This article discusses the implications behind the massive proliferation of licenses in open source. The issues and problems, as Larry Rosen raises, are very real. One thing I find interesting is how the proliferation of licenses sort of mirrors the redundancy of packages in a distribution. One the one hand, it is great that there are a gazillion (ok maybe not that many) music players, on the other hand, one could easily imagine that if efforts were put in 2 or 3 of them as opposed to spread over 6-7 you would be getting better quality. Choice can only get us so far…

The Economist has a pretty good article summarizing a law school journal article by Benkler, called Sharing Nicely where he argues that we are seeing the rise of third economy based on sharing that exceeds the sharing of intangibles.

I am super excited to read the Benkler piece as he is probably my favorite lawyer/thinker/writer when it comes to issues about IP, speech, sharing etc in the digital domain. His thinking is sharp and his writing style is very accessible, a real plus when dealing with the complexities of this world.

Since I have not yet read the Benkler, I am reticent to comment. But according to the conclusion of the Economist, they state Benkler’s position as follows:

“Mr Benkler does not limit his analysis to computing and bandwidth, but tries to make a broader point in favour of sharing goods far beyond information technology.

Don’t be falling in love, because if you get jilted, you may you, know find yourself in need of major medical treatment and while it may save your life, it may ruin your wallet, leaving you in bankruptcy.

While there are a ton of topics I would like to blog about, time does not permit. I have been in (DDM) deep-disseration-mode which leaves me little time but to write on the diss. The chapter I am now working on is about hacker creativity and selfhood which I explore in relation to humor. If you are interested to read about why hackers are so funny and how hacker humor functions to constitute individual originality and collectivety, read on here.

I sort of can’t believe it is true, but the NIH has decided to give the public free access to federally funded research results. You can read the full article here

CHICAGO – (KRT) – After years of heated debates and under pressure from Congress, federal health officials announced Thursday a historic new policy to give the public free access to scientific findings funded with tax dollars.

The plan, unveiled by the National Institutes of Health despite sharp opposition by scientific publishers, calls on scientists to release electronic manuscripts of published research supported by NIH’s 27 institutes and centers “as soon as possible, and within 12 months of final publication.”

Currently, most publicly funded research studies are available only by buying expensive subscriptions to the journals that publish them or on a pay-per-article basis.

I would like to learn more about the contours of the debate: who was in support, in opposition, how long was this under consideration.

This decision follows the heels of another provocative NIH decision that regulates NIH scientist’s relationship to private industry. Notable among the new regulations are: “a strict ban on consulting work for biotech and drug companies, a prohibition on accepting fees for speaking at conferences, and a mandate that researchers divest their stock holdings in biotech companies. The latter requirement in particular produced several contentious moments yesterday at a meeting between senior NIH officials and researchers.”

The Europeans via the EU Parliment have put to rest the patent directive under consideration and are starting again, ground up.