More 2.0 Trouble

And talking of Web 2.0 trouble, the news that Bart Decrem is leaving Flock, the company he helped to found, and of which he was CEO, doesn't look too good, despite the corporate spin being put upon it. (Via The Inquirer.)

Going to the Dogster

There is an iron rule in the Internet world: once people start launching services for pets, the End is Nigh. For Web 1.0, the classic case was Pets.com; and now, for Web 2.0, we have Dogster:

We are dog freaks and computer geeks who wanted a canine sharing application that's truly gone to the dogs. Such a site didn't exist, so we built it ourselves. The fluffy love is backed with serious technology and years of coding experience under our collars. Dogster has since become more contagious than kennel cough.

As the Website itself puts it: "for the love of dog...." (Via GigaOM.)

Living for LiveCDs

Live CDs - bootable, self-configuring GNU/Linux distributions - are one of the free software world's secret weapons. They not only let you try out a distro before installing it, but they also let you swap between them as easily as swapping CDs. Try doing that with Windows (of which there is pretty much only one main variety, anyway).

So I was pleased to come across LiveCD News to satisfy my hunger for info on this front, one to put alongside the equally indispensable DistroWatch, which plays the same role for GNU/Linux distros in general. (Via Digg.)

Well Done, Wales

Jimmy's done it again.

After my last encomium, Jimmy Wales has now taken on Dale Hoiberg, editor-in-chief of Britannica, in an email exchange that includes the following words from Wales (plus his elfin helpers, I presume):

You wrote: "I have had neither the time nor space to respond to them properly in this format. I could corral any number of links to articles alleging errors in Wikipedia and weave them into my posts, but it seems to me that our time and space are better spent here on issues of substance."

No problem! Wikipedia to the rescue with a fine article on the topic.

Fortunately, there is a vast army of volunteers eager to help good people like you and me who don't quite have enough time and space to do everything from scratch ourselves, and they are writing a comprehensive encyclopedic catalog of all human knowledge. They have quite eagerly amassed a fantastic list and discussion of dozens of links to such articles.

We are open and transparent and eager to help people find criticisms of us. Disconcerting and unusual, I know. But, well, welcome to the Internet.

And yes, this is an issue of substance and a fine demonstration of the strength of the new model.

PubMed Mashup

I'm a huge fan of PubMed. If you've not visited it, it's well worth the effort. It's the nearest thing we have to a complete compendium of medical knowledge. Most of it, alas, is only at the abstract level, but as open access takes off, PubMed will become the natural gateway to the full texts (and there's a UK PubMed under construction, too).

So I was interested to see this mashup involving PubMed: a Greasemonkey script that adds blog post trackbacks to PubMed. Sounds like a brilliant idea.

The Tragedy of the Faux Commons

Here's a perceptive post that points out all is not well at the commercial Web 2.0 sites like MySpace:

The problem is that many social networks hosted by corporations are essentially appropriating – and monetizing – the socially created value of the commons for themselves. They entice users onto the faux commons by offering them recognition and attention to a large audience – but then they leverage the power of the assembled commons for their own profit, at the expense of users.

And it concludes with a chilling thought:

If the first enclosures were those of common lands in Great Britain, and the second enclosures were those achieved through expansions of copyright and patents (Cf. James Boyle), then the "third enclosures" (as Michel Bauwens calls them ) uses contract terms (with users of websites and software, and with trustees of public resources) to convert commons into proprietary monopolies.

Open Data: Past, Present and Future

Peter Murray-Rust has an interesting post on the concept of open data, its (short) history and its present status, with some good links. As he notes:

There seem to be several related threads:

* scientific data deemed to belong to the commons (e.g. the human genome)
* infrastructural data essential for scientific endeavour (e.g. GIS)
* data published in scientific articles which are factual and therefore not copyrightable
* data as opposed to software and therefore not covered by OS licenses and potentially capable of being misappropriated. (this is a very general idea)

He points out that "the current usages are sufficiently close that we should try to bring them together", a move that would help open data's future greatly.

Malaysian Open Source Pilots Flying High

It's probably only natural that we tend to hear about the headline pilot schemes for open source: after all, these are (usually) the big breakthrough. But in a sense what really counts is whether the pilots are successful and there is a wider roll-out of open source. So it's good to find that in Malaysia, at least, the pilots were successful and that the roll-out is indeed proceeding. (Via LXer.)

Update: Here is the excellent and self-explanatory Open Malaysia blog, which looks to be a good place to follow this story.

Greetings, OpenDocument XML.org

OASIS may not be the grooviest organisation, but it's certainly helped ODF achieve respectability remarkably quickly. Now it's set up something called OpenDocument XML.org:

This is a community-driven site, and the public is encouraged to contribute content. Use this site to:

* Learn. Knowledge Base pages provide reliable background information on OpenDocument.
* Share. OpenDocument Today serves as a community bulletin board and directory where readers post news, ideas, opinions, and recommendations.
* Collaborate. Wiki pages let users work with others online and add new pages to the site.

Now That's What I Call EMusic

Good to see that the world's best music download service is coming to this side of the pond. Now if they only had a few duduk tunes....

It's Academic

I know this is only a "stylized mathematical model" of how Windows and GNU/Linux interact in the marketplace, but it's more akin to a Swiss cheese model, so many holes does it exhibit. For example:

The model captures what we believe are the most important features of the Linux-Windows competitive battle (faster demand-side learning on the part of Linux and an initial installed base advantage for Windows), but makes important assumptions regarding other aspects.

"Faster demand-side learning" has almost nothing to do with it these days: issues like control, stability and security are more to the fore.

And then this is a completely erroneous assumption, too:

Our paper introduces a dynamic mixed duopoly model in which a profit-maximizing competitor (Microsoft) interacts with a competitor that prices at zero (Linux), with the installed base affecting their relative values over time.

Nobody equates GNU/Linux with zero price anymore: even if TCO is a slippery concept, it is certainly more realistic than simply looking at the price tag, as this study does.

And so on, and so on. The fundamental problem is that open source is driven by so many complex - and often non-economic - factors that any simplistic mathematical modelling is doomed to fail from the start.

Wales Gives It Some Welly

I can't say I see eye-to-eye with everything Mr. Wales does, but in this case he seems to be on the side of the angels:

The founder of Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia written by its users, has defied the Chinese government by refusing to bow to censorship of politically sensitive entries.

Jimmy Wales, one of the 100 most influential people in the world according to Time magazine, challenged other internet companies, including Google, to justify their claim that they could do more good than harm by co-operating with Beijing.

Wikipedia, a hugely popular reference tool in the West, has been banned from China since last October. Whereas Google, Microsoft and Yahoo went into the country accepting some restrictions on their online content, Wales believes it must be all or nothing for Wikipedia.

(Via Slashdot.)

Widgetification = Modularisation

An interesting piece by Om Malik (not on GigaOM) about the rise of the widget. But no surprise here really: the atomisation of programs is just another reflection of the tidal wave that is open source currently sweeping over programming in general. As I've written several times, modularity is key to free software's success: widgetification is simply the same idea applied to Web services.

King Harald's Great GPL Victory

Harald Welte, untiring defender of the GPL, has won a splendid victory in the German courts. No details yet, but this is what King Harald has to say in his royal blog:

Victory!

Today I have receive news that we've won the first regular civil court case on the GPL in Germany. This is really good news, since so far we've only had a hand full of preliminary injunctions been granted (and an appeal case against an injunction), but not a regular civil trial.

The judge has ruled, but the details of the court order have not been publicised yet. I'll publicised the full details as soon as thus details are available in the next couple of weeks.

Go, Harald, go. (Via Heise Online.)

Update: Details have now emerged, as has a clarification of what the court decided:

the judges in Frankfurt-on-the-Main also confirmed the fundamental validity of the GPL: "In particular, the provisions of the GPL cannot be read as a relinquishing of copyright or copyright-law legal positions," the judges write in their opinion. The court explicitly confirmed as valid paragraph 4 of the license, which prohibits distribution of any kind in the event of any GPL clause being violated. D-Link had therefore not been entitled to market the GPL-licensed software without abiding by the conditions imposed by the license, while Mr. Welte for his part had been entitled to send the warning notice and make his claims for reimbursement, the judges state.

Digital Lard

Nice.

Google Spreadsheets - Nearly There

I find that my way of working is becoming increasingly Webified: I use Gmail, Writely and (just occasionally) the odd bit of Firefox. One of the key apps still missing from that line-up is the spreadsheet. Google's online Spreadsheets wasn't a serious option, because it didn't offer ODF suport - until now. If they could just get the charts sorted out, I would be too. (Via Tecosystems.)

Update: Google Spreadsheets is known as "Spreadly" among Googlers, apparently. I like it.

On the Commonality of the Commons

One of the central themes of this blog is that the opens - open source, open content, open genomics and the rest - share certain key characteristics, and thus form part of a broader movement, of great historical importance.

There's a fine articulation of just this viewpoint in another of Richard Poynder's splendid interviews. It's with Michel Bauwens, creator of the Foundation for P2P Alternatives. The whole thing is well worth reading, but here's a typical sample from the second part - it's a two parter:

We need to increase the scope of applications in which open and free principles are applied; we need to apply and experiment with peer governance, and learn from our mistakes; and, as I said earlier, we need to interconnect and learn from each other, in the understanding that all these efforts are related, and have a larger common purpose.

In addition, we have to defensively stop the destruction of the biosphere, and stop the new enclosures of the information commons we are witnessing. Instead, we need to be constructively building the new world, and in a way that ends and means are congruent with each other. If we do this then the P2P subsystem will continue to strengthen, and eventually reach a tipping point. At that juncture it will become the dominant model.

On Subtractability and Excludability

Some more interestingly oblique thoughts on the concept of the commons and the impact of technology thereon.

Linus' Law and International Trade

If any proof were needed that open source has wide ramifications, consider this:

the open source software adage, known as Linus' Law (that "with enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow") is coming to apply to international trade and the global behavior of multinational corporations. With enough observers, all trade is transparent, whether the interests involved want it to be or not.

This is important, because for certain products - diamonds, for example - lack of transparency is crucial:

Diamond merchants depended on a veil of secrecy about the origins of their stones to protect them from the consequences of their trade. Global Witness realized that if it could tear down that veil, consumers would react with horror and disgust to the reality they saw

For example, they would learn that

the international trade in diamonds has destabilized whole regions and promoted criminal regimes. They have helped fuel the genocidal Congo wars and kept Angola in chaos. They are intimately tied to the black market in weapons. Terrorists even traffic in them to finance their plots. And these "blood diamonds" are sold in large numbers, by the billions of dollars, on the diamond bourses of Antwerp and other cities.

As well as diamonds, there is much to reveal about illegal logging and oil, and it's good to know that hackers have pioneered processes that are playing an important role here.

Scribing about Scribus

DTP is not something you normally associate with the world of free software. But there is an open source DTP package, and a damn fine one. It's called Scribus, it's cross-platform, and there's a nice tutorial about some of its more advanced features in Tux - a great magazine marred by annoying pop-up ads.

Sorry, Larry...

...but I can't agree on this one. You write:

Check out webcitation.org -- a project run at the University of Toronto. The basic idea is to create a permanent URL for citations, so that when the Supreme Court, e.g., cites a webpage, there's a reliable way to get back to the webpage it cited. They do this by creating a reference URL, which then will refer back to an archive of the page created when the reference was created. E.g., I entered the URL for my blog ("http://lessig.org/blog"). It then created an archive URL "http://www.webcitation.org/5IlFymF33". Click on it and it should take you to an archive page for my blog.

This is the TinyURL problem all over again. It destroys one of the greatest features of the Web: its transparency. You can generally see where you are going and some of the structure of what you will find there. TinyURLs and Larry's recommendation do away with this.

Another point is that it's actually harder to enter gobbledygook like "http://www.webcitation.org/5IlFymF33" than even long, but comprehensible URLs, so this system doesn't even achieve the goal of making addresses easier to enter.

Agreed, we need an archive of the Web: but we already have one in the wonderful Internet Archive. What we really need to do is to support it better, with more dosh and more infrastructure.

Eclipse Waxes Stronger

One of the key issues that needed to be addressed in order to promote free software in the early days was support: until mainstream companies like IBM and HP started to offer formal support there was a natural concern that users of free software would be left to sort out problems on their own. So when IBM announces a similar step for Eclipse, it's clearly of great symbolic importance, whatever the reality of the offering.

It's Good to Talk

Web 2.0 is all about conversations, they say. So clearly what we need is a search engine for conversations. Enter Talk Digger:

Talk Digger is a web application developed by Frédérick Giasson that helps users to find, follow and join conversations evolving on the Internet.

Talk Digger greatly evolved in 2006. I[t] started being a comparative search engine using the link-back feature of many search engines. Then it evolved in a full-scale meta-search engine reporting web sites linking to another web site. Then it evolved in a search engine of its own: a "conversation search engine" with feature helping the creation of communities around each conversation.

(Via eHub.)

OpenOffice.org Sprouts in Brussels

According to this story, the finance authorities in Belgium are starting a pilot project using OpenOffice.org instead of Microsoft Office. Nothing earth-shattering in that, of course, but another nail in the coffin (it's a big coffin.) (Via Erwin's StarOffice Tango.)

People Power 2.0

One of the great conundrums of the open world is how to make money by giving stuff away. The solution, as far as I can tell, seems to be to capitalise on the uniquely personal aspects that can't be replicated by competitors by copying. After all, as I've described elsewhere, openness demands that anyone can build on your work by simply taking what you have done and using it, so you can't depend on making money from the control of open content, for example.

Again, as I've written before, it's striking that many top pop stars, for example, now make more money from their concerts than from selling music: the latter is simply a marketing device for the former. This means that music could be given away - no DRM - and stars could still make lots of money.

Now here's the same idea applied in a very different field - Web 2.0 companies. As this interesting piece on a recent acquisition in this sector points out:

With a wide array of sources for private equity providers there is a great deal of competition for leadership and vision in spending their money effectively. Increasingly this calls upon both startups and developed properties and their management to be "hired" in effect to help the "winners" finance their next dreams.

It's a natural adaptation to an investment market that's much less likely to push half-baked ideas to a hasty IPO and far more likely to invest in people with the acumen to move quickly and effectively in rapidly shifting content markets driven by equally rapid shifts in technology.

The really innovative and unique thing that a Web 2.0 company has to offer is the intelligence and originality of the people that power it. Others might be able to copy and re-implement your ideas (you know, that sharing business), but if they can't come up with an equivalent flow of creativity, they are always a step behind.