Tim Berners-Lee Defends Auction of NFT Representing Web's Source Code (theguardian.com) 65
Tim Berners-Lee has defended his decision to auction an NFT (non-fungible token) representing the source code to the web, comparing the sale to an autographed book or a speaking tour. From a report: The creator of the world wide web announced his decision to create and sell the digital asset through Sotheby's auction house last week. In the auction, which begins on Wednesday and will run for one week, collectors will have the chance to bid on a bundle of items, including the 10,000 lines of the source code to the original web browser, a digital poster created by Berners-Lee representing the code, a letter from him, and an animated video showing the code being entered.
"This is totally aligned with the values of the web," Berners-Lee told the Guardian. "The questions I've got, they said: 'Oh, that doesn't sound like the free and open web.' Well, wait a minute, the web is just as free and just as open as it always was. The core codes and protocols on the web are royalty free, just as they always have been. I'm not selling the web -- you won't have to start paying money to follow links. "I'm not even selling the source code. I'm selling a picture that I made, with a Python programme that I wrote myself, of what the source code would look like if it was stuck on the wall and signed by me. "If they felt that me selling an NFT of a poster is inappropriate, then what about me selling a book? I do things like that, which involve money, but the free and open web is still free and open. And we do still, every now and again, have to fight to keep it free and open, fight for net neutrality and so on."
"This is totally aligned with the values of the web," Berners-Lee told the Guardian. "The questions I've got, they said: 'Oh, that doesn't sound like the free and open web.' Well, wait a minute, the web is just as free and just as open as it always was. The core codes and protocols on the web are royalty free, just as they always have been. I'm not selling the web -- you won't have to start paying money to follow links. "I'm not even selling the source code. I'm selling a picture that I made, with a Python programme that I wrote myself, of what the source code would look like if it was stuck on the wall and signed by me. "If they felt that me selling an NFT of a poster is inappropriate, then what about me selling a book? I do things like that, which involve money, but the free and open web is still free and open. And we do still, every now and again, have to fight to keep it free and open, fight for net neutrality and so on."
Agree (Score:5, Insightful)
How can you not agree with that statement. Writing code is a creative process. Writing beautiful code can even be considered art (or solid engineering, whatever you prefer - building a solid, well functioning and beautiful bridge is both too). So why can authors of books sell signed copies and not Tim Berners-Lee do someting virtually the same?
If Sun was still Sun and not that other company, I bet they could have made a killing selling NFTs of originally author-signed pieces of the Java API. And nobody would mind that. Least of all Google, to name one with keen interest in that API.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Agree (Score:2)
Except in the case of Java APIs, NFT sales do not convey a licensing or copyright agreement.
They don't in any case.
Oracle and Java APis (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The law is not on Oracle's side anymore. The court case went in favor of Google and everyone that uses Java.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You might have missed it: Oracle has no case because the Supreme Court ruled for Google. Using APIs is fair use in the US now.
Re: (Score:2)
They still can. Well, not Sun, because it doesn't exist, but those original authors could sell all the NFTs they want.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't need the copyright because they're not selling the code. The Java source code is open source.
https://github.com/openjdk/ [github.com]
There. This post is now a VFT (very fungible token) for the Java source code. I release it freely into the public domain, but you are welcome to send me money if you wish.
Re: (Score:2)
The Java source code is open source.
Doh! Of course.
Re: (Score:2)
It works with copyrighted stuff too, although usually not the source code. This post is a VFT for Microsoft Windows Pro 10.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-c... [microsoft.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Any normal person trying to sell some source code would be living in fear of their employer for which it was developed, at the time it was written.
He gets all the credit for writing it, he deserves this. But he does not own it to do what he wishes, it's the property of CERN an org that is funded by taxpayers money from around the world.
Re: (Score:2)
But that is exactly why Tim Berners-Lee should not (possibly legally cannot) do this. Because code is copyrightable, and CERN owned the copyright and then gave it away to the public domain. So if anyone in the world does not own this source code, it is the man who explicitly signed away all rights it it in his employment contract.
Tim can sell copies of his book, because he owns the copyright to it, he cannot sell copies of this source code because he does not own the copyright to it, it is that simple.
Moral rights (form of copyright) (Score:2)
Berners-Lee, if he retains moral rights, might be said to be legit
Re: (Score:2)
Right of association means he gets accredited with authorship. So if he wanted to hold a signing event. He could sell his signature to whoever, he could sign printouts of this source code. That would be great, but to pretend that he deserves the right to sell this work is delusional imo.
And he does not seem to have the right to prevent modification of the web. I would like to see him try suing everyone who has updated the web architecture in the last 20-30 years.
Re: (Score:2)
He has every right to do this. It's no different, conceptually, then him selling a smiling picture of himself standing next to a printout of his code.
LOL @ bitcoin boomer logic (Score:1)
bitcoin boomer: [Mints coin early on, does a "HODL" for 12+ years]
(looks at self in the mirror) "I'm so handsomely brilliant!"
Artist: creates art; makes a single NFT for it and auctions it off in 3 days; makes $1Million.
bitcoin boomer: "People that do NTFs are such fucking morons!"
Re: (Score:2)
NFT = Nothing fraking tangible
Cue screaming toad memes (Score:3)
Haters gonna hate.
Most people are stupid.
Many others are narrowly capable (for example techincally adept and socially retarded, or socially adept and technically retarded).
You can't please everyone so piss on human obstacles then live your life. Sir Tim did nothing needing defense. The hair-shirt superstitionst crowd have a secular ultra-leftist equivalent of equalliy insane utopians.
Re: (Score:2)
The summery contradicts itself (Score:3)
The summery states he is selling the source code, as well as a image of it, while the quote from him states that he explicitly is not selling the source code.
Also if he sold those two things to different people, the one would be in breach of copyright.
Re:The summery contradicts itself (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
And what gives him the right to sell a copy of the source code? You can sell a copy of a book when you own the copyright to the book and the book has not been licensed with any free and open license that prohibits the for-profit use of it.
Could I sell an NFT of Ubuntu's source code? Or are we saying that the web is literally owned by this one man who is legally able to use it for-profit in any way and at anytime?
Re: (Score:2)
And what gives him the right to sell a copy of the source code?
"The source code behind the world wide web and its first browser, which were conceived and coded by Berners-Lee between 1989 and 1991, was never patented. Instead, it was released for free into the public domain by Cern, the particle physics laboratory in Switzerland where the British scientist worked at the time."
It's public domain. Anyone can sell a copy of it, provided they can find a buyer. Of course, not being the person who wrote it, and it being freely available, might make finding a buyer rather dif
Re: (Score:2)
It was his analogy. Tim Berners-Lee said that him selling a copy of this source code was the same as him selling copies of his book. It would seem like Tim either believes that he owns the copyright of this source code, is really bad at explaining himself, or is trying to defraud people.
Re: (Score:2)
But that is not exactly correct. Yes, the copyright on the Mona Lisa is expired. So if you were able to make a copy of it, you presumably could sell it. But for example, if you took a photograph of the Eiffel tower or a video of a movie in the theater, both things under copyright, you could get into legal trouble.
So unless Tim goes around selling copies of King Lear, He is probably talking about the book he owns the copyright to.
We all know it would be fraud or fraud adjacent to go around selling digital co
Re: The summery contradicts itself (Score:2)
They do let you take photographs of the Mona Lisa at the Louvre. Or the Eiffel Tower.
And I could sell a pic of me standing in front of either of them. If someone is willing to buy it.
Hell you could print the linux kernel source fully or partly and sell it as a book. See LFS (Linux from Scratch)
Re: (Score:2)
It was his analogy. Tim Berners-Lee said that him selling a copy of this source code was the same as him selling copies of his book.
It's odd that you acknowledge it's an analogy, then go on to take that analogy at its literal meaning.
It would seem like Tim either believes that he owns the copyright of this source code, is really bad at explaining himself, or is trying to defraud people.
Or, for a 4th option, your understanding of how analogies work is faulty. However, I'll concede it may also be option 2, as you listed them.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, NFT's are
Re: (Score:1)
Tim wrote the original code while at CERN. Because it was for work, CERN owned the copyright. But CERN later placed the code into the public domain, so nobody owns the copyright to the original code now.
Yes, you just have to find a buyer. NFT doesn't have anything to do with copyright. The meaning of an NFT is entirely in the eye of the beholder.
And if you are interested in the real thing (in contrast to an NFT representing it), open source licenses like MI
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He's not even selling a copy of the code because that is not what an NFT is.
NFTs don't put the actual object on the blockchain. The object is just at a URL.
The NFT is just a token that says you own a unique link to that URL.
It may sound dumb but that is exactly what an NFT is.
Re:The summery contradicts itself (Score:5, Informative)
People don't understand what NFTs are. *Both* statements are wrong. He's selling NFTs, not source code or even images of source code.
I can sell an NFT for the Linux kernel source code if I want to because an NFT is just the digital equivalent of a certificate with a URL printed on it.
Re: (Score:3)
Ding ding ding. People don't understand NFTs. The degree to which an NFT determines exclusive rights is only based in how the usage of an NFT relates to organizations that manage more than digital ownership. This means an NFT could in theory represent something like a deed or a lease but only when a governing body embraces it as such. Since no governing body of copywrite is involved here, this is totally artwork which as you say is totally a matter of that URL attached.
The mechanism has a lot of potential b
Re: (Score:2)
Well that also contradicts the summery.
> you won't have to start paying money to follow links
If he is not selling the source code, then he is selling a URL; Something he just claimed is free and open.
Re: (Score:3)
Again, no.
He's selling a digital certificate that happens to contain a URL. Anybody can follow that URL and download whatever they find there (if they find anything: presumably all these NFT URLs are going to go offline sometime in the future when the host gets tired of hosting them for free).
The NFT is just a sign with a URL printed on it and Tim Berners-Lee's signature.
Re: (Score:1)
Good for Him (Score:2)
NFTs give a way for people who do something great to get rewarded. TBL deserves to make some money. Good for him. I hope this goes for a lot. I also hope his NFT gives him a cut of any future sales.
Re: Welcome to c culture (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Can't disagree with TBL here (Score:2)
That's not the issue (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem is that NFTs are just the latest branch of "art" that is being used to launder money. Just as with physical paintings or sculptures, the "market price" is based more on how much money someone wants to move from illicit to licit state. It's tough to fault Tim B-L for cashing in, but it's still supporting criminals.
Re: (Score:1)
Such as: criminal A conspires with criminal B to buy a $5 paperback on eBay for $500, followed by some scheme where the 'clean' proceeds are split between A and B (or A is getting some other benefit, such as a reciprocal deal within a network of launderers).
But unless you're claiming that Tim is knowingly and deliberately running a criminal enterprise (or something equally bizarre like this being a way
The web is free and open (Score:2)
and I can make money, what could go wrong?
Oh Noes ! (Score:2)
TEH WEB DAILY USE TAX is coming !
Oh Noes !
Is /. accessible over gopher:// [gopher] ?
Worth Every Bit (Score:2)
Code is a form of art (Score:2)