[NetBehaviour] A Foundation
pallthay at gmail.com
Mon Jul 21 20:25:06 CEST 2008
That's funny. That has got to be the most blatant and silly misunderstanding
of "open source" that I've ever seen.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:
> dave miller wrote:
> > "This digital archive for contemporary art and visual culture could
> > develop into a Facebook for the global art community"
> > What do people think about this?
> They claim that:
> "A Database is a pioneering open-source research engine and digital
> archive for contemporary visual culture."
> But then they claim that:
> "This is the beauty of the open source principle. Artists and creative
> organisation can now digitise their work to museum standard and still
> remain in total control."
> This isn't Open Source, it's permission culture. And then they flatly
> contradict any semblance of "Open Source" with:
> "Subject to the limited right to print and download set out above, no
> Content may be reproduced, communicated to the public, distributed,
> re-used or extracted from this website for any purpose (including
> without limitation any storage, reproduction or linking) without the
> prior written consent of A Database Ltd. Third-party permission (for
> example from the artist or their estate, or from the holders of any
> trademark, personality or image rights or similar) may also be required,
> and A Database Ltd makes no warranties or representations in this regard
> nor does it purport to grant any such rights."
> "You must not create any hyperlinks to any part of this website without
> our prior written consent. If you wish to establish a link to our site
> please contact us at the address set out above."
> I recommend that they make their database compliant with the Open
> Knowledge definition (http://opendefinition.org/) and make it
> machine-readable and freely accessible through a network API in
> accordance with the Open Software Service Definition
> (http://opendefinition.org/ossd?action=show&redirect=osd). This needn't
> expose the third-party imagery or blurb in the database (although
> Creative Commons licencing the promotional text and the *photographs*
> rather than the original artworks wouldn't hurt), just the facts
> contained within it.
> That would differentiate this service from Saatchi and ArtNet and bring
> it more clearly into alignment with its stated objectives.
> - Rob.
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NetBehaviour