• http://lucychili.blogspot.com lucychili

    I’m trying it out, but am using a linux box which may be a problem with the There software.

    Would be great if the 3d space allowed people to interact with models – chemical structures or architecture materials and build a building with perameters and stresses and see if it falls down or not etc
    3d would be an interesting macro work space. i can imagine being a 3D growing botanical life form and responding to stresses like water or salt or mowing =)

  • http://lucychili.blogspot.com lucychili

    an interesting article on disembodied learning
    http://nw2000.flexiblelearning.net.au/talkback/p49.htm

    kat jungnickel talks about fingertip knowledge
    in enthnography of wireless community groups
    http://www.studioincite.com/makingwifi/

  • Janet Hawtin

    ive been thinking about how to do a branding campaign so that people can tell what kind of information or technology they are looking at to buy or use.
    this spectrum would have to include the more closed kinds as well as the more open kinds. im trying to map to a simple division which allows different licenses to be included
    there are many flavours of license and i dont know if they can effectively be represented this way or whether this is just another way of drawing the commons stuff. i am not trying to duplicate the commons flavours but am looking for a way to map the functional characteristics of the available licenses so that people can choose to buy or avoid information or technologies, and potentially search for it.

    black – conditional access/use
    - black
    closed source DRM with TPM, limited time for use, pay per view, restricted to specific technologies or with a sunset clause
    subscription.

    red – able to access
    - closed source standard copyright

    orange – able to investigate
    - source is viewable, not customisable
    - some vendor open source licenses

    yellow – able to edit
    - source is viewable, customisable but then cannot distribute
    - cc derivatives

    green – able to distribute
    - source is viewable, not customisable but can distribute
    - cc =

    blue – access, edit and share
    - source is viewable, customisable, distributable
    - bsd
    - public domain

    white – access edit and share for future generations
    - share alike
    - gpl

    for licenses where people want to prescribe a specific cohort of people for use then the colour circle is half the ‘in’ colour and half the colour of ‘the rest of us’
    eg. a document which was copyright but share alike for edu purposes would be red and white.

    colour has problems for colourblind folk.
    there need to be symbols colours could reinforce the symbols
    they need to be a buyers guide as per GM products or warnings on cigarettes.

    in AU now we face a DMCA law with on the spot fines $1300 for people who are unaware that they are infringing. we need a very simple way to see what a technology or info thing can legally be used for.

    im posting it here because it feels very close to cc work.
    i dont know how the next gen of cc is developing but thought this might be something to throw into the pot.

    cheers janet

  • http://lucychili.blogspot.com Janet Hawtin

    Hi Lawrence and folks.

    The gnewsense team are talking about how to do a structured sort of technologies by their licence profile too.

    I am thinking that using dublin core metadata to expand on the basic copyright information into the specific license and owner(existing) the kind of access framework posted above, and a cost model framework such as

    free$
    free with paid support
    one off fee
    one off fee with paid support
    subscribe fee
    subscribe fee including paid support
    subscribe fee with sunset clause which generates end of life for the application
    subscribe, sunset support

    would help people choosing between technologies and information, or to audit technologies and information they currently use?

    Janet