goblin cartoons

Linden Lab is releasing the source code for Second Life under the GNU GPL. Shunning modesty, they equate this with the release of Mosaic and the growth of the World Wide Web.

A lot of the Second Life development work currently in progress is focused on building the Second Life Grid — a vision of a globally interconnected grid with clients and servers published and managed by different groups.

And, well, maybe this is as big as the open source release of Mosaic. What if organizations, private citizens, libraries started hosting their own Second Life grids? I think that would be pretty swell–assuming computers that can easily handle SL access become very affordable, or people start hosting SL grids that are more friendly to “low-tech” computers.

My jaw is on the floor. I missed this point, so I’m very thankful that Jessamyn West has pointed out one incredibly great thing about Casey Bisson’s WPopac.

Catalog records distributed freely under a CC or GNU license? Jumpin’ Jupiter! That’s monumental! That’s heroic! That’s…about damn time!

I’ve only just gotten up and had my first cup o’ joe, and I’m already cranky. It seems that O’Reilly’s lawyers sent a Cease-&-Desist to a not-for-profit tech group in Ireland for using “Web 2.0″ in a conference name. I would’ve told IT@Cork to take a page from James Joyce and tell O’Reilly to “K.M.R.I.A.” But as it turned out, O’Reilly apologized to the group and agreed to let them use the term in their conference name.

Agreed to let them use the term. Because O’Reilly still maintains that “Web 2.0″ is their trademark and anyone else who wants to use it has to get permission first.

What’chu talkin’ ’bout, O’Reilly?

Sure, I could go into a hotheaded rant about why O’Reilly are getting this wrong, but Cory Doctorow said it first and better, so I’ll point you to his post about this. Basically, though, it boils down to this: is “Web 2.0″ a concept, a practice of web design, or is it a business trademark, like Coke or Kleenex? O’Reilly can’t have it both ways: “Web 2.0″ is either a way of using the World Wide Web that belongs to everyone, or it’s just a term like Hardee’s “Made From Scratch” Biscuits–meaningless, except in advertising their product.

So, on one hand, there’s this nifty l’il graphic.

And on the other hand, there’s this: if “Web 2.0″ only applies to O’Reilly like “I’m Lovin’ It” applies to McDonald’s, then I’ll simply stop using the term “Web 2.0.” Because the term will have no meaning. If it’s not a concept that belongs to everyone, then, frankly, it’s a bullshit PR term. It’s just another lame way for O’Reilly to claim they “think outside the box” (a phrase I’m thoroughly tired of, a phrase that means sod all).

(Meanwhile, Michael Casey has already stepped up and declared that he’s never considered ownership of the term “Library 2.0″, despite having coined the term. Chew on that, O’Reilly.)

HBO wants its programming to never, ever be copied–not on your Tivo, not on your VCR, not on your PC.

Well, HBO, I’m here to give you a simple solution to the problem of viewers copying what you broadcast. Are you ready? Okay, here it is: STOP BROADCASTING! But if you want to keep broadcasting, you’re going to have to suck it up and realize that people are free to copy your broadcasts.

Now stop your kvetching and get back to work. (I swear, this copy-phobic paranoia gives me a pain right behind the left eye.)

Rereading and thinking more about Linus Torvald’s statements about DRM and the third version of the GPL, I’m not sure I really agree with what he says. And while I think Richard Stallman can be a bit extreme (I disagree with his take on Creative Commons licenses, for one thing), reading this interview with him gives a different take on the subject of DRM, to put into further consideration.

I pretty much now how I feel about DRM: it’s stupid. It don’t think it provides any kind of security, it has a tendency to interfere with users’ rightful use of technology, and DRM in general is founded on principles that I think are based more on greed than on the common good. I think Linus makes a good point, and I think he’s right to state that he’s talking personally, not generally, but I think I tend to side more with Stallman on the issue of DRM.

And for another great take on DRM, check out Linus Torvalds on GPLv3 and DRM restrictions. Good stuff.

British librarians say DRM hampers the work of librarians.

“As custodians of human memory, a number would keep digital works in perpetuity and may need to be able to transfer them to other formats in order to preserve them and make the content fully accessible and usable once out of copyright.”

In its written submission to the group, the British Library said DRM must not “exert excessive control on access to information”.

“This will fundamentally threaten the longstanding and accepted concepts of fair dealing and library privilege and undermine, or even prevent, legitimate public good access.”

Yer darn right! I wrote a paper saying the same thing last year in school. DRM should be a major concern of all librarians.

A step in the right direction is this: Michael Godwin’s primer on DRM for librarians.