[Search-l] New Mahalo license, features.

[John McCormac]

Jason Calacanis wrote:
> On 12/13/07, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>On Dec 14, 2007 12:01 PM, Jason Calacanis <jason at calacanis.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Following up on our discussion from a little bit back, Mahalo has
>>>moved to a somewhat limited Creative Commons license.
>>
>>I'm sorry to hear that.
>>"No Derivative Works" is the least sensible license for a wiki. Every
>>time you edit a page, you are making a derivative work.
> 
> 
> Well, we are a business that *pays* the folks who create the work, so
> we have a special concern that folks will take the entire thing, mash
> it up and dilute our ability to pay those writers.

 From my limited knowledge of the subject, it is when someone edits 
*your* work, or that of another, that a derivative work is created. It 
is the copyright holder who is affected. As a writer, I can see the 
logic in a limited licence especially as blognation.com seems to have 
imploded precisely because of writers (among others) not being paid.

> You know, not everyone wants to write for free for a venture-backed
> startup. If some do, well more power to them. However, as a writer by
> trade I find it kind of offensive that everyone at some crowd-sourced
> companies driven by writers/artists get paid... EXCEPT THE
> WRITERS/ARTIST. I can never understand why the managers, VCs,
> programmers, ad-sales folks, PR people, etc. can all make a great
> salary and the chance at millions in stock options, but the writers
> have to work for free.

To paraphrase Johnson, only a blogger writes for free? Some people write 
because they like to write and when experts write, they are definitely 
worth reading even if the prose is a bit rough and ready. Though often 
I'd far prefer to read the commentary of an expert than some journalist 
rehashing the latest press release. The concentration of experts and 
expertise has been one of the greatest effects of wikis, Wikipedia, and 
to some extent, blog publishing.

> For a non-profit like the Wikipedia I totally understand of course...
> noble mission an all. for a for-profit company? I don't get it.

It seems to be centred on the idea of publishing. Most people tend to 
throw the word around without any understanding of the business 
structures that lie beneath the surface. At best, a wiki could be a kind 
of vanity press, giving writers/bloggers and audience in return for 
nothing but the fame. But fame fades quickly when you have to put food 
on the table. Real publishing is about sales and people getting paid for 
their work. Sometimes it coincides with noble causes and sometimes it 
doesn't.

Regards...jmcc
-- 
******************************************************
John McCormac  *  e-mail: jmcc at whoisireland.com
MC2            *  voice:  +353-51-873640
22 Viewmount   *  web:  http://www.whoisireland.com/
Waterford      *  blog: http://blog.whoisireland.com
Ireland        *  Irish Domain Stats & Market Research
******************************************************