A while ago, Brenda Dayne of the Cast-On Podcast,
got off on a “free culture” and “wiki” kick and there was as a
result a bunch of buzz in the knitting world about building an
encyclopedic collection of knitting information.
I have say that encyclopedias, even new Wikipedia-esque projects are
probably always doomed from the beginning. The balance between
specificity and generality is really hard to play correctly, and
possibly the larger problem is that encyclopedias are predicated on some
sort of existent universal objective positionally, which frankly
doesn’t exist. All knowledge is culturally and historically
constrained, and encyclopedias need to minimize this for the sake of
their projects. But this is a criticism of encyclopedias in general, not
specifically of wikipedia or wiki-style encyclopedic project. And I
think I should be quick to reiterate a point that I’ve made
before that the wiki
format should not really be defined by the encyclopedic structure
despite the success of wikipedia.
Back to knitting and “free” distributions: Some knitters took issue
with the
GFDL,
which is a permissive licensee that Wikipedia uses and was designed for
the documentation that accompanies Linux and other free software. The
issue with the GFDL is that not only does it allows anyone to edit it
and distribute it, but it also allows anyone to take any GFDL (or GPL,
the software counterpart) content and sell it and make profit on the
content, provided that their work is also licensed under the GPL or
GFDL. What this means for “linux companies,” like Red Hat, or Novel
can sell you linux, but they have to provide the source code, and if you
want to start a version of Linux (or company that uses Red Hat code,)
you can, without consequence. Provided that if you distribute that
version of Linux to anyone else, you have to also give your code away.
For instance, it’s pretty clear that Google has an internal
Google-Linux version, that’s different from anything else on the block
and you can’t buy it or get a copy of the code, but since they don’t
distribute it at all, it stays in the company and they don’t have to
give away copies of the code. The way most Linux companies make money is
they say “here, buy this linux software, and we’ll give you technical
support for a given period of time,” or “we’ll install the software
and configure your machine,” and so forth. In a very real sense, the
money that you pay “for” linux or other free software is really for
auxiliary services, not for the software.
Some knitters had a problem with the fact that other people/companies
could take their work/writing from a GFDL source and sell it without any
of that profit going to the original author. There was a move toward a
Creative Commons licenses, amongst knitters, so that a “non-commercial
use,” could be negotiated. While I like this idea, and I think Creative
Commons licenses are a great thing, in this case it means that (since a
wiki project) is community project, it’s quite likely that no one can
exercise a commercial use of CC content.
For instance, it’s my understanding that while I have a creative
commons license on TealArt that allows anyone to redistribute or create
derivative works provided that they “share alike”, you can basically
do what ever you want with TA content so long as you don’t try to make
money off of it; I (or the other authors) can take TealArt content and
use it commercially. In such a community situation, this wouldn’t be
possible, and I suspect that such a license in a community situation
means that no one can make money (even the “original” creators) off of
the content. But I’m not a lawyer.
This isn’t to draw attention or notice away from Sarah Bradburry’s
KnitWik, which I think is
a great project, but I think there are some serious reasons to consider
a more GPL/GFDL like approach. This fits in line with my earlier
discussion about monitizing
creativity,
and also I think it would be worthwhile to reconsider the analogy
between open source software and knitting, because it seems to me that
if open source is such good idea for software (and I think it is in the
long run) then it very well may be a good idea for knitting if we get
the analogy right.
I think I’m probably done for the moment, but I wanted to create a
small list of ideas and question that I’d like to address in the
future, related to this idea:
-
Is there a layer of information that goes into knitting design and
documentation that isn’t typically exposed in “closed”/conventional
publications? (that would be equivalent in role to source code)?
-
- The role of editors and communities and the sometimes very
-
“conventional” development models that “open” projects use.
-
The way GPL/GFDL knitting projects can be used commercially.
-
Technological methods of attending to such a project.
If you have an opinion, please chime in.
Cheers, tycho