Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
News

Will The Real Nupedia Please Stand Up? 69

jwales writes: "There was a bit of confusion recently regarding the announcement of a 'gnupedia' project. There already exists a free encyclopedia project, with all code GPL'd and all content FDL'd, and that project is Nupedia. I have written an article explaining what happened. Basically, RMS got confused." Clear as mud.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Will The Real Nupedia Please Stand Up?

Comments Filter:
  • ...compared to tons of little sites that no one knows about that has only a little information because volunteers are split apart between them all...

    Which is, of course, why there's only one encyclopedia out there in the print-media world.

    Oh, wait a second...

    Besides, an encyclopedia is going to try to be a huge massive penultimate source of knowledge, right? Except that they're calling for volunteers from within a very specialized audience. No offence, but programmers and technogeeks aren't necessarily going to be the greatest authorities in non-geek-related subject matter. They may be good authorities, but I'd sooner commission a nuclear scientist than some guy with a WW2 itch he likes to scratch to talk about the atomic bomb. At least, if there are more than one such projects, you can reduce the risk that things will get missed, undercovered, or overcovered.

  • What's next, GnGnu C++? GnGnome?

    Or maybe GLinux,GEnlightenment, or Gnubbles...

  • I have recommended, and the consensus on the short-lived "gnupedia" mailing list is that this is a good recommendation, that the FSF instead sponsor a project to be called "Alexandria" -- a more general repository for free texts.

    This sounds to me very much like the Gutenberg project, at least from this noe sentence from the article. Why is this just not a repeat of the same thing? RMS is going to start something up which is going to go in competition with a longstanding free project out there. The difference being, the Gutenberg project is more longstanding and much better known than Nupedia.

    Yes, I realize that the Gutenberg project is mostly for "classic" texts who have passed into the public domain. However, I was under the impression that their mission could include current free texts. (I could be wrong.)

    For the Gutenberg project, see: http://promo.net/pg [promo.net]

    -Rob

  • Go read their about their article production process:
    Overview of the Editorial Process [nupedia.com]

    Then go check out their reviewers in their categories. These people are usually college-level professors:

    Not every category has reviewers yet, and some reviewers are bio-less, but this seems to be the direction that Nupedia is going.

  • I saw RMS last Tuesday when he gave a speech in Dallas. That man can drink a LOT of tea. Someone in the audience even asked him (after 2 1/2 hours and about 10 glasses of tea) if he needed to go to the bathroom yet.

    -Restil
  • Yes, it looks like they've thought out the peer-review process.

    They have 12 (yes, twelve) articles currently posted. Hardly enough of a head start to preclude alternative projects from starting up, should someone conceive a better way of doing this.

  • An old joke is "what is another word for thesaurus?". At least we know another word for "Nupedia" now that they've merged.

    I look forward to "The Final Nupedia"...

  • Off to Terminus with you. And take the tiger lady with you.
  • by slothbait ( 2922 ) on Saturday January 20, 2001 @08:16AM (#494281)
    > This story does clearly not flatter to RMS, who showed us again his desire to GNUlize anything out there, so that he, personally RMS, will be remembered as the one who created a great project(tm).

    Mmm...flame bait on a Saturday morning. You know, Slashdot really *was* nicer in the old days when it wasn't fashionable to bash RMS at every turn and drone on with "what's the use?" anytime *any* new tech is announced. Ahem...

    What is your evidence that RMS is trying to GNUlize things? The tired Linux GNU/Linux argument? RMS has explained his position on that quite clearly. If people never hear about GNU, then they are not going to hear about software freedoms. Open Source is nice and all that, but RMS is trying to educate users to value their freedom. The "Linux" movement is not trying to do that. So, people could be using Linux and GNU and have no idea *why* the system was constructed and *what* it represents. RMS and others would like to ensure that doesn't happen.

    I don't think that RMS is seeking personal attention. I think he just tries to publicize GNU. Presumably, he thinks GNU is important since he has made it his Life's Work. RMS isn't the most diplomatic character, but I greatly respect the GNU project, both on a technical and philosophical level.

    --Lenny
  • Root Mean Square? Yes, I am normalizing an audio file. Thanks for your interest! (It's meant as +1 FUNNY, not -1 Flamebait, moderators)
  • Yeah, the content is thin right now, but the infrastructure is in place to make scaling the operation a possiblity. It will be quite a while before GNUpedia transitions out of the hand-waving stage (there are a lot of details to sort out).

    But, yes, there is certainly room for alternatives. (Though it doesn't look like GNUpedia wants to compete in the same realm as Nupedia.)

  • As a writer with little money but lots of time, I've often wanted to contribute something to the Open Source movement. So I've written a good deal for Everything, but with these more "serious" projects coming up, I've begun to reconsider my output of energies. Which do you propose I write for?
  • I don't think it's accurate to say they've merged. First off, Nupedia exists and GNUpedia doesn't. You can't merge something that exists with something that doesn't. Also, Nupedia is not going to change the way it's organized to suit Stallman.


    The Assayer [theassayer.org] - free-information book reviews

  • Flamebait? If it's true, is it still flamebait?

    The Assayer [theassayer.org] - free-information book reviews
  • I've collected some relevant links here [theassayer.org].

    A repository for free-as-in-speech texts strikes me as a pretty good idea.

    As noted by dvdeug, Gutenberg doesn't really want to do recent texts.

    On-Line Books Page will do them, but it's not really their specialty; they require the book to have a Library of Congress catalog number, which many free books don't have, and they don't host texts, they just link to them.

    Opencontent.org is a general-purpose link site for OPL'd content, but it doesn't host texts.

    If GNU is really serious about this project (they don't even seem to have a proposal written yet??), I think they're going to have two big challenges:

    1. They may mirror a text which then gets modified. If they don't watch out, they could become a repository for out-of-date versions that just distracts people from finding the latest version.
    2. Given the ideological approach shown by their GNUpedia proposal, I assume they're not going to be selective at all. They could easily end up swimming in garbage.

    I also hope they'll be broad-minded about what licenses they accept.

    Actually the biggest obstacle to permanence for free e-texts is that so many are free as in beer, but not free as in speech. E.g. this [theassayer.org] catalog contains 151 free books, of which only 23 [theassayer.org] are free as in speech. (I'm not even talking about old public-domain e-texts, of which there are tens of thousands.) All those free-as-in-beer books could stop being free any time the copyright holder feels like it. This has already happened with a whole bunch of Macmillan computer science titles.


    The Assayer [theassayer.org] - free-information book reviews

  • Try Gnupedia.Org [gnupedia.org]. You get Nupedia. What litte there was of Gnupedia seems merged enough.
  • Prior to movable-type printing, books (other than those central to organized religon, such as the Bible) were essentially unavailable and thus irrelevant to those outside of scholarly circles. To those WITHIN the literate classes (which were at that time NOT inclusive of the wealthy, for the most part), the practices of marginalia and commentary provided a valuble means of somewhat-interactive expression.

  • by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday January 20, 2001 @01:20AM (#494290)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • In the announcement [gnu.org] of GNUPedia the following can be read about the exclusionary rule:

    "... [hoevekam: the] most important rule for pages in the encyclopedia is the exclusionary rule:

    If a page on the web covers subject matter that ought to be in the encyclopedia or the course library [hoevekam: an probably also in the article library], but its license is too restricted to qualify, we must not make links to it from encyclopedia articles or from courses."

    Why is this the most important rule?

    Let's look at a lesson learned form GPLed software. There was and still is the danger of including non-GPLed code into GPLed code (as seen lately in the discussions when QT was GPLed). I do agree with RMS, that this should be avoided right from the beginning of working on an free encyclopedia. This might look kind of paranoid today, but our kids will be grateful for that. Or aren't you thankful that our parents began writing software from scratch in order to put it into the realm of the GPL? Without starting from zero, GPLed software would not be in the position it is right now.

    Nupedia doesn't follow the exclusionary rule. This might be good for now and for gaining momentum on a short time scale, but in the long run RMS "exclusionary rule" will be the competitive edge. OK, it wouldn't take Nupedia much to adapt to this rule once the number of articles has overcome a certain thershold and they can link to other articles instead of citing to non-GFDLed articles and books.

  • ...isn't this a Slashback?
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by KjetilK ( 186133 ) <kjetil AT kjernsmo DOT net> on Saturday January 20, 2001 @04:14AM (#494294) Homepage Journal
    I'm glad to see this sorted out. I signed up with nupedia a few weeks ago, and while I'm usually following RMS a long way in his ideas, it looked as if he was grabbing the idea.

    Now, the Nupedia folks seem to have given the encyclopedia idea far more thought than RMS. What RMS seemed to be announcing was little more than the web as we know it now plus a bit of resource description on top, but far from the Semantic Web of TimBL.

    The Nupedia folks have really thought carefully about formal peer review, which is a very important feature of a real encyclopedia, and with the FDL, it's very promising.

  • Seriously, there must be more to this than meets the eye, because "RMS got confused" is very unlikely judging by the history of the man. Quite a lot of work went into preparing the ground for the GNUpedia project announcement, and it's just not the kind of thing that "got confused" can adequately explain.

    I guess it'll all come out into the open eventually, hopefully in a clear note from RMS, because a lot rests on our faith in the people in the movement, and I'm sure he knows it. He wouldn't want any question marks hovering unanswered above this little episode, IMO, and he must value the goodwill of the many Nupedia authors. We'll have to wait and see what develops.
  • A traditional encyclopedia has articles by staff
    and are generally balanced and acurately researched. What controls exist in this endeavor?
    Why should I accept as having a high degree of
    accuracy anything in it?
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • "Basically, RMS got confused."

    Richard M. Stallman! Say it! Say it!

  • I think that this whole incident shows how well the hacker norms that ESR outlined in his "Homesteading the Noosphere" can work to reduce conflict in ways that the corporate "let's call in the lawyers" world will never understand.

    This reminds me of what Karl Popper wrote about Freud and Marx: their claims are so broad and vague that virtually anything can be marshalled into "further evidence" for them. Would Popper feel the same way about ESR and "hacker culture"?

  • Nupedia isn't interested in your articles if you
    don't have a Masters or PhD on the relevant topic.
    GNUpedia, by contrast, has a more open editorial
    style. If GNUPedia really is toast, then I think
    someone, perhaps myself, should start a project
    along RMS's ideas, as his system for who can
    contribute and how are much more worthwhile than
    Nupedia's more traditional model.
  • Because you have to have an advanced degree before you CAN contribute. It's interesting to note that all of the Nupedia advocates posting here have evaded this question, rather than just admit it.
  • They have a lot of articles moving through their system right now. It's just that they care about accuracy and good writing, so they're not just rubber-stamping everything that gets submitted and slapping it on their site.

    If you think they're not moving along fast enough, why don't you contribute instead of criticizing?


    The Assayer [theassayer.org] - free-information book reviews

  • The issue wasn't competition. The issue was the nearly identical name and the shabby way Stallman treated Nupedia.

    The problem with your approach, frankly, is demonstrated pretty clearly by reading just about anything in Slashdot's section on science fiction -- er, I mean science.

    To make a software analogy, would you want people who didn't know a pointer from a hole in the ground to be able to modify the version of the Linux kernel that Linus Torvalds distributes? Free information means the freedom to do lame things to your own copy of the information, not to do lame things to the copy that someone else distributes and that people count on to be reliable.


    The Assayer [theassayer.org] - free-information book reviews

  • by Anonymous Coward
    No, RMS isn't confused, he's just making sure you pronouce a hard "G" each time you say "nu".
  • It's nice to see, for a change, some cooperation, not mutual assured destruction. I hope this works well - it'd be real nice to have an encyclopedia that maybe, just maybe, can readily be updated and corrected by everybody.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    We all owe a debt to RMS, but it's clear he's out of touch with respect to the leading edge on net technology. It's taken the FSF over a year to acknowledge that the ASP hole in the GPL is actually a problem. Now this nonsense, clumsily botching the potential PR boost to an established, exciting free content initiative. Nice going, RMS.
  • As funny as this is, can someone please moderate it down to the depths from which it sprung?
    ---
    evil adrian
  • "There was a bit of confusion recently regarding the announcement of a 'gnupedia' project. There already exists a free encyclopedia project, with all code GPL'd and all content FDL'd..."

    You know, I really hope this isn't the sort of things people are going to make a big deal out of. I mean, for all the outrage that people show here at the silly patenting of ideas, you'd think they'd actually embrace this sort of duplication. I mean, the last thing we need to see is peer pressure affecting the way these projects are looked at (who came up with the idea first, who's got RMS backing them up, who gets to be the official GNU version, etc.).

    Why the hell COULDN'T there be two projects? Bleah bleah bleah redundancy of effort will lead to poor quality on both ends bleah. Right. Tell that to GNOME and KDE, why doncha?

  • He just forgot his tea [slashdot.org].
  • So now the mystery is finally solved as to where Alatar has been hiding all these years. While Mithrandir was getting himself killed fighting the Valarauker, you were busy in the East, fighting the armies of JavaScript. :)

  • is it really an ethical problem? it's not like most slashdot readers read the article anyway.

    okay, on a more serious note, i did read the article, and was not aware of the pay-for-hit scheme. i'm not bothered by this particular case since it is a nonprofit project for something i support. however, it would have been nice if we were told of the situation beforehand - it seems a little underhanded, especially since the submitter is also the author of the article.

    i consider this situation to be the same as a link opening several ad windows involuntarily. maybe in the future these things should be marked like those would be.

  • You mean, like linking in a ZDNET article? ;)
  • NEWSFLASH

    A 7th-Day violation has occurred. In a raid on the FSF compunt today, evidence of a cloned project was uncovered. All executives, and employees directly involved in this heinous, and sacreligious project have been taken into custody and await arraignment.

    Once found guilty, they'll be handed over to the local door-to-door Britannica salesman for "remedial treatment".


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!

  • A more interesting idea based on your point might be to make a place like nupedia a great backplane storing the data for the encyclopedia, then write an API in which other web sites and even standalone applications can retrieve, index, search, catagorize, and all-around produce different front-ends to. I could see a Knupedia and Gnupedia apps that allow for much more customization by the user.

    "Evil beware: I'm armed to the teeth and packing a hampster!"
  • Here at Nupedia, Larry Sanger (PhD in philosophy, Ohio State University) is the editor in chief. He has done an astounding job of recruiting editors and peer reviewers, and he actually checks credentials. It is a difficult job to balance inclusiveness and openness with quality control. There are constant internal discussions to see how we can best meet both goals, and our view is that there is room within the project for competing views.
  • by jwales ( 97533 ) on Saturday January 20, 2001 @06:35AM (#494316) Homepage
    At Nupedia, we don't have any problem with competition. Particularly so long as everyone uses the FDL, the projects will remain compatible, so that article sharing can take place, etc.

    Our complaint was that (1) RMS had offered to make an announcement with us, (2) in our discussions of our switch to the FDL, RMS never told us about Hector's project, and (3) we woke up one morning to find an announcement of a competing project with almost the exact same name and mission!

    Fortunately, as I have said, sanity is prevailing. RMS apologized for his mistake, and we're happy with that.

    And were on /., which will really help us with what we need most -- exposure.

  • by jwales ( 97533 ) on Saturday January 20, 2001 @06:37AM (#494317) Homepage
    I'll donate $50 to the FSF.
  • by jwales ( 97533 ) on Saturday January 20, 2001 @06:43AM (#494318) Homepage
    You wrote: >Nupedia doesn't follow the exclusionary rule.

    Actually, we follow an even stricter exclusionary rule at the moment -- the Nupedia FDL articles do not have outside links at all.

    On the website, we do have outside links, as an interim measure to (hopefully) make the website useful as we increase the number of articles in our database. We have 150+ articles in the pipeline (I don't remember the exact number at the moment.)

    It never occurred to me that we should have a rule of that type (i.e. no linking to non-free materials), but now that the idea has been raised, the community will certainly consider it. (I don't really try to have the final say here -- we're an open community.)

  • by DunLurkin ( 125146 ) on Saturday January 20, 2001 @06:44AM (#494319)
    Why do you think that there are "controls" on existing encylopedias? They are the products of companies and organizations who are seeking profits and/or the propagation of their own memes. The review process, if any, is not open to the general public or even to a wide selection of experts in the appropriate fields. Opposing viewpoints are often not sought out or represented in the articles. Are we supposed to trust them just because they are are printed on dead trees with gilt edges and genuine-fake-leather covers?

    When books were hand-transcribed, the scribes added their own "marginalia" to clarify, endorse, expand, or object to the views of the original author. This practice was lost with the advent of printing (perhaps the only real downside to printing). Books became a "top down", one way communication medium with an implied promise of "if it's in print, it must be true".

    This type of elitism has lead to the virtually unopposed spread of untruths ranging from the trivial (dates and details of events that are widely accepted, but demonstrably false by recourse to primary sources) to the tragic (the use of falsified history and anthropology to justify genocide).

    In the case of Nupedia, the articles are at least offered for online peer review. Contribute your services - help MAKE it accurate.

  • Here at Nupedia, we feel that RMS has now done the right thing. The only thing unflattering about all this is perhaps that RMS is too busy and could use a better assistant to help him keep track of things. :-)
  • It's also the official project name for Sourceforge (https://sourceforge.net/projects/alexandria [sourceforge.net]). I guess they didn't really learn a lesson.
  • I was quite excited about the GNUpedia announcement when I first read about it. However, I spent a couple of days on the mailing list and discovered that the GNU project is going in a direction I am not as interested in. Several people made the excellent point that "editorialship" can be a form of censorship and dealing with opposing viewpoints on anything more controversial than addition can be a tricky balancing act. As a result, the GNU project, as the article states, seems to be turning more into a library than an encyclopedia. A useful project, but not one that I am interested in.

    For those of you who were excited by the idea of a totally free encyclopedia, go check out Nupedia. It turned out to be exactly what I had wanted GNUpedia to be. They have already set up most of their infrastructure, have an excellent review process, and need people with all sorts of talents and interests. They seem to especially need people in the Mathematics and Physical Science (mostly Physics and Chemistry) areas. They also need you Grammar-Nazi people out there to do copyeditting!

    I was also impressed by how much they seemed to follow (though they did their work before RMS's announcement) RMS's suggestion that work be done in little steps. If you think you are expert enough to write 1-5 paragraphs on a specific topic, you have what it takes to submit an article to Nupedia. And in true open-source fashion, you can download the entire article database to date (not very big) and the software used to manipulate it.

    I would suggested it for anyone who is itching to write an article, but doesn't want to wait for the dust to settle over in the GNU/Alexandria (GNUpedia) camp.

    Nupedia [nupedia.org]

  • From my brief perusing of Nupedia, I've decided that their quality control in this respect is pretty good. They have articles on music and the classics that are written by college professors in those areas. I have been incredibly impressed with the people that Nupedia has as article reviewers. They seem to actually be suffering in some of the technical areas, probably due to a lack of programmers who can write. :)

    But seriously, this project seems to be under the directly of technically competent people who are experts in non-technical areas.

  • Archiving everything, including public free texts, sounds like what Barry Shein was or is trying to do with the Online Book Initiative [std.com]

    I don't know how much work he is actively putting into it. It seems to have some recent additions, there is a folder called Election2000 [std.com], but it only has one realaudio file [std.com] in it.

  • This question was asked by Dr. Tom in the original Gnutella announcement (see here [slashdot.org]). The Britannica [britannica.com] is the encyclopedia--it is truly superb. The company behind Britannica, though, is already suffering financially. Additional competition from Nupedia might be enough to push them over the edge.

    Britannica's demise would definitely not be in our best interest. Why can't the Nupedia people just work with Britannica? Only Nupedia's ego would lose.

    __________________________________
    "Is it a book you would even wish your wife or your servants to read?" --prosecuting lawyer, for the British government, arguing against permitting publication of D. H. Lawrence's "Lady Chatterly's Lover" (1960)

  • by volsung ( 378 ) <stan@mtrr.org> on Saturday January 20, 2001 @11:50AM (#494326)
    GNUpedia is not toast, but being refocused. Nupedia and the repository-formerly-known-as-GNUpedia at first appeared to be very similar in goals and even considered merging. However there was a desire to be more open than Nupedia permitted, and that seems to have become GNUpedia's new focus.

    Because both are using the FDL, GNUpedia could engulf Nupedia, and good articles from GNUpedia can be fed through the review process on Nupedia. I forsee a nice symbiotic relationship.

    As for the issues with Nupedia's editorial control, I think they are taking a valid approach. In order to attract experts, they need to ensure a high standard of quality. However, I sincerely hope that undergrads can contribute, because I'd like to start filling in their very empty physics and mathematics sections.

  • This is only a statement of fact.

    There is a fundamental difference between a link opening up several ad windows involuntarily and this situation. When a link opens up several ad windows involuntarily, it is an added and unexpected annoyance. In this case, however, it was not as though no one expected that there would not be any ads on the site linked to, and thus it was not an unexpected annoyance, nor was it something that almost every other site linked to from Slashdot has not already done. This adds to the fact that a person who follows the link to ThemeStream does not have to pay any money. They are merely helping to contribute money to the non-profit organization, without any extra effort. In fact, this is better than if it was a link to, for instance, ZDNet, because in that case, the money goes to the company.
  • to understand the joke, you would have to have seen Arnold's Sixth Day. Believe me, this post is on topic and fairly funny if you have seen the movie. No mod points for me == a post to explain that yeah, the above post is funny.
  • If Nupedia ever became good enough to drive Britannica over the edge, then we wouldn't need Britannica anymore. Nupedia has no history or brand-name going for it, so it will only be able to damage Britannica through overwhelming technical and content superiority. If they achieve that, then wouldn't you rather let the second-rate encyclopedia die?

    Until then, Britannica's market is secure and their financial problems will be their own making and no one elses.

  • of course, the name Alexandria is being used in some sort of encyclopaedia-like page already.
    Visit http://www.alexandria.de/ [alexandria.de]

    ----------------
    It is easy to control all that you see,

  • ...the author gets money for each hit (up to $50)...

    Man... I just woke up, and for a moment I thought that was 50 bucks per hit! Easy way to get rich, posting this in Slashdot. :)

    --

  • This story does clearly not flatter to RMS, who showed us again his desire to GNUlize anything out there, so that he, personally RMS, will be remembered as the one who created a great project(tm). I consider it sad that people choose to spend their time to fullfillment of such ambitions, rather than peacefully code (or write articles).

  • I must begin with saying that I really respect RMS. I respect him because he wrote GCC and Emacs. I also respect him for writing the GNU Manifesto and inventing GPL. I respect him for being the leader of an important trend in technology (and culture), of which I strive to become a part (when my programming skills become good enough).

    And yet, RMS's high position also obliges him for a great deal of responsibility. I believe he had to research first what is the current state of similar projects. And I am afraid that many of his [excellent] ideas are brought with a degree of radicalism that I consider unnecessary.

    I undersand RMS' motivation, however I think that he's got to concentrate on developing the GNU project, rather than waste time hurting friends and flaming enemies. The true beauty of GNU is not only in freedom of reception, but also in the freedom of creation. And to me, writing one line of GPLed code feels better than preaching all day long about the future, that will not be possible without that one line.

    --Uri

  • There are several "Richard M. Stallman"s in the world. There is and can be only one RMS.
  • I'm just curious, but is it even possible to READ Nupedia content? I surfed around the site for twenty minutes and didn't find anything (but I'm dumb so it's okay).
  • According to Hari Seldon, it is just a diversion so the foundations can be setup. :-) --Joey
  • At the end of the article, it seems to state that RMS and FSF are interested in a free text/etext archive project.

    Uh, folks, shouldn't we be putting our efforts behind an already working project? I'm talking about Project Gutenberg, and the Internet Wiretap. wiretap.area.com has an pretty large archive of books that are no longer under Copyright. As far as I can tell, all of these texts or most of them were typed in by hand by various intrepid keyboarders.

    This is nothing new. It's been in existence since the age of gopherspace, in 1991.

    Maybe RMS can work with these people instead of duplicating effort?
  • Project Gutenberg has some non-public domain works, but they're a lot more discriminating than the public domain texts. They don't really have the ability/resources to judge whether a book is worth it archiving or not (as the questions in this discussion about reviewing the quality.)

    By Jim Tinsley on http://promo.net/pg/vol/wwwboard/messages/1580.htm l :
    1. How do we know that a self-published work has merit? We're not literary critics - or biblical scholars. In the case of a century-old book into which a volunteer puts 30 or 40 hours of work, we accept that it has survived well enough to inspire a serious, egoless commitment from a modern reader, and that's good enough for us. But we also get offers of essays, stories and books from modern writers who may just be seeking something to boast about.
  • "everybody" ? Can you imagine the trolling that would occur in a fully open encyclopedia that could be updated by "everybody" ?
  • by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday January 20, 2001 @12:55AM (#494340)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by alexhmit01 ( 104757 ) on Saturday January 20, 2001 @01:01AM (#494341)
    Grin, in the corporate world, the same thing would have likely happened, probably with a $1 settlement. Given the relationship between Nupedia and FSF, there normally would have been an NDA, so "gnupedia" would have been in violation. The main difference here is than FSF is small enough that rms should know what is going on (especially if he is doing both items).

    Ooops, Brain Fart, an apology, and (probably?) an oops post on GNU.org at some point. At the very least, if gnupedia.(com|org|net) was acquired, they should point to nupedia.

    In the real world, this stuff happens. When MS does the NDA violation, they usually pay a large sum (to the little company, not to MS) to either buy the company or settle so the company can launch a new business idea. When other companies do it, they either back down (and pay $1 + legal fees), or they fight and lose badly.

    Now, if you don't use an NDA and give details, well, what can you do.

    Now, as Nupedia is wide open, NDA isn't quite the perfect analogy. A non-compete would be, but contracts to divide the market are not looked on favorably by the anti-trust laws.

    Hmm, enough ramblings, but I wonder, could a Free Software agreement not to compete be seen as anti-trust? It wouldn't really prevent "competition" as anyone can take the work for free... is it market dumping? Hmm... IP applies artificial scarcity to force IP based products to follow normal microeconomics (albeit with a monopoly/oligopoly), how do you reconcile this with Free Software...

    Hmm...

Variables don't; constants aren't.

Working...