Recovered from the Wayback Machine.
Phil has continued the discussion related to the Doppleganger post, providing some eye opening insight:
My immediate reaction to Shelley’s GreatestJournal post was to leap to the defence of walled gardens – “Walled gardens are full of people!”. It’s a nice line, but on reflection I don’t think it’s quite right. What we’re hearing is a sublime (although far from unprecedented) example of chutzpah – a critique of barriers by advocates of enclosure. The blogosphere isn’t a walled garden, it’s a wide-open common where nobody has ownership rights. An enclave which can’t be strip-mined isn’t walled in; all that’s happened is that the predators – who would put their own fences around it if they could – have been walled out. Long may they remain so.
I prefer not to have my writing republished in its entirety elsewhere, and those who wish to do so criticize me for my actions, and for acting counter to the common good. But where is it written that their wish to republish the writing is an act made on behalf of the common good?
Looking at many of these types of discussions about ‘open’ data from this viewpoint adds a rather interesting perspective.
