Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Netscape The Internet

Open Directory Project Adopts Debian Social Contract 45

Posted by CmdrTaco from the step-in-the-right-direction dept.
An anonymous reader says "The Open Directory Project is owned by AOL/Netscape and the status of the copyright and amount of corporate interest has always been a question. In light of a coming copyright revision, the staff was urged to give something back to assure that the volunteers contributing to the directory would not be taken advantage of, as they were with CDDB/Gracenote. The Debian social contract was brought up and was met with surprising support from Netscape. Here is the ODP's social contract. It's seen as a great triumph for the volunteer community that has worked so hard on the largest human edited directory on the web." I was always skeptical of dmoz, but I'm pleased to see this step taken. Now if only Gracenote would be good enough to do the same. Oh wait, that would imply that they had souls.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Open Directory Project Adopts Debian Social Contract More

Open Directory Project Adopts Debian Social Contract

Comments Filter:

  • Re:DMOZ? Who the hell care? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Uh, AOL does use the dmoz directory on AOL Search. DMOZ also powers Netscape Search, ICQ search, etc. They use it all over the place.

  • Please... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Oh wait, that would imply that they had souls.

    I really enjoy most of the content here on Slashdot, but can we keep it on a professional level?

    Much obliged.

  • DMOZ? Who the hell care? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Like the Netscape browser itself, DMOZ is a good idea which unfortuantely, is doomed to be nothing more than a curio in today's world. Another promising project fucked up by Netscape's incompetence.

    C'mon, if even AOL themself, the parent company itself, chooses not to use Netscape browser or DMOZ directory, that has got to tell you SOMETHING.

  • Self promotion isn't a huge problem on DMOZ. That's not to say that it doesn't happen, but if you are too blatant about it, you will get in trouble quickly. Either your competitors will complain, or the editors who are higher up in the hierarchy will notice.

    Just to become a DMOZ editor, you have to provide several *good* examples of websites that you would like to add to the category you are applying to. If you sell widgets, that means you probably have to submit sites about your competitors. Editors even have slight handicaps, such as they can not, for any reason, have their own site marked as "cool". It doesn't make any difference if their site really is the coolest in the category, or even if it was another editor who marked it cool. Even if it was marked cool before you applied, you are required to uncool it.

    The vast majority of editors are very even handed. The vast majority of biased editors get kicked out quickly.

    --

  • I've had that thought before -- but I haven't seen evidence of it on the ODP. On the other hand, it is true that how good any particular section is depends on the editors, some are better than others. Some categories are so much better than any other portal it's amazing, other places I find myself going to Yahoo. Your milage varies depending on which part of the site you're on.

    --

  • After having created and populated several categories they kicked me out of all of them, and suspended my editor account, without even a notice. Several attempts at getting a contact failed. And all the categories I created are now without an editor. Check, for instance, http://dmoz.org./Computers/Software/Databases/Rela tional and all subcategories; also http://dmoz.org./World/Português/Computadores has several subcategories created by me.
    --
    Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra
    DBA, SysAdmin
  • Not really so. An editor can be kicked out without a notice, and attempts to get a reason for it go unanswered.
    --
    Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra
    DBA, SysAdmin
  • Including the GNU General Public License

    Not quite. The usual text is "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version." That's not quite the same as "This version, until we decide to change it, then that version only." The difference is in the option to keep using the older version.

    -----

  • I don't think the GPL has such a clause.
  • dmoz, much like us [grub.org], is reliant on its contributers to build its directory. Without the contributer's/editor's/client's blessing, and continual contributions, you have a database that is pretty much worthless. Gracenote has a bigger advantage than dmoz or grub.org does over its users/contributers in that it has already built the bulk of its database, and only needs occasional updates to it to keep it current.

    Someone like Musicbrainz [musicbrainz.com] could just as easily restrict access to their database at a later date, even though it's currently licensed under OpenContent. (I really doubt they would do this, BTW).

    Look, if Netscape chose to screw the community by closing or limiting access to the database, it would surley piss off the editors which would then be cause them to stop doing submissions. No submissions = No database. I suspect that projects like dmoz and grub, who rely on a constant influx of information to stay current, will be kept honest by default That said, I think that dmoz has taken a step in the right direction trying to address these issues.

    Shameless Plug: Check out Grub [grub.org]!
  • Kicking out editors has nothing to do with this argument. The point is that if you lose enough of your editors, and you are TOTALLY dependent on them to maintain your database (like dmoz is), there's not hope in hell that you'll make it.
  • You know, that post tells more about you than about Gracenote. Btw, what is "soulless" and is messing up badly a trait not having a soul?

    I know, I know. I'm just messing with your head ;-)

    - Steeltoe

  • ... having lots of subject editors instead of one company doing the editing should in theory localize the bias to individual subjects.

    True, the balance of subject matter will more closely model peoples intrests however this does not make the listed sites any better. The links submitted will likely be by the person responsible for the site. This does not filter the noise. Perhaps they need a moderation system?

    For example, their is a very good tutorial site on Guitar chords and scales and such called Dansm's Home Page [harvard.edu]. I did find this under Arts/Music/Instruments/Stringed/Guitar/Acoustic/Ar tists/ but I think I would moderate that this be placed in the Music Education section as well.

  • Luckily this is the contract from Debian.org and not Sea.org ... while Mozilla might be a good thing to play around with, I wouldn't want to be stuck into using it for one billion years.

  • I imagine that CmdrTaco's professional view of the situation is that Gracenote is soulless, a view I happen to agree with in my professional capacity. In fact, my objective professional view is that Gracenote is a vile festering sore upon the world, a horrendous beast that rapes the enthusiasm of volunteers and steals gifts from under the Christmas tree. My assessment is that Gracenote should die very quickly, and preferably in the messiest way possible, with lawsuits and front-page humiliation.

    --

  • It's called a "social contract" but I don't think it's a legally enforceable license. Needless to say though, IANAL -- anyone knowledgable want to settle this? Hawk? Bruce Perens? That lawyer who was interviewed the other day?

    Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.

  • By agreeing to work on this project I hereby forfeit any sort of "life" and agree to live a hermit-like existance, emerging only to go to work or buy more food....

    Signed,
    John Q. Hacker III

  • Just as a quick check, I decieded to look up Scientology at dmoz. Other than opposing views, almost every single website listed was by the actual church of Scientology itself. Few links to anything not controled by the church. Nothing on those who still practice Scientology outside of the church. Nothing. It would be like looking at a Christianity directory entry that only showed one denomination. Nothing about any contraversy about the church other than attacks on those who have said bad things about the church. (other than the link to opposing views)

    And that same editor also is editor for a mental health directory. Strangely (or not if you know much about Scientology) it is almost entirely anti-mental health or alternative treatment stuff. It is under "health and safety" not "oppossing views"

    To me, this says that the editor's biases do play a large role. I was happy to see that opposing views _was_ linked to from the Scientology main directory entry. Perhaps that is enough. But I really felt like I was looking at an advertisement for Scientology.

  • A contract is, according to Business Law - A Streamlined Course for Students and Business People by Robert Emerson, J.D. and John W. Hardwicke, LL.B., a legally enforceable agreement, express or implied, with the following elements:

    1. Capacity of the parties
    2. Mutual agreement (assent) or meeting of the minds (a valid offer and acceptance).
    3. Consideration (something of value given in exchange for a promise).
    4. Legality of subject matter.

    This contract has all of the elements:

    1. Both parties have the capacity to enter into this agreement.
    2. You submiting your content after reading their contract is clear evidence of a meeting of minds on your part. Them using your content after you submit it is clear evidence of a meeting of minds on their part.
    3. There is a consideration. They are publishing your content for you and your are providing your content to them. They also give you a license to the content to use as along as you give credit. This is consideration.
    4. There is nothing illegal - last time I check that was - about this transaction.
  • Well, I just checked and they do give credit in the very first paragraph. Either you didn't read carefully or they read your comment and revised their web site in the FOUR MINUTES since you posted. Wow! That's on the ball! :-)

    http://dmoz.org/socialcontract.html [dmoz.org] first paragraph: [...] inspired by, derived from, the Debian Social Contract [...]

    -----------
  • Who is watching the gatekeepers? Not to worry. We'll leave that to you.
  • Bruce Perens messes up, apologizes, more upvotes for the mistake and the correction! As he noted once before, typical slashdot mods...

    I would think that was so it would be above most users' "highlight" threshold, thereby stopping several million people who hadn't bothered to read the rest of the thread from flaming him. Besides, do you really not think that he's reached the karma limit already?

    43rd Law of Computing:
  • Virtually every license I've ever read has stated "Subject to change without notice".

    This is nothing new, and certainly nothing noteworthy.
  • Oh, come on, that was _funny_. Whatever you do, don't ever go read Penny Arcade. You'd have a coronary :)
  • Yup. I blew it. I just looked for the credit at the end where everyone else puts it. Oops.
  • This is nice, but Dmoz seemed pretty safe under its longstanding copyright and license terms. Even if Netscape/AOL wanted to change the terms of whatever sits at "dmoz.org" on Netscape-owned servers, the content up to that point would remain fully, irrevocably open AFAIK, free to fork. This move may make things easier for the community of editors to retain control wiith minimal disruption when AOL/Time Warner decides it no longer wants to fund the project at some point in the future.

    CDDB was always free of charge, but never offered under any sort of community copyright. It was always clearly, unambiguously under threat of becoming a pay-for-play closed database.

    I hope you don't think your book and record reviews on Amazon belong to you. Don't be surprised if a tome similar to the All Music Guides suddenly materializes, made up of the best customer reviews from Amazon. And they won't owe you a penny.
  • It sounds very nice, and I'm sure their intentions are good, but it doesn't look like it's contractually binding on AOL Time Warner in any way. What happens when they have a change of management and the new management decides -- pardon the expression -- all your DMOZ are belong to us?
  • Have you tried DMOZ? Google uses it for the Google Web Directory.

    If you try it, I think you'll find it's pretty damn good.

  • Virtually every license I've ever read has stated "Subject to change without notice".

    Including the GNU General Public License [gnu.org], but not including the BSD license [xfree86.org], the X license [x.org], or the zlib license [gzip.org].

    What bothers me most about the Open Directory license is that the requirement to keep checking back home makes the license to use a specific version of the data non-perpetual and makes the license not a free documentation license. [gnu.org]

  • I switched to DMoz now that every directory entry in Yahoo! is goes through a CGI redirect script. Who knows what they're doing with the data they gather? If you have a My Yahoo! account you should be extremely concerned that they could associate every place you visit with your Yahoo! ID.
  • I find the idea of having lots of decentralized editors, each responsible for one small area, very appealing. The opportunity for distortion or bias is confined to each editor's individual subject.

    Web Marketing 101:

    1. Start a web site to sell widgets
    2. Make yourself editor of "Widgets" category on Dmoz
    3. Give your site preferential treatment in Dmoz rankings
    Who is watching the gatekeepers?
  • I find this a profoundly rational and moral action on the part of Netscape.

    Too bad other companies can't do the same thing.

    not going to say much else, because I'm all ranted out for today

    ;-)

    Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip

  • This is really nice to see, and an excellent decision. It's made my whole day. I just have one little nit I'd like to see them fix.

    They are obviously concerned that people not use their data without proper attribution.
    But they are using the social contract without proper attribution :-) . I guess they didn't read this text at the end of the social contract:

    Other organizations may derive from and build on this document. Please give credit to the Debian project if you do.
    So, DMOZ, please add attribution to Debian to the document. I wouldn't mind a credit for creating the original social contract, which I get in a note at the end of the Debian version, but I'll settle for Debian getting credit.

    Thanks

    Bruce

  • Re:DMOZ? Who the hell care? (Score:3)

    by DrXym ( 126579 ) on Wednesday June 06, 2001 @02:54PM (#170746)
    Who says they don't do either?

    DMoz is used here [aol.com] as well as here [netscape.com]. If you don't believe they're taken from DMoz, try searching for for "Slashdot" or browsing through the categories a bit.

    As for Mozilla/Gecko, haven't you heard of the Komodo project? No doubt it will debut in an embedded form in AOL 7.0 and not to mention Netscape 6.5 and that AOL/Gateway device it's already running in.

  • I wish I was Bruce Perens (Score:3)

    by HongPong ( 226840 ) <hongpong&hongpong,com> on Wednesday June 06, 2001 @06:48PM (#170747) Homepage
    Bruce Perens messes up, apologizes, more upvotes for the mistake and the correction! As he noted once before, typical slashdot mods...

    --

  • Actually, this is a contract. Any content submitted prior to a change is bound by the license put in place. Of course, if you want to protect yourself, you should capture the existing contract and any revisions. This will allow you to hold them to a particular version of the contract.

    Let's be honest, except for some classes of marriage, no one gives contract's "forever".

  • Virtually every license I've ever read has stated "Subject to change without notice".
    This is nothing new, and certainly nothing noteworthy.

    I fully agree. However, my opinion is subject to change without notice.

    -

  • Re:Skeptical about DMOZ? (Score:4)

    by PD ( 9577 ) <slashdotlinux@pdrap.org> on Wednesday June 06, 2001 @02:16PM (#170750) Homepage Journal
    Or, you can just go to the google site. Their directory is based on DMOZ. Get the best of both worlds without having to go there.

  • Skeptical about DMOZ? (Score:4)

    by zpengo ( 99887 ) on Wednesday June 06, 2001 @01:19PM (#170751) Homepage
    Many people took an early interest in DMOZ, but when seeing how underdeveloped it was, they gave up and went back to Yahoo with the notion that "DMOZ is a nice idea, but it doesn't have enough content."

    That was several years ago, though. I recently checked back to see how the project was going, and it's *huge*. DMOZ is robust enough to compete with Yahoo, but without the bells, whistles, banners, portal features, and other crap that make Yahoo so bloated.

    So check out DMOZ [dmoz.org]. You might, like me, make it your usual search directory.

  • Re:Come on Taco (Score:4)

    by GodHead ( 101109 ) on Wednesday June 06, 2001 @01:45PM (#170752) Homepage

    Oh wait, that would imply that they had souls.


    Oh, fuckin' grow up, Taco

    You got modded down for failure to use the proper form...

    "Come on (Jamie/Taco/Cowboy), a comment like that will not impress upon (MSFT/RIAA/government/anyone) the (seriousness/commitment/31337 skillz/good looks) of the (Linux/Free software/open source/GNU/troll) community. We need (leaders/journalists/dorks) such as yourself to set an example in this matter by doing (the right thing/drugs).

    Yours,
    (Linus/RMS/Bruce Perens/Trollaxor)

    Upcoming forms include :
    What-happened-to-the-quality-of-slashdot?
    Goat se.cx
    This-company-rocks/sucks
    God-I-hate-this-n ew-law/patent/boy-band
    Impassioned-call-to-arms
    and the Witty-yet-totally-off-topic

    G.H.

    What if we DIDN'T have a beowulf cluster of these...

  • Oops, I just found the Debian credit. Open Mouth, Insert Foot. These things happen once in a while. I'll go back to what I was doing now. Sorry.

    Bruce

  • Not a license, a "promise" (Score:5)

    by GodHead ( 101109 ) on Wednesday June 06, 2001 @01:16PM (#170754) Homepage
    That's real nice till you look one link deeper and see...

    <I>By using the Open Directory Project (ODP) in any way you are agreeing to comply with these terms, which we may update without notice and encourage you to check back here at any time</i>

    So what they are saying is - "We'll play nice until we decide we don't want to anymore."

  • You take them to court.

    This document is a contract. It might not look like a contract, but it is an agreement entered into by two parties with an exchange of favors.

    Until they change it, it is binding on them and you - if you agree to it. If they change it, the current version governs any content submitted up to the change.

    If they break it, then you take them to court. You get an order compelling them to honor the agreement. Since they didn't outline a limitation of damages, you could also seek damages from them.

    I have worked in a lot of big companies. I am surprised that something this straight-forward, clean, and "right", was able to make it out into the world.

  • Distributed bias (Score:5)

    by gentlewizard ( 300741 ) on Wednesday June 06, 2001 @01:37PM (#170756)
    I find the idea of having lots of decentralized editors, each responsible for one small area, very appealing. The opportunity for distortion or bias is confined to each editor's individual subject.

    It reminds me of Bucky Fuller's Dymaxion World Map [bfi.org], which divides the earth into lots of triangles, then localizes map distortion into each triangle. The net result is that overall, the map is very accurate. In contrast, the Mercator Projection localizes all its error at the edge, so Greenland looks larger than North America.

    In the same way, having lots of subject editors instead of one company doing the editing should in theory localize the bias to individual subjects. Chances are better that the Open Directory as a whole will be less biased.

Slashdot Top Deals

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Close