[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
i think that's a great idea mathieu. and although he made some
enemies on
the oekonux list, i think dmytri kleiner would make a good
discussant. he
has created his own license for his writings and has some strong
opinions in
the area.
Nate Tkacz
School of Culture and Communication
University of Melbourne
Twitter: http://twitter.com/__nate__
Research Page: http://nathanieltkacz.net
Current project: http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/about-2/
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Mathieu ONeil
<mathieu.oneil anu.edu.au>wrote:
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
On 2011-06-06 21:44, Stefan Merten wrote:
Of course I welcome Mathieu's choice. Still...
1 hours ago Athina Karatzogianni wrote:
As I understand it we are getting into nuisances over
licensing> > > > here within the peer producing paradigm, shall
we leave this
for a
future issue to discuss and come to an agreement what to
do with
is in a practical manner instead?
...I think it is a good idea to make this the main topic
of an
issue.
+1
SMz
Hi all
I also think that this is a good idea. However the
problem is that to have
a whole special issue - with formal CFP etc - it would be good
to have a
legal specialist on board; if you remember, we failed to find
someone last
year. I approached L. Liang at the CPOV conference in
Amsterdam but he never
got back to me.
So what I was thinking is: maybe this would be a perfect topic
for a Debate
of strongly contrasted positions with an initial sub by the BY-
SA position
and a response by the NC position (or vice-versa)? Then there
could be
rejoinders? That way the papers can be shorter, don't need to
be peer
reviewed, and can really respond to the other position?
Anyone up for this?
cheers,
Mathieu
[2 text/html]
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal
[2 text/html]
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal