nirak.net - Musings of an LIS Student

In the comments of Michael Sauers recent post about adding creative commons works to their library catalog, Dewi Morgan said:

I think this is great… but.

But like all copyright mechanisms, CC licences are only a means to an end, and that end is to restrict the rights of the consumer and purchaser. Some CC licenses are unarguably vastly better than most commercial licenses. But CC is not public domain.

Every time I see a government or a library getting “into” CC, I have to ask: as opposed to what?

If the alternative is Public Domain, then moving to CC is a giant leap backwards. If you are going to spend money promoting a rights mechanism, and preserving works released under that mechanism, and putting your weight and support behind that mechanism, then let that mechanism be the Public Domain, not some “watered-down Copyright that is still undeniably Copyright”.

I can’t speak as a government or library, but I can say why I myself post my work under creative commons and not public domain.

I have been trained as an artist. In school, I heard a LOT about not giving yourself away, about protecting your copyright, your “brand,” even about legal ramifications both of using others work and others using your work. I remember that the whole thing seemed weird. There was no way then, at least not that I knew, to release my work under a license that said “please use this, please share it” and allowed me to find other artists whose work was remixable. Artists have a tenuous relationship with copyright. Those that make art by remixing know, or at least should know, the copyright law as it applies to derivative works and fair use. Most artists, rather then spend a lot of time wrestling with legal definitions, will either use public domain source material, or try to use nothing at all (which can be stifling for many people.)

In general, if you release something into the public domain, that means anyone can do anything they want with it. There are limitations of course, but you wouldn’t have a legal leg to stand on if you released something in the public domain and then someone else put it in a gallery show without attribution. Of course, there is nothing to stop someone from putting a CC:By work in an art show either, but if they are following the terms of the license, at least you’ll have your name attached. It may not seem like a big deal - after all, you aren’t making money off your work either way, right? But in the art world, as most other circles, name recognition is *really* important. So if you give enough away under CC:By that people know your name, that’s social capital.

In an ideal world, Creative Commons wouldn’t be necessary- people would be polite and cite their sources. CC is a way of reminding people that yes, you can use this, but don’t pretend you made it, ok? Attribute back.

What creative commons license you use will depend on your purpose: I attribute almost everything CC:By because the important thing to me right now is name recognition. I’m building my brand, so to speak. Even if I was selling artwork, though, I’d probably stick with the CC:By SA license, because I don’t mind people making money off the work, as long as they help the cause by releasing their work into the commons as well. The brilliance of CC:By SA is that it is self perpetuating- you are free to use my content, but you have to let other people use your content. I personally don’t believe in, and will never use the Noncommercial version of the license, because it stifles other’s ability to make money as an artist (if they so choose) and is too incompatible with the other licenses. I don’t begrudge others decision to put that restriction on their content, however, I try not to use noncommercial licenses in case I want to sell something based on another work* later on. (* I added “based on another work” to try to clarify what I was saying re: Mark’s comment below. My full reply to his comment is in the comments)

As a creator, I don’t believe it is wrong to assert some rights over my work. I believe in intellectual property- I just think that as a society, we need to be able to build upon things or we will stagnate. The only problem I see with creative commons as it is is the time span- my work goes into the public domain following the same schedule as copyright law which would be 70 years after I die - that is, unless I go back and manually change the licenses of older content. Ideally, I could set a limit of my CC license, after which point it passes into the public domain. I think 10 years is reasonable. As it is now, I’ll just have to do a reevaluation of old work and release it into public domain where appropriate.

The reason I think 10 years is a reasonable term is that artists don’t live by resting on our laurels. We don’t make one really great painting or book and go “well, guess I can retire now!” - We create, we keep creating, and we keep changing. What I made 10 years ago doesn’t matter near as much as what I will create tomorrow. I think 10 years is a reasonable term for me to monetize what I can. That may be just me. I think terms up to 30ish years or until death (whichever comes first) are reasonable- but not this 70 years after death stuff.

karin :: Feb.22.2008 :: Art, Free as in Freedom, My Stuff, Open access/Open source, Sites and Stories :: 3 Comments »

The campus where I work is thinking of outsourcing student email. This in itself could be a good thing- the student email, as it it exists, sucks. Most students that we work with in the Center don’t use it. The majority use a free webmail service, and of those, most use Gmail. Our students are not representative of the student body at large, though- they tend to have a good amount of technical skills. Yesterday and today I sat in on presentations given by Microsoft and Google on the services they can bring to campus. I have a lot to say about the presentations themselves, which I will talk about some other time (either here or on os-agnostic depending on how ranty I am feeling) but right now I just want to talk about the products Google and Microsoft offered and some thoughts on outsourcing email.

I will say that I am not a typical student (I’m not a student of UNL at all) - I use Linux at home, I try new applications on a very regular basis, I am committed to open source and open standards. I have talked to several students, though, and I am a student myself, and currently have the joy of having to use web based Outlook for my student email through Missouri-Columbia.

The first thing that immediately came to mind after I watched both presentations was: Google looks easy, Microsoft looks hard. I wish I had attended the tech meetings for the two companies, maybe then I could get a better idea of how easy or hard integration would be. Just as far as usability goes, though, Microsoft Live looks complex, has lots of options, and generally suffers from the same kind of feature bloat we have come to expect from Microsoft products. This could be a good thing, if you are a long time Microsoft user. You already know where things are and what features to look for. But if you are not a Microsoft user, this can be very annoying. Google, on the other hand, looked clean with a few well chosen features.

Both services offer POP/IMAP email access- so if you don’t want to use the web email interface, you don’t have to. That said, I can’t ignore my preference for Gmail. The email threading feature alone has made the switch to Gmail absolutely worth it. The Microsoft interface is very nice looking, but looked slow and clunky and, of course, the “premium” version only works with Internet Explorer. If you use any other browser, you get a stripped down “lite” version. It is true that Gmail, too, has a stripped down HTML version, but I can get to both Gmail versions from most of my browsers.

Both services offer 24×7 tech support. Both services offer no advertising to current students. It was my understanding that alumni get advertising. Google mentioned faculty and staff frequently, and it was clear that they would love to take over all the campus’s email. Microsoft spoke a lot about integrating with our existing faculty and staff email and calendaring service (Lotus Notes), although he did make a couple of overtures to the fact that he’d love to switch us to Outlook. The Microsoft guy, of course, talked a lot about exchange and how standard it is and how well it works with existing systems.

In fact, the main thing Microsoft has going for it at this point is that it can integrate rather well with existing email applications. Microsoft email can tap into the existing global address books and provide student address books to the traditional email. From a tech point, this could be a deal breaker, I’m not sure. I think most students won’t have a problem with quickly looking for a faculty member’s email address on www.unl.edu, but faculty members are quite used to being able to access student email addresses from inside the email client.

Google, on the other hand, has collaborative features going for it. Microsoft offers collaboration via Microsoft Office Live - which requires students use Microsoft Office if they want to edit online documents. According to the Microsoft guy, Office Live documents are versioned every 12 hours or when you tell them to, rather than every time you make an edit like in Google Docs. The sharing features are just clunky in Office Live, especially compared to Google Docs’ simple interface. Google just wins in the matter of collaboration, hands down. Teachers should never have to tell students to go out and by Word to effectively collaborate.

Google talked a lot about outsourcing IT, while Microsoft talked about integrating IT into existing structures. I got the impression that the Microsoft way might mean more job security for IT employees, which is probably not accidental: IT’s perceptions of a product play heavily into these decisions, and if they say no a project is out. Google said IT people would be freed to work on more innovative technology uses, which sounds good in theory.

One thing that definitely left an impression on me (and this is where my biases come into play) is that the Google guy talked a lot about open standards and working across platforms - he always said Mac, PC and Linux. Most people just pretend no one uses Linux. Microsoft, on the other hand, treated non-Microsoft users as second class and almost non-existent. At one point, someone asked what the Microsoft solution would be like for Linux users, and the Microsoft presenter said (not quoting because I don’t have an exact quote) well, Linux users are mostly desktop client email users anyways, and they can still access the lite version of the web mail, which will probably be fine for them. He then went on to generalize about Mac users and how they need a very simple user experience, because they aren’t very technical. I found this funny since most of the more techie people I know use macs, but I digress. Another person asked if the Microsoft Office Live collaboration features would work with the Mac version of Office, and the presenter didn’t know.

<rant>
It also became painfully clear that Microsoft expects others to do the R&D to make their web mail platform browser agnostic. The Microsoft presenter mentioned several times that they were working with the Firefox people to get them to change Firefox so the Microsoft web mail would work. They said they’re working with “our friends in Cupertino” to make Safari work better, but that Apple was not as cooperative. This really bugged me- it’s the web application developer’s job to make the site work for the browser, not the other way around. He also said Safari doesn’t use javascript, which of course isn’t true.
</rant>

OK, now that have that out of my system…

One thing I did like about Microsoft’s presentation is that the presenter said that some schools have chosen to use both Google and Microsoft systems. Google didn’t mention this.

A few other small differences

Google

• Lets you brand with the university icon.
• Provides a start page (iGoogle, pretty much).
• Is working with open source course management systems like Sakai and Moodle
• Will let pretty much anyone associated with the university get a branded email, including parents of students, etc., though only current students and staff will get ad free interfaces.
• Went over privacy policy fairly well - “we do not claim ownership of your data.”

Microsoft

• Also talked about a service called “Skydrive” - basically an online thumbdrive. 1 gig for now, more later.
• Seemed to think everyone uses MSN messenger. (?)
• Did live demo of products, which Google didn’t do.
• IT has more control- can go in and trace emails, see if one was sent, etc. Not sure if they can do this with Google- but would they want to?
• Microsoft’s calendar will support iCal format.

What I want

I’m still not 100% sure on the idea of student email outsourcing, but from a pricing standpoint, it makes so much sense that it is probably inevitable. I do love the Google suite of products, and I really like that they play a little nicer with different OS’s, so I hope they either choose Google or leave the choice up to the students. I have a hunch most students will choose Google, but maybe not- in any case, it should be the student’s choice. In my ideal world, the student would be able to get a free for life POP/IMAP address that could be used with any email program and was not tied to an outside service, but I suppose I’m just dreaming on that front, huh?

karin :: Feb.21.2008 :: Free as in Freedom, Linux, School Stuff, Work :: 5 Comments »

Most of my presentation slides were made with open source software. Ubuntu, OpenOffice Impress, Gimp, and Inkscape allow me to put together a pretty nice looking set of slides. It has become more and more common lately for me to complete my tasks entirely in open source, but I’m not completely moved over yet. I wanted to use Ubuntu during the OLPC presentation, for instance, but I couldn’t get it talking with the projector, so I had to boot into the Windows side.

Then there are the applications I can’t quite seem to ditch completely, at home and work: Acrobat, for PDF creation and tweakage; Photoshop, for batch processing and the occasional thing GIMP doesn’t do; Windows Movie Maker for occasional simple movie editing, and a few other bits and pieces. Then there’s the fact that I can’t watch ABC.com TV shows or download MP3 albums from Amazon.com without Windows or a Mac.

What frustrates me is that some of this is because I’m just used to doing things a certain way, and some is because stupid content providers unnecessarily lock me out of using Linux and/ or open source applications. Little is actually because there is a problem with the open source solution (though sometimes it is- the lack of an open source video editor that is really truly simple is a constant annoyance.)

Sometimes, when I’m knee deep in trying to find a command line solution for breaking my xorg.conf file (AGAIN) I wonder why exactly I torture myself this way. I do look longingly at all the pretty shiny Macs I see at conventions- I loved my iMac and almost never had problems with it (until the monitor died that is. Now it makes a decent cat bed.) It’s easy for me to think my life would be so much easier if I just had a Mac, but the truth is, it wouldn’t. I would not want to give up the Linux only programs I have come to know and love, so I would then be using three operating systems instead of two. (Yeah, I know about parallels. I wouldn’t mind trying it if I can afford a Mac someday.)

The truth is, frustrating as it is for me, I like pushing my computers and seeing what they can do. I like fiddling with settings and plugins, and there’s no better system to do that on than Linux. I also like fiddling with the constellation of ever changing devices in my house and finding new ways I cam make them talk to and work with each other.

I also really like knowing that I created something entirely with open source tools, because it demonstrates what I already know: Open source can be used for most everyday tasks. I’ve seen presentations on open source where the slides were designed in keynote. Truth is, open source applications won’t get better unless people actually use them, and give feedback, and file bug reports at least occasionally. No one wants to work on software that no one will use- so if I want open source software to get better, I have to use open source.

The good news is, the software is getting better. I can’t count the number of times I’ve spent hours trying to fix a broken display or trying to solve an audio problem to find the solution weeks or months later, either wrapped up in a nice little GUI program or at the least detailed instructions even a command line newb like me can follow. Ubuntu’s 6 month release cycles mean that every 6 months, they add features that make something that was hard for me easy.

A lot of people avoid open source because they see it as unnecessarily hard- and I can’t say that I haven’t had experiences that prove that point. BUT, I have also found some open source programs that are delightful to use (Inkscape comes to mind, as does AbiWord, and out of the box Ubuntu.) If you believe in the open source movement at all, if you think it has potential, if the idea of community supported and built software is appealing, you have to use the software - at least occasionally.

One of the easy ways to start is to try portableapps.com - all open source programs, all packaged so you can run them even if you don’t have permissions to install software. These don’t have to be installed on a USB drive- you can install them right to your desktop, C drive, or anywhere else you want. You can also request a free Ubuntu Live CD- it’ll take a while to get to you, but it’s a low effort way to try out Linux without changing anything on your current system. For those more adventurous, you might try installing Edubuntu on an older machine for a child. Libraries can start small by setting up just one public terminal with some flavor of Linux and open source applications- perhaps gOS would be a friendly start.

I suppose this is a call to action of sorts. Give open source a chance- you may find something you like.

karin :: Feb.15.2008 :: Free as in Freedom, Library, Linux, Open access/Open source, Uncategorized :: 3 Comments »

I gave my presentation on the XO laptop today at the Nebraska Library Commission. Slides are up on karin.dalziel.org, and my notes will be up tomorrow. It’s really fun presenting about something I care a lot about- I hope I have more opportunities soon. I don’t have any other presentations coming up right now, but I am working on a couple of proposals.

I tried to use Ubuntu to present, but had trouble connecting to the projector- which means I had to cut an entire section of the presentation - the part where I am actually demoing Sugar. I need to get better at being prepared for these snafus and acting on them quickly. Also, I need to get a firmer handle on how to use Ubuntu to project.

My thanks goes out to everyone that attended! I am told a video of the presentation will be up sometime.

karin :: Feb.01.2008 :: Free as in Freedom, Library, Linux, Open access/Open source :: 4 Comments »

When it comes to computers, I was lucky to have a mother who was technically oriented and excited about technology. We got our first computer when I was very young- of course, it was command line only, and to do anything interesting with it, you had to learn to program. My mom took up the challenge, and programmed the computer to quiz me on my spelling, among other things. When the mac came around, my mom just had to have one of those as well. It had an interesting program called HyperCard, which my mom was quite fond of as well.  I learned from my mom that a computer isn’t just something you buy that does things for you- you can manipulate it, program it, use it to do new things.

I wonder if kids today, those that grew up with Windows and Mac OS’s - ones that don’t really facilitate exploration and tinkering - aren’t at a disadvantage when it comes to computers. They can run circles around us when it comes to IM and SMS and social networking, but sometimes simple things can throw them (like how to get a virus off a computer or, better yet, avoid getting one in the first place.) This is part of the reason I LOVE the OLPC- the entire thing is tinkerable. You can change the programs, you can view the code and make alterations. And I have no doubt that some kids will do amazing things with the machines. It’s quite likely that the next programming genius will come from the ranks of OLPC owners.

Photo by  isforinsects

karin :: Jan.29.2008 :: Open access/Open source :: No Comments »