Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet

Who Owns Dmoz? 68

Posted by Cliff from the stuff-to-think-about dept.
C. Adam Kuether asks: "I like the concept of the open directory project and am considering joining the effort and contributing my bit to organizing the Web. I am concerned about the ownership rights to this compilation. The useage agreements seem reasonable enough now, but what assurance is there that this work will not become just another asset of the Time/Warner/AOL (read Netscape) media empire? Could this project convert to a legally enforceable open and free use license? Are the existing open content licenses practical? "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Who Owns Dmoz? More

Who Owns Dmoz?

Comments Filter:

  • Re:Not Happy with DMOZ! (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Less than 1% of all sites in the ODP are inactive. Currently a program just finished up checking every link in the directory and has flagged inactive sites for editors to check. What does this mean? In a few days you'll be very lucky (or unlucky) if you find an inactive site in the directory.
  • Rumors of the death of the DMOZ story have been greatly exaggerated?

    Oh well, reposting stories that disappeared off the main page is one way to combat first posters, I suppose.

    Now let's get some news on this site! :)
    ---
    pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
  • there are a lot of adults who are a lot less mature than 14 year olds. don't tack the crap onto a specific age group-- it doesn't work that way. i know 13 year olds who act a lot better than some who are over 30.
  • According to the ODP Guidelines [dmoz.org], inactive accounts expire after three months.
  • [Description of what was in all caps?]

    I was an editor long before Netscape or AOL came into the picture. Your amended "editors guidlines" were never pointed out clearly, and I did follow the guidelines that I signed up under several years ago.

    If you want to act like this - fine - bureaucratic arrogance solves zip. Unfortunately, the open, cool thing ODP started out to be has become just another arm of a bureacratic hydra. But, hey, there's a ton of other search engines to choose from.

    On a personal note, if you AOL guys had simply pointed out the fact that I hadn't followed your new "editors guidlines", I would have been happy to comply. But no, that would have too simple, too human. Well, go back to reading your log files dude. I'm goin' out and fly my bird for awhile (after I check Google and Yahoo! for the latest paramotor info)!

  • Master Blaster owns Dmoz.

    Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.

  • Have a look at www.senga.org. You can create with Domz like directory, it can even now load the Dmoz database. Senga is derived from www.ecila.com a french directory.
  • Well ! I know that english has borrowed many french words, because of the normands invasion ! but www.senga.org seems to be definitly more in english than french ;)
  • Is this really the right place to be asking this? Maybe you could just read the license instead.

    Ok, let's take a look-see, shall we?

    Netscape Communications Corporation (`Netscape') owns the copyright to the compilation of the different contributions, and makes the Open Directory available to you to use under the following license agreement terms and conditions (`Open Directory License').[emphasis mine]

    Ok, so what will prevent AOL from changing the license tomorrow to "and you will pay us tribute yearly, and you will volunteer for Steve Case's favorite charity 3 times a year"?

    Answer: not a damn thing, except maybe public opinion.

    James

  • It was. This is the second time (that I know of) in the last few weeks that a story has been moved to the top of the stack for no apparent reason.

    -jcl

  • Come again? Why won't Slashdot criticise AOL Time Warner?

  • Ownership is a transitive relation. See www.m-w.com
  • A great number of editors are kicked off for spamming, abusing the directory, not following the editing Guidelines (impartiality, spelling and grammar, etc.), or for cooling their own site. This person could very well be one of them.

  • See also: Don't mark this up as informative, it only took me 30 seconds copying and pasting.

  • P.S. And the ODP only came into existence approximately 22 months ago, so I've seen it evolve almost from the beginning - I didn't see GnuHoo, but I have been there from Newhoo, to Netscape Open Directory, to ODP. Believe me, the staff are a great bunch - they take a lot of time to listen to their editors, holding consulations in the private editor forums about big changes. And there's a great sense of community in dmoz, with thousands of active editors - it's not all work and no play.

    I would highly encourage anyone who is expert and enthusiastic about a subject, and is literate and web-literate (and who is not just going to promote their own site!) to apply. [dmoz.org]. We even have a growing selection of non-English [dmoz.org] and Regional [dmoz.org] categories. As it says, "for just a few minutes of your time you can help make the Web a better place".

  • Why are you replying to me? Where did you get the idea that I'm "up in arms"? I don't care about dmoz, I don't think it will get 'big' enough to draw AOL's attention, and Netscape is cool (enough) and smart (enough) to leave it the way it is.

    The issue here (and it's only an issue, to me at least, becuase Time-Warner now owns dmoz thru AOL/Netscape, and Time-Warner are !@#$s) is, dmoz now is free (along with most if not all search engines). Let's say I submit an entry, thinking everyone will get free access to this entry. Then, later, dmoz changes the rules and people have to be 'members' and are charged for access to the entries. Obviously, I, and anyone else who put any significant (not 5 minute's worth) work into dmoz would be understandably upset that the work they did is now owned by dmoz, and dmoz is charging for it.
  • Not quite true, when ODP started (just under 2 years ago) it was totally independent. After around 9 months, it was then sold to Netscape as it fitted in with their 'open software' system. AOL then brought Netscape in July last year.

    Ok, ok. You got me. ;)
    So I'm no history major.
  • Tough though it sounds, I think it is right that 90% of eager
    volunteers are told: `go away, we don't want your sort here'.
    Eager volunteers who can't spell, don't see why pr0n sites shouldn't
    go in Reference/Education/K_through_12, and delete any and all sites
    that annoy them, well, they are worse than useless.

    The real difficulties aren't to do with open access, they are to do
    with transparency of decision making and the possibility of abuse from
    on high.

    Still, I've got to say your case is a bit surprising. How many of the
    sites you submitted were competitors sites?

    Charles

  • What was the last one?? Maybe CT and the boys feel the need to extend "Ask /." questions for more discussion?

    I just think it's really weird, if they are purposely reposting then I think they should state that somewhere... it just opens the flood doors for confusion and flaimbait.
  • we're all going to work for them eventually... it's unavoidable.
  • A secondary issue: Who does the selling?
    A successful opensource project can potentially be as much the work of active users as the project originator. There's an issue of trust brought into this dilemma. How many people are prepared to deal with such a situation? It seems to me that there's been a bit of, to borrow from Alan Greenspan, "irrational exuberance" displayed in recent history.
  • Google is a keyword search engine. Dmoz is a directory. If you're looking for general info, us dmoz. Specific info, use Google. But they do very different things. You can't compare them. It's much more fair to compare dmoz to yahoo.
  • Does anyone else see the incredible irony in the above post?
  • Damn, I knew it was too good to be true! How the hell are we going to filter out text ads? If Google does this the community of people who don't want spam and ads forced down their throats will leave somewhere else. Of course this is how it always is: First you have a few pioneers with a golden age, then the public comes in with the dirt.

    - Steeltoe
  • C'mon we don't really need to be asking this on Slashdot...Seems like maybe this is something that people need to figure out on their own...and anyway if some big place owns them, then so what? If they don't mess with it than who cares?



    ~i = an imaginary being~
  • you failed to mention that this site was in french.
  • Sometimes it becomes a full time job because people submit idiot sites to the wrong catagories and I have to sift through them in my heavily spammed catagory: (Computer:Supercomputing).
  • I'm just curious to know why you call it "AOL/dmoz" -- how can you tell AOL had anything to do with it, or for that matter still does? I've been an editor since the NewHoo days, and I still can't tell AOL owns dmoz. It's very obvious that Netscape owns dmoz, and it's true that AOL owns Netscape, but AOL doesn't own dmoz directly -- so I wonder why you call it that.
  • > And you can edit page descriptions whereever you like.

    Forgive me, but that just sounds scary. What if I edit the Suburban Yeti category, and I've done a really good job with it, and somebody who knows nothing about any Yetis, or just Rural ones, comes and messes up my stuff? What do you do about it?

    Also, I'm curious how you can make the statement that oneMission is "...the first grass-roots, from-the-bottom-up directory on the web." Wouldn't that be Yahoo!, or perhaps dmoz? Or hell, any one of a number of directories that I'm sure existed well before the web went commercial and everyone got on it.

  • If you trace it back all the way, yes, AOL/Time-Warner does own dmoz. The project is actually owned by Netscape, which in turn is owned by AOL/Time-Warner. But don't forget, AOL/Time-Warner also owns ICQ and a helluva lot of other things. Some people who are already editors have expressed dismay upon realizing that they are -- as they put it -- "working for the man" but the majority of editors are working for the good of the project. (And yes, I am a dmoz editor [dmoz.org].)
  • Yes, it can, but there are a lot more precautions against it. There are also steps you can take to resolve conflicts you might have with another editor.

    Having looked at it a bit more, oneMission doesn't seem like that great a directory. It's been around for a while (since at least January 1999), and yet it's tiny with very few links. The signup page states that "links to pages that may be harmful to children or that contain violence of any kind" are forbidden, as are "links to pages that would constitute a violation of any law, regulation, rule or custom" -- yet oneMission is littered with adult links, spam, etc. Maybe if more people participated it would begin to grow into a decent directory, but as it stands now it's just crap.

    Disclaimer: Yes, I am an ODP editor [dmoz.org], but any opinions above are mine alone.

  • Examining the logs for that category, I noticed an editor 'jamesewing' (which I would guess the above poster was).

    I've been unable to find out why the editor was removed, but last edit by that editor in that category was on the 7/Jun/1999 13:51:57 - three months AFTER the AOL purchase of Netscape (who 'brought' ODP many many months before).

    Amendment: I've just viewed the edit logs of one of the sites, and a few reasons shoot out at me: Descripton was in ALL CAPS (a big no no in the entire internet, not just ODP) and had non-english sites in an 'English only' category (German sites should go in the World/ hierarchy). Same with a Swedish site.

    Basically, this editor got thrown out for not following the editors guidelines [dmoz.org].


    Richy C. [beebware.com]
    --

  • > [Description of what was in all caps?]
    Descriptions of the sites in your category

    > I was an editor long before Netscape or AOL came into the picture.
    Same here - since the Gnuhoo days (but only just - around three days later it changed to NewHoo).

    > Your amended "editors guidlines" were never pointed out clearly, and I did follow the guidelines that I signed up under several years ago.
    The editors guidelines have always existed and have always had a link from the editor dashboard. IIRC details of them were also sent out in the 'welcome email' (I can't confirm that as I haven't got access to my email box). The guidelines have always been 'no' against descriptions and titles in capitals - after all it is common sense.
    'Signed up under several years ago' - ODP isn't even two years old yet BTW...

    > If you want to act like this - fine - bureaucratic arrogance solves zip
    I'm only stating facts that can be confirmed.

    > Unfortunately, the open, cool thing ODP started out to be has become just another arm of a bureacratic hydra
    Yes, it is 'another arm of a bureacratic hydra', but it is still 'cool' - as around 5,000 active editors will confirm. It has changed quite a bit from when it started, I agree, but for the better. Instead of quanity we are now aiming directly for quality - ODP is already bigger than Yahoo! and we want it to be much much better.

    > But, hey, there's a ton of other search engines to choose from.
    True, and quite a number of those are using ODP's content. Google, HotBot (who was using it before the Netscape purchase), Altavista and many more.

    > On a personal note, if you AOL guys
    I don't use AOL at all, I've never even tried a free trial, I don't work for them and if it wasn't for the fact they brought Netscape I still would have nothing to do with them. I have found that they are trying to keep Netscape (and therefore ODP) at an arms length and trying not to effect it at all. Saying that, they have paid for at least 2 server upgrades so... :)

    > ad simply pointed out the fact that I hadn't followed your new "editors guidlines"
    I can't comment on this case specifically as it was too long in the past to look at your editor profile and find out the reason. Profiles are deleted after around 3 months of inactivity.

    > I would have been happy to comply
    The point is that you should have been complying with the current guidelines anyway.

    > (after I check Google and Yahoo! for the latest paramotor info)
    Feel free, editors don't (or shouldn't) care if the data gets used by a million users or none at all. I personally have paid work for a rival directory (UK based), but I still do volunteer work on ODP as I enjoy it, it has a good community and is fun.
    Google is using ODP data now BTW.

    If you want to continue this conservation, please feel free to contact me via private email (either work out my email address from above or use editor feedback [dmoz.org] ) as I think this is getting very off-topic now.
    Richy C. [beebware.com]
    --
  • Strangley enough, this issue was brought up on the editors forums [beebware.com] at Dmoz.Org [dmoz.org] when Netscape [netscape.com] was brought AOL [beebware.com].

    Basically, staff agreed with meta-editors (who are editors who 'edit' editors - ie give them extra editing permissions, recommend them for 'promotion etc), editalls [dmoz.org] and editors, that if AOL/Netscape/Other were to either try and place adverts on the editing site (dmoz.org [dmoz.org] - we don't care if our 'downstream users' put adverts on their site or not), or stop issuing RDF dumps [dmoz.org] or similar then we would take a copy of the most recent RDF dumps that we have (and believe me, many many editors take regular copies for their own usage) and re-start the project somewhere else.

    It's only taken less than 2 years for the ODP [beebware.com] to grow [beebware.com] to over 1.7million sites and with less than 1% of dead sites listed (they are all checked every couple of months) I personally think they are doing better than Yahoo!.

    Okay, like all things ODP will have people that are 'critical' [beebware.com] about what it is, but many many more [beebware.com] people like it.


    Richy C. [beebware.com]
    --
  • > AOL/Time Warner has owned dmoz from the beginning.
    Not quite true, when ODP started (just under 2 years ago) it was totally independent. After around 9 months, it was then sold to Netscape as it fitted in with their 'open software' system. AOL then brought Netscape in July last year.
    For those of you who must know, dmoz stands for directory.mozilla.org - and, yes, you can reach dmoz.org [dmoz.org] via the full URL of directory.mozilla.org [mozilla.org] URL.
    ODP is an TLA for 'Open Directory Project'.

    Richy C. [beebware.com]
    --
  • Its a good idea... you shouldn't make contributing to this thing a full time job.. if all the info goes away tomorrow, you should not weep for days. Contribute now and enjoy the idea.. odds are they're not trying to screw anyone... I'm gunna use it and not worry about tomorrow..


    ------
    www.chowda.net [chowda.net]
    ------
  • I could have sworn I saw this story posted yesterday, and looking at the date on the story (May 1, @06:12AM) and the date on the "First Post" (April 30, @08:01PM) either the first posters are getting a hell of a lot faster or someone has been using ye old crackpipe.


    drink tea
    http://www.specialtea.com [specialtea.com]
  • grab code snippets while contributing, it'll make it worth the trip.
  • why do we always try to compare stuff with eachother? why not back'em up instead?

  • Google already uses it (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    http://directory.google.com

    Maybe they'll put up banner ads and make some money off all your hard work.

  • Re:Why all the paranoia? (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    1) Everybody who posts on Slashdot is anonymous. Think about it. I would rather not post this from my account since I have many co-workers at AOL who read slashdot.

    2) Why are you being abusive? I'd wager I work a lot harder than you. And you appear to be the wanker in this exchange, because...

    3) Like so many on Slashdot, you can't offer information, or even a coherent arguement, so you resort to name-calling and abuse. In person, you would be scorned for that. But here at Slashdot, you have found a home. Here you can spout off in ad hominem attacks and mindless, uninformed paranoia, and you'll often get moderated up for it. I'm sick of this and so...

    4) It's time to take back Slashdot from people like you! I remember a couple of years ago, before accounts and moderation, when smart folks used to post intelligent arguements. There is no place here for your ad hominem attacks! Come back and post when you've read about the issues and have become informed.

  • I don't quite get why everyone is so up in arms over this. The solution is just so damned simple. Do not do anything that involves other people. You don't want your time to be wasted? Don't submit links to any search engine, usenet post, cddb, etc. Then there is nothing from the sweat of your brow for them to make money off of.
  • The data dumps of structure and content represent about 110MB of data. That appears to be compressed; uncompressed could be quite a lot bigger.

    This means that it is impractical for me to dump dmoz.org, [dmoz.org] although it would surely be reasonable for someone with a T1 to do a mirror on, say, a weekly basis.

    I'd think archiving it would be wise anyways; it guards against various risks, not merely a change of AOL policy.

    It guards against all sorts of outages, whether chosen ( e.g. - license change) or not (fire in the server room).

    I would expect the same to be true for VA Linux Systems' SourceForge [sourceforge.net]; it would be a good thing for people interested in particular projects to do regular CVS archive retrievals so that if an asteroid strikes the Silly Valley, there may be copies of the code elsewhere.

    Herein lies my skepticism about SourceForge; I'm not overly worried about them "taking things proprietary," but am rather a bit paranoid about backup procedures. In particular, the lack of visibility of policy on the subject. Maybe I just haven't looked hard enough...

  • Risk (Score:2)

    by knuth ( 6137 )

    You have to go with your gut. Nothing is forever on the Internet. But I don't know how the Open Directory Project could be much clearer that they have no eeeevil intent. You can use the ODP data pretty much as is. You can grab the whole RDF dump and frame it and repackage it with advertising revenue going to you. You can make derivative works. And the FAQ [dmoz.org] says that your right to do so is perpetual. Even if Netscape discontinues the project. All they ask is that you acknowledge your use of the volunteer editors' work by putting up a small notice inviting people to become editors.

    IMHO, the only reason that the ODP was able to get as big as it is, is precisely because it is not commercial. There is no advertising on ODP. There is no fee for licensing. Ordinary netizens can make a difference just by adding links and describing them, in areas of their interest and expertise.

    So, if you are a cynic, you will stay away, because it is already owned by AOL/Time Warner, and you can never put your trust in institutions.

    But if you have an ounce of idealism left, you'll apply in hopes of making the Net a better place, for as long as this project remains free of corporate agendas, or until your own interest in helping other surfers find the "good stuff" this way wanes.

  • Googles ads tend to be relevant to the search you performed, and because they're text they don't distract you by blinking. I don't find this offensive, and have even found it helpful.

  • I was one of the original category editors when the "Open Directory" (as it was first called) started. (You can still check out my definitive Paramotor category here [dmoz.org] :-).

    When AOL purchased it, I suddenly found my directory editor rights cancelled and my category listed as "needing an editor". I contacted the AOL/dmoz.org folks several times asking to be allowed back in to the category I created and worked so hard on, but to no avail. What a waste.

    IMHO, these guys are the Internet equivalent of a lumbering Brontosaurus. They trample lots of good stuff in endless pursuit of the mediocre and Joe Average's $9.95 monthly check!

  • This person is NOT one of them!

    I created and built the category from scratch, made it the BEST of its kind on the net, and never, ever abused it. Paramotoring is a passionate hobby of mine, and my intention was to create the definitive list of ALL related sites on the web. I think I did a very good job of this until AOL took over.

    To add a little detail to this saga: when I contacted the dmoz/AOL folks it took several tries to even get a reply, then the replies came back twice with the excuse that the replier didn't have the authority to authorize an editor. In short, it appears to be a simple case of bureaucraticitis. Such a disease never existed before AOL took over.

    I think I am entitled to a little righteous indignation after all the hard work for naught and nary a "thank-you" or "sorry, oops, here you go" from AOL/dmoz.

  • What about the other part of this question: "Are the existing open content licenses practical?"

    • Are there content licenses other than Open Content [opencontent.org]?
    • Has anyone actually improved on a work under this license?
    • Would this license work for the Open Directory Project [dmoz.org]?
  • It was actually a funkiness with the date. Sharp-eyed readers might have noticed that the story originally appeared with no date at all, because it had managed to be entered into the system with a date of April 31, 2000. This caused some weirdness, the story date was reset to be May 1, 2000.
    --
    Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
  • Um, no! It's not a "simple derivative of the NPL". The NPL is about ten times as long as the ODP license. The ODP is not open source, it's open content. The source code is not even available.

  • Just to expand on that -

    The original poster asked: Could this project convert to a legally enforceable open and free use license?. But it already is under an Open Content license [dmoz.org]!

    Basically the ownership rights are irrelevant. All the license requires you to do is link back to http://dmoz.org using the supplied "Become an Editor" graphic. If you do that, you can modify, republish, sell, or do anything to the data you like. (IANAL).

    As for whether corporate influences will have an effect on the impartiality of the directory - let's get real here. Of course they will. But (A) if it gets really bad, it can be forked, and (B) there's been surprisingly little interference from on high. Staff have a good "hands-free" approach on the whole. I say this as a "meta editor" (name greenrd - check here for proof [dmoz.org]) who has been with volunteering with the ODP for 18 months.

  • As I said in my above post, the ODP can be forked...sort of. The data [dmoz.org] is free, but the source code for the server is very much behind closed doors.

    There is code for ODP like servers out there: POD [grohol.com] comes to mind, amongst other tools [dmoz.org] that can easily be found.

    But recreating a new system to allow editors to work on the directory is much harder, and I would be somewhat happier if that kind of forking was made easier. More in line with what ESR said about making forking easier being the best insurance against proprietary abuse. So: liberate the server source!

    Charles (editor cas [dmoz.org])

  • Yeah I think its hilarious. I applied to be an editor for DMOZ a while ago. I filled in the form, found 8 websites they did not have listed, wrote original descriptions for them, and posted the results. They rejected me though, apparently because they thought I was not qualified.

    I am in fact the editor for Maplesquare [maplesquare.com] - A Canadian directory of websites (and probably the largest Canadian-owned and operated one at that). As well I am a programmer for Spaceref.com [spaceref.com], doing some backend administration stuff.

    But am I qualified to volunteer my time to work on DMOZ? Evidently not. Oh, well, it gives me more time to write code.

  • I applied for a position in the PHP programming language category. I am a PHP programmer, and use it on a daily basis. I supplied 8 sites on the subject which were not listed in the directory under that category. All of the sites were directly related to PHP programming - many of them were well known sites that should be listed if that category of the directory was to be of any use to visitors.

    I am not sure about what you mean by "competitors" - unless you are assuming I applied to edit the category on Canadian search engines/Directories - which I did not. Certainly if I had been editing a category which directly affected my work position I would have listed our competitors. The point of becoming an editor was to help the internet population as a whole - to give back to the community so to speak - not to advance my company or any such thing. I understand that this does happen, and that they might wish to avoid those sorts of situations. That is why I did not volunteer for that sort of category. I did not want to be rejected because someone perceived the potential for abuse as a cause to reject my application.

    At the time I was somewhat miffed I admit, now I am just blase about it. I made the effort to volunteer - if they are stupid enough to reject my help then what can I do? Go on to other projects I suppose, its not like I have any free time anyways - the moment I finish one project I take up another.

    I should mention that in addition to my listed employment activities, I also maintain a directory of my own as a hobby - http://www.omphalos.net [omphalos.net]. I suppose I have directories on the brain.

  • If you want to use the ODP data, it is simplicity in itself.

    The actual content created by ODP editors (of which I am one) is 'open content' and can be downloaded and used by anybody. To my knowledge, over 200 sites are now using the data - Hotbot, Altavista and AOL are just some of the 'bigger names. There is actually nothing stopping Yahoo! or Microsoft using the ODP RDF dumps [dmoz.org] to put the content on their site as long as they follow the licencing conditions [dmoz.org] (which are basically just acknowledge the source).

    The Open Directory Project started life just under 2 years ago as a project by a few people (skrenta, tolles and a couple of others) who just got fed up with Yahoo!'s dead links. So they started a 'Yahoo-like' directory (called 'Gnuhoo') and opened it to volunteer editors. The object of the Project was (and still is) to create the 'ultimate web directory' for use by anybody.

    Since it started ODP has been through a number of names changes, from Gnuhoo it was forced to change its name because the people from GNU complained (the editing software isn't open source, only the content is), then it became NewHoo! but when Netscape brought the ODP it thought it best if the name was changed to stop Yahoo! complaining. Then it became 'directory.mozilla.org', but that was a bit of mouthful so it was shortened the the new URL of http://dmoz.org [dmoz.org].

    If you would like to use the ODP content on your website, there is a whole range of tools [beebware.com] to enable you to use the content on your pages - some of them (like P.O.D. [grohol.com]) don't even require you to download the huge RDF dumps.

    I hope all this has been informative to people, but I stil fail to see the relevance to Slashdot.


    Richy C. [beebware.com]
    --
  • Playing Devil's Advocate here: What does it matter if dmoz gets sold off to AOL/TimeWarner? Is it that you don't want to be donating your time and then not reaping the rewards? Or is the problem just that it would be used for commercial purposes?

    A more general question: Should people care who their startups/web sites get sold to? Is it moral to sell to just anyone?

    When I started GeekPress [geekpress.com], I wasn't opposed to at some later point selling to the highest bidder, whoever that would be. But as the site has grown, I've gotten fairly attached to it. I'm not sure under what circumstances and to whom I would be willing to sell it at this point.

    The meat of the question: How much would Microsoft have to pay for your web site?

    -- Diana Hsieh

  • If you're looking for examples of how something open can turn into something closed, just check the whole CDDB [freecddb.org] mess. Mirrors and a GNU license aren't enough to protect you when suits get in the way.

    Just keep an eye on the licensing terms. If they start to mutate to the point where you think there should be a schism, take the last good version and set out on your own. But until that happens, why not follow the leader?

  • Why all the paranoia? (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30, 2000 @03:14PM (#1100631)
    I want to say up-front that I have worked for AOL for several years. I too was very wary when the merger was announced. Who wants to work for Ted Turner? But it looks much less scary from the inside. Many of the complaints aired here are unfounded. We will not become the sole source of news. TW/AOL will not own AP, for instance. And, unlike Slashdot and V.A. Linux, we (at AOL) will criticize CNN and other TW organizations without waiting for an outcry from our customers.

    -Jason, posting AC because of my job.

  • Re:who says it will be bought out by Turner (Score:3)

    by The Man ( 684 ) on Sunday April 30, 2000 @04:48PM (#1100632) Homepage
    YES! This is in the License FAQ [dmoz.org]. Please read it. If the original poster had, this discussion would not even be taking place.

  • Re:does it matter? (Score:3)

    by WNight ( 23683 ) on Monday May 01, 2000 @02:18AM (#1100633) Homepage
    I think people should care. You never know if someone will turn out to be different than you expected, but you can certainly avoid the people who've already proven to be sleaze.

    And it matters if a big company gets control of a project because corporate goals are almost always different than the goals of the community.

    And what's wrong with not wanting to donate your time to help a megacorp? I'd be relucatant to help MS for free because they can pay for what they need, but there are many free projects that count of volunteers. If MS was to buy the project from a nominal owner, regardless of the people who put time and effort in, they'd have a right to feel cheated.

    If I help an open source/open content project, everyone benefits, the longhaired geeks and the corporations. I see this as being a good goal. If I helped a corporate project, only the corporation would benefit. Now if I don't get paid either way, which is a better use of time?

    If you design a project to be corporate from the beginning, and don't solicit help appearing to be a free project, then do whatever you want. I'm willing to invest some time helping /. because even as a corporation, they return to the community. But if they'd said they'd always be free, run by volunteers, and then after I (theoretically) donated a few hundred hours of time, sold the company, I'd want my piece of the pie.

    And the volunteer laws, that AOL ran afoul of, seem to support that. (If you do volunteer work that they pay people for, or later pay people for, you're eligible for compensation, in some cases.)

    And then there's the dark side. What if the information is taken and not just closed, but used to help their other projects? Imagine if you could only access the IMDB using IE, or only access CDDB records with WinAmp, because MS or AOL bought the database? That's be getting pretty sleezy. Especially since both project were volunteer based and counted on unpaid user submissions in the early days.

  • hmm.. (Score:3)

    by Zurk ( 37028 ) <zurktech@gmail . c om> on Sunday April 30, 2000 @03:06PM (#1100634) Journal
    this appears to be a simple derivative of the NPL. since the netscape public license is classified as an open source license, i'd say that this project is open source too. http://dmoz.org/license.html [dmoz.org]
  • What does it matter if dmoz gets sold off to AOL/TimeWarner?

    Umm...AOL owns Netscape. So, since Netscape owns dmoz, AOL/Time Warner has owned dmoz from the beginning. I think you're missing the point here; it's not an issue of selling this to 'the highest bidder' but an issue of someone donating their own time, for free, to a project, and then Aol/Time Warner trying to sell the donated information. That is an issue worth considering. I certainly wouldn't do it.

  • Re:Google already uses it (Score:3)

    by yerricde ( 125198 ) on Sunday April 30, 2000 @04:06PM (#1100636) Homepage Journal

    Actually, Google does have ads [google.com] but says no to 468x60 pixel animated GIF advertising; instead, Google inserts clean-looking text ads [google.com]; the simple "surf with w3m [google.com] or lynx [browser.org] and don't get ads" trick no longer works because Google is designed to look as good in character-cell browsers as in graphical browsers.

    And no, I don't work for Google :-)

  • Re:does it matter? (Score:4)

    by The Man ( 684 ) on Sunday April 30, 2000 @03:39PM (#1100637) Homepage
    The meat of the question: How much would Microsoft have to pay for your web site?

    Enough to buy and shut down Microsoft. :) So about a trillion...a mean, 800 billion, no whoops, 600 billion dollars.

  • Umm... (Score:4)

    by luge ( 4808 ) <<gro.yugeit> <ta> <todhsals>> on Sunday April 30, 2000 @03:05PM (#1100638) Homepage
    Is this really the right place to be asking this? Maybe you could just read the license [dmoz.org] instead. It's not like it isn't exactly two clicks away from the dmoz frontpage. [dmoz.org]
    ~luge(I know it's a slow news day, but c'mon guys...)

  • Wrong answer.... (Score:4)

    by Carnage4Life ( 106069 ) on Monday May 01, 2000 @04:46AM (#1100639) Homepage Journal
    From the Ask Slashdot:
    I am concerned about the ownership rights to this compilation. The useage agreements seem reasonable enough now, but what assurance is there that this work will not become just another asset of the Time/Warner/AOL (read Netscape) media empire?

    Your post:
    Is this really the right place to be asking this? Maybe you could just read the license instead.

    Okay, I don't want to sound like an asshole but "What does your post have to do with the question?". The original poster is worried about how possible it would be for AOL, which has a liberal open content license with respect to dmoz currently, to decide to start exerting ownership rights and using proprietary practices with the dmoz project?

    This is a very valid question and here's my answer. It is very possible for AOL to change the licensing agreements and become a ball buster with the dmoz project. Look no further than CDDB [cddb.com] which changed it's license [slashdot.org] after being bought out by corporate interests and becoming a big enough entity. Of course, the solution to this is for there to be several such open services so that even if 1 of them becomes corrupted by greed the others will flourish and take it's place (like CD Index [cdindex.org] or FreeCDDB [freecddb.org] are replacements for CDDB).

    The original poster also asks about Open Content Licenses [opencontent.org] and since I just read 30 posts and none of them mentioned this I'll also try to answer this question.

    As to whether Open Content Licenses are practical, I say Yes, after all the dmoz project's license has proved this.

  • Wait a minute... (Score:5)

    by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) <bruce@perens.com> on Monday May 01, 2000 @02:08AM (#1100640) Homepage Journal
    I don't know AOL's management except by reputation. But I know the Mozilla folks pretty well, and they are not about to stand for their company running rough-shod over other people's rights. AOL would have to both dismiss all of those folks and continue the project. Not likely.

    Also, given the directory license, you could (and in fact someone should) archive the project as insurance - if the terms change, you can continue the project under the old terms.

    Bruce

  • Openness at DMoz (Score:5)

    by Chalst ( 57653 ) on Sunday April 30, 2000 @03:31PM (#1100641) Homepage Journal
    All of the output from DMoz is available in regularly updated RDF logs.

    If AOL were to start to misuse DMoz, then it would be possible (not
    easy, the code for the ODP is closed source) to start a new volunteer
    project based on these logs.

    It may worth signing up just to be privvy to the arguments going on in
    the editors fora around the whole openness/AOL controversy... Take
    care on your application, though: about 90% of applications are
    rejected.

    Charles (http://achilles.bu.edu/cas)

Slashdot Top Deals

If you think the system is working, ask someone who's waiting for a prompt.

Close