Attribution Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons
Attribution-NoDerivs Creative Commons
I guess the big change that I’m asking for is the right to say ‘All rights reserved’.
Thanks for your response on this. Actually, I have been thinking about the ‘all rights reserved’ option for a while, and sincerely, couldn’t find a definite conclusion on what to do.
As you mentioned, Flickr (the website I am taking a lot of inspiration on handling of shared creativity) provides those options, and it wouldn’t be hard to do it on OpenProcessing. And providing people options to select their preferred license really make sense. However, couple of things making my feet itch:
- -> An All-rights-reserved (ARR) sketch doesn’t really make sense if it is provided with its source code option, so I think, a user who wants to ARR his/her sketch wouldn’t prefer to display the source code either. This makes sense, and I totally understand it. But as a result, I can imagine OpenProcessing becoming a deposit for interesting Java Applets, but much value being lost… From the comments, I observe that sketches really become valuable along their source code; an example comment I like seeing is “Very nice sketch with very short code!”. What makes a Processing sketch different from a flash animation is its source code approach. And I am trying to keep OpenProcessing a place to make that difference obvious, get prospective processing users interested and encourage them to learn by going through the code.
- -> Without source code being shared, I believe the website wouldn’t be any different from a Flash exhibition website, from the point of someone who doesn’t know about processing…
- -> Also, I believe this community had ever been better since Ben Fry and Casey Reas (and many supporters like Daniel Shiffman) had strictly tried to keep things open source and CC. You know, the Processing application is also under Creative Commons. They don’t restrict people to share their sketches under CC, which of course gives us a lot freedom. But at this point, if OpenProcessing allows for ARR sketches, I would feel that my efforts on this project wouldn’t return that much value other than providing a service for people to exhibit their sketches without any intention to improve the community.
Let me know what you guys think. This is definitely debatable, and can be tried; I can try to provide such a feature for testing purposes, to see how it goes. But, my worries are in the paragraph above. So let me know what you think.