OpenContent Closes Its Doors

meta4 writes "After five years of pioneering the application of open source principles to stuff other than software, OpenContent is closing down. Project Lead David Wiley provides a rationale for the closing on the website, as well as a brief overview of the projects' successes. Wiley has joined Creative Commons as Project Lead for Educational Licensing."

Shame...

[byolinux]

...but Creative Commons is a useful license, and it's integration with tools like Movable Type [movabletype.org] meant that this was pretty inevitable, sadly.

Is there a copy?

[Chris_Stankowitz]

Will any of the content still be available anywhere on the web?

Just as he says.

[Surak]

Wiley's closing down Open Content, because he thinks Creative Commons is doing a better job and making his group somewhat obsolete. He's joining Creative Commons, so its not like he's changed his mind or has stopped working on the goals Open Content provided.

It's kind of sad to see it go, but I have to agree with Wiley -- and I know I'm going to piss off a WHOLE bunch of people when I say this -- I think Creative Commons is a better approach, and I think it's even a better approach than GPL/LGPL. The licenses are worded in a very common sense fashion, written by a team of IP experts, and give *you* the flexibility in determining what features you do and do not want in a license. It makes licensing a no-brainer for the software developer (or content developer) that doesn't spend so much time worrying about the license.

Ahh...

[srichter]

I just started writing a book under the Open Publication License. I just hope the publisher will let me change that. I think the worst problem with the shutdown is that I am not offered a migration path, like "The OPL is compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution License." or something like that.

I gave the license a quick scan and it seems very nice and Creative Commons makes a point of not being an involved party, something I find annoying in some other licenses.

He stood up for me once.

[AtariDatacenter]

I publish a number of arcade documents under the Open Content license. Some people have used the license fairly. One person blatently stole a bunch of stuff for a commercial site. Worse, they were in England.

I'm pleased to say that he went to bat for me and, as a third party, convinced the other person to take down the material, where I as an individual was unsuccessful.

I'll look into the Creative Commons, but I'm sorry to see this go.

The web pages that I had published are gone, but I'm working on something new. An Arcade Gameroom Design Information website. I need to change my OC license links... they're bad. But take a look [cox.net]! And, yes, "cox.net" is COX cable. ;)

where the GPL excells ..

[Anonymous Coward]

is actually in web design and the code of web pages and NOT in the source code of things that need to be compiled! Basically where anything is "open" in it's very nature the GPL etc is good for licensing. anything "closed" in it's very nature (aka -> proprietory software) makes it good as useless. "closed" as in the "compiled" software schematic and GPL are about as similar as brick is to water, both require solid foundations to shine through and both can cause havock if left to bleed too long! the GPL is essentially useless for things that spend most of it's time "CLOSED" (aka compiled, aka software) but it's GREAT for things that spend most of it's time OPEN aka - Lyrics to songs, content of songs, web pages, general digital media. all of that content should remain open but protected by something like the GPL. if that's what Creative Commons attempts to do, hats off to them. As a musician and creative person, I will greatly consider joining *that* cause! Open source creative, closed proprietory .. it's the only way to go!

Re:Just as he says.

[ahfoo]

Well, if anybody is familiar with Creative Commons licenses and how they're similar and dissimilar from the GPL, could you help me out with a question about their licenses?
I like the copy-left part of the GPL and I can see how the Share Alike license would be similar to the GPL if the Non-Commercial clause was added, but what about in the case where you have a share-alike license and permit commercial use? That would just be commercial license right? Where's the part about and there must also be an open version? That seems to be missing in the case where you use a Share Alike license, but permit commercial use and that seems different from the GPL. The way I'm reading it, you're forced to choose between free and not free where the GPL would allow you to have the open version and sell it at the same time.
Perhaps I'm just not reading it clearly, or I'm describing the difference too vaguely to make my point understood but if you think you get the gist of my confusion, I'd appreciate some clarification as I've been asked for guidance on this exact issue in an educational setting and I was recommending the GPL, but this does seem more appropriate. I'm just concerned that it's not a copy-left license in the sense that it doesn't insist on an open version while allowing commercial use.

Re:I switched to CC also

[MarkWatson]

I think that you don't understand human nature.

If people are not living in crowded, overpopulated environments, then yes, by nature people are generous by nature.

I will try to make it simple for you: try comparing how people interact in a small town versus in a very large city: in a small town, people talk to strangers, generally friendly, etc. It seems that in large cities, in crowded environments, people are still friendly, but there is definitely a barrior.

If you have ever travelled to non-industrialized areas and interacted with non-industrialized people, then you would now what I am talking about.

By nature, people really are good.