Friday, January 31, 2014

Thoughts on Open Innovation: a book edited by Shane Coughlan

The book “Thoughts on Open Innovation” was launched at the Digital Agenda Summit in Dublin in June 2013. The book aims to address the challenges surrounding Open Innovation; its precise scope, its impact on daily life and the policy measures needed to sustain it continue to be heavily discussed and debated. Its predecessor was “The First Openforum Academy Conference Proceedings” from September 2012 which also was a collection of essays mainly considering Open Innovation in the context of economics, society and global affairs, and this new book, on the other hand, covers openness more as it relates to software, data and access.

The introduction to the book is by Karel De Vriendt, a retired IT expert who worked for the European Commission for twenty years being actively involved in initiatives such as the Open Source Observatory and Repository (OSOR). He attempts to explain the basic concept of Open Innovation by first referring to the definition introduced by Professor Henry Chesbrough of University of California Berkeley but, however, today, the book claims, Open Innovation has a broader meaning and is part of the other “open” concepts, including Open Knowledge, Open Data and Open Source Software. The basic idea, the introduction continues, is that “by collaborating with others, by re-using (and by being allowed to re-use) the results of the efforts of others and by allowing others to use and improve the results of our efforts, we all get better.”

The book is introduced as attempting to address the following questions: “[H]ow can we balance openness with the need of companies to stay competitive and to make a profit ... and to provide enough incentives to bright spirits to continue to innovate? Is openness an absolute good: should all knowledge, all data, all software, all standards etc. be open or are there situations where openness should be avoided...? How do we organise the involvement of as many individuals or organisations as possible in efforts to solve societal issues using Open Innovation? How do we organise Open Innovation projects and ensure that such projects are, and remain, 'Open'?”

The author also explains the structure of the book, which is the following: It consists of an introduction and nine essays. The first two essays give the big picture. The two following essays describe examples on how Open Innovation works in practice. Then the next three essays deal with some of the most widely debated topics in the world of Openness: Openness and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) standardisation, Open Source Software in public procurement, and Open Source Software in the commercial world. The book then concludes with two more essays which are of a more philosophical and visionary nature. The review of the essays below is organised based on these groupings. [continue...]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Licence and Attribution
This paper was published in the International Free and Open Source Software Law Review, Volume 5, Issue 2 (December 2013). It originally appeared online at
This article should be cited as follows:
Kärkkäinen, Kari (2013) 'Book Review: Thoughts on Open Innovation', International Free and Open Source Software Law Review, 5(2), pp 137 – 144
DOI: 10.5033/ifosslr.v5i2.92
Copyright © 2013 Kari Kärkkäinen.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons UK (England and Wales) 2.0 licence, no derivative works, attribution, CC-BY-ND available at

As a special exception, the author expressly permits faithful translations of the entire document into any language, provided that the resulting translation (which may include an attribution to the translator) is shared alike. This paragraph is part of the paper, and must be included when copying or translating the paper.

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Honda releases 3D models under CC

This morning, auto manufacturer Honda released 3D data for the exterior designs of several of its concept models under a CC Attribution-NonCommercial (BY-NC) license. From the press release:
With the data downloaded from the website “Honda 3D Design Archives,” Honda’s concept models can easily be replicated by a household 3D printer, which is becoming more popular in recent years. By offering data of its concept models, which embody the spirit of “Honda Design,” Honda offers opportunity to enjoy a simulated experience of Honda’s “art of manufacturing.”
You can view the designs on the new Honda 3D site or download them in STL. Since the designs are licensed under BY-NC, anyone can share, modify, and remix them noncommercially. Now that these designs are in the wild, it will be cool to see who mods them in unexpected and creative ways.

Post by Elliot Harmon, originally published on January 28th, 2014; under a CC by license. See original post.

Lessig lecturing about Law and Justice in a Digital Age

Aaron's Laws - Law and Justice in a Digital Age
A lecture by Lawrence Lessig at Harvard Law School (January 2013); released under a Creative Commons Attribution license.

Lawrence Lessig marked his appointment as Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School with a lecture titled "Aaron's Laws: Law and Justice in a Digital Age." The lecture honored the memory and work of Aaron Swartz, the programmer and activist who took his own life on Jan. 11, 2013 at the age of 26.

0:00:00 Introduction
0:08:50 Remarks
1:26:05 Q&A
1:42:00 Closing

Saturday, January 25, 2014

The Open Source Definition


Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:


1. Free Redistribution

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.


2. Source Code

The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.


3. Derived Works

The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.


4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code

The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.


5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.


6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.


7. Distribution of License

The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.


8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product

The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution.


9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software

The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.


10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral

No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.


original source:; license: CC by

ACTA Threatens Your Freedom

ACTA was written secretly by governments together with business; in effect, a conspiracy to restrict the people for business' sake. There were leaks, and public condemnation removed some proposed nasty provisions, but plenty more remain.
The proponents of ACTA use the term "intellectual property", which is meant to discourage clear thinking. That term refers to ten or more unrelated laws, which at the practical level have nothing in common. The term focuses on an irrelevant abstract similarity, and distracts attention from the real issues raised by one law or another.
A few of those laws have one point in common: megacorps want to change them to gain more power over future competition or the public, and ACTA is their latest try. ACTA has different rules for each law. The term "intellectual property" misrepresents the facts about ACTA.
ACTA's main effect in Europe would be on copyright law. ACTA gives copyright priority over human rights. It gives priority to copyright holders over the users of copyrighted works.
When the copyright lobby demands increased power to stop sharing, it bases the argument on exaggerated, unlikely claims of what they "lose" when people share. ACTA legitimizes these absurd claims, even in court, so you could be forced to pay hundreds of thousands of euros of imaginary "damages" for a little bit of file-sharing.
ACTA says governments can ask ISPs for "cooperation", which can include surveillance, filtering, deletion of pages, even punishment of users without a fair trial. Meanwhile, ISPs, hosting sites and search engines could be prosecuted if they do not censor.
Many aspects of ACTA are vague. For instance, it says governments must attack “means of widespread distribution for infringing purposes”. Will this ban blogging platforms? Bittorrent? File locker sites? Who knows?
Some aspects of ACTA are dishonest -- blackwhiting, to use Orwell's term (see 1984). For instance, it imposes criminal punishment on noncommercial copying by tying it to the word "commercial". Specifically, it says copying is "commercial scale" if it provides "direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage". What counts as "indirect economic advantage"? Arguably the benefit of not buying a second copy of something is enough to make noncommercial copying a crime.
Given ill will shown when governments negotiated ACTA, we must judge it by the worst possible interpretation. ACTA can be interpreted to make it a crime to share copies with your friends. Will the copyright lobby go to court and argue for this interpretation? Surely. Will it win? Don't give it the chance!
Some politicians say that ACTA is not something to fear, but they can't know what ACTA will morph into. One of the disasters of ACTA is that it can be altered later by agreement among the countries involved. In effect, these governments will together have the power to bypass their parliaments. To ratify ACTA is to give carte blanche to a rigged process.
The Internet needs some rules, but who should decide them? Traffic rules for cars should be decided democratically by the people, not written secretly by railroads. The Internet rules should be decided democratically by the people, with human rights as the first priority, and the people must reserve the right to relax rules if they prove too strict. That means, the rules must not come from ACTA! What should these rules be?
Copyright companies have too much power already; they have made copyright too strict. They are not satisfied and seek more power through ACTA, but that would be a change in the wrong direction. Their laws cause problems for us, and it is our turn now to be considered. Our governments must reduce copyright power: shorten copyright to 10 years, legalize noncommercial redistribution of exact copies (sharing), ban Digital Restrictions Management (the malicious features that turn digital devices into handcuffs), and ban EULAs on published digital works. Then we could consider small concessions to the copyright companies.

Copyright 2012 Richard Stallman -- Released under the CC-BY-ND 3.0 license;
first published in Poland, by Tygodnik Powszechny (taken from

Thursday, January 23, 2014

Interoperability And Open Standards: The Key To True Openness And Innovation

Interoperability And Open Standards: The Key To True Openness And Innovation is a peer-reviewed article by Simone Aliprandi published on International FOSS Law Review (Vol 3, No 1, 2011). It represents one of the most complete and clear introduction to the complex phenomenon of standards setting and to the open side of it.

Most people agree that providing a shared set of standards produces a broad advantage for all actors involved in the ICT market. First of all, it’s an advantage for active operators in that market (companies, developers, designers), but also for users of computer technologies, simple observers and scholars as well.
However, if on one hand the same concept of standard appears to be quite intuitive and broadly known, on the other hand not so many people are aware of the complex dynamics behind the standard definition process, particularly in relation to today’s globalized and technology-savvy world. Even fewer people seem aware that, when a standard definition process is not being carried with true transparency and care, this procedure could even become counterproductive for the innovation itself. Therefore, in recent years, a new approach for the standard definition process has been emerging, with the aim of producing standards based on the broadest level of openness and interoperability: the so-called open standards.
This essay will start by addressing the broad concept of standards, with specific reference to the world of technology; later, it will focus on the drafting process of standards, highlighting major problems regarding its legal, economic and technology aspects. The final section will concentrate on the very concept of an open standard.

Table of content
1. The crucial role of interoperability
2. The “standard” concept
3. Differences between de jure and de facto standards
4. The standardization process
   4.1. Major principles of the standard-setting activity
   4.2. The stages of a standard-setting process 
   4.3. Standard publication and usage
5. The ICT sector: between de facto standards and network externalities
6. Major issues facing the standardization process
   6.1. Standard and technology innovation
   6.2. Regulatory activities and intellectual property management 
   6.3. Standardization and competition issues
7. Open standards
   7.1. The Open Standard definition by Bruce Perens
   7.2. The Open Standard definition by the ITU-T
   7.3. The Open Standard definition by the IDABC
8. Classification criteria of Open Standards
9. The web as an interoperable technology and the role of the W3C 
10. The OASIS approach to the standardization activity

Applying the open source paradigm to seeds

Dr. Vandana Shiva explains the importance of keeping seeds away from a proprietary intellectual property model.

Legal background
While saving seed and even exchanging seed with other farmers for biodiversity purposes has been a traditional practice, these practices have become illegal for the plant varieties that are patented or otherwise owned by some entity (often a corporation). Under Article 28 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the TRIPS Agreement), "planting, harvesting, saving, re-planting, and exchanging seeds of patented plants, or of plants containing patented cells and genes, constitutes use" and is prohibited by the intellectual property laws of signatory states.
Significantly, farmers in developing countries are particularly affected by prohibitions on seed saving. There are some protections for re-use, called "farmer's privilege", in the 1991 International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV Convention), but seed exchange remains prohibited.
In the United States, by contrast, the farmer's privilege is considered protected by the Plant Variety Protection Act and by case law stemming from Asgrow Seed v. Winterboer. American farmers may sell seed up to the amount saved for replanting their own acreage.
Diamond v. Chakrabarty established that companies may obtain patents for life-forms. J.E.M. Ag Supply v. Pioneer established that seed saving is a patent violation.[1]

See also:
- No patents on seeds:
- Seed freedom:
- Semi liberi come software libero (Italian article):

[1] the "Legal background" paragraph is taken from:

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Wired removed the CC license from the Italian website. Why?

Wired is one of my favourite magazines. I've been a subscriber since it arrived in Italy (actually very late, only in 2009).
The leadership of the Italian magazine since the beginning favored an innovative approach to the copyright issues. In 2010 Riccardo Luna (managing director for the first two years) also published a press release expressly in favor of this choice.
The outcome was that the print edition still was published under an "all rights reserved" copyright, but the website (with the entire blog section) went under a Creative Commons license ("some rights reserved").
In recent weeks, a substantial restyling of the website was completed and suddenly the link to the Creative Commons license has disappeared.
By clicking on the "terms of use" page, we discover that it is only a marginal reference to the CC, referred only to the contents uploaded by users (basically only the comments to the articles). Users who upload content, therefore, must agree to release them with a BY-ND 2.5 license (not clear why a 2.5 version and not a 4.0).
That is not all. In fact, within the terms of use appears a statement that seems to be in conflict with the guidelines on the use of CC licenses.
Come on, Wired! Why are you doing so? You have always been a good example (I remember your wonderful open content music CD). But now...

Read more on the Italian (and extended) version of the post

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

The creation of the first-ever Open Contracting Data Standard

The creation of the first-ever “Open Contracting Data Standard” has been announced today. The development of a common standard for the disclosure of contracting data is a key pillar of the work of the Open Contracting Partnership (OCP)to promote disclosure and participation in public contracting - empowering citizens around the world to hold their governments to account for the estimated US $9.5 trillion they spend each year through contracts.
The development of the Open Contracting Data Standard will come as a result of the collaboration of the Open Contracting Partnership and the World Wide Web Foundation (Web Foundation), supported by a grant from Omidyar Network. The Web Foundation will spearhead the technical work and will deliver the Open Contracting Data Standard v1.0 by the end of 2014. The Open Contracting Data Standard will be essential to advancing the OCP’s objective of achieving a new norm in which all public contracting is open.


This standard will be developed via an extensive process of research, consultation, development, testing, feedback and refinement - including with non-government actors and across multiple sectors and countries. The project will build upon work already undertaken by the OCP and others in this area, and will focus on both the supply of, and demand for, open contracting data. Clear use cases will be included, and - recognising diversity across sectors - adaptations of the master standard tailored to sector-specific needs will also be delivered.
The collaborative development and roll-out of an Open Contracting Data Standard that cuts across silos and allows for comparisons and analysis across countries, industry sectors and regions is essential. Contracting is at the core of how governments generate revenues and spend public resources, yet contracting information is often unavailable for public scrutiny, and is rarely in an ‘Open Data’ format. Ultimately, the development of this standard will help to ensure that investment deals are aligned with the public interest, that public resources are managed effectively and that citizens receive the services and goods they deserve, so that development benefits all.
Anne Jellema, Chief Executive Officer of the World Wide Web Foundation, said: “Open Contracting has the potential to enhance transparency and improve the lives of billions around the world. Yet, in order to realise its benefits, we must have a common standard to plan, manage and measure initiatives. We’re delighted to be working alongside the Open Contracting Partnership on this important initiative and grateful to Omidyar Network for their support.” 
Robert Hunja, manager of the World Bank Institute’s Open Government Practice, speaking on behalf of the Open Contracting Partnership, added: “The Open Contracting Data Standard is a crucial step to ensuring that public contracting is truly public and that citizens can be active participants in the contracting processes that impact their lives and the lives of those in their communities. The Open Contracting Partnership is delighted to continue its history of collaboration, by working with the Web Foundation and Omidyar Network to advance the efforts to establish a new norm in which all contracting is open.”
"The contribution of this effort to the Open Government movement will be significant,” said Omidyar Network Policy Director Martin Tisné. “Omidyar Network is proud to support the Open Contracting Partnership and its role in enhancing transparency and accountability around the globe."

Felipe Estefan, Open Contracting Partnership - partnership@open-contracting.comGabe Trodd/Dillon Mann, World Wide Web Foundation - press@webfoundation.orgGreg Pershall, Omidyar Network -

1) Established by Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the World Wide Web Foundation ( seeks to establish the open Web as a global public good and a basic right, creating a world where everyone, everywhere can use the Web to communicate, collaborate and innovate freely. This is the latest in a series of initiatives in the Open Data arena for the World Wide Web Foundation. In October, at the Open Government Partnership, the World Wide Web Foundation launched the Open Data Barometer alongside the Open Data Institute. This 77-country study considers the interlinked areas of Open Data policy, implementation and impact to produce a country ranking. The World Wide Web Foundation is also currently conducting the world’s first large-scale study into Open Data in Developing Countries. The Web Foundation has undertaken country readiness studies in Chile, Ghana and Indonesia, and is currently conducting a feasibility study into the establishment of an Open Data Lab in Indonesia.

2) This project is being supported by a grant from Omidyar Network ( Omidyar Network is a philanthropic investment firm dedicated to harnessing the power of markets to create opportunity for people to improve their lives. Established in 2004 by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar and his wife Pam, the organization invests in and helps scale innovative organizations to catalyze economic and social change. Omidyar Network has committed more than $669 million to for-profit companies and non-profit organizations that foster economic advancement and encourage individual participation across multiple initiatives, including entrepreneurship, financial inclusion, property rights, government transparency, consumer Internet and mobile.

3) The Open Contracting Partnership (, founded in 2012, is a global col­laborative effort seeking to enhance and promote disclosure and participation in public contracting. The Open Contracting Partnership seeks to convene leaders and innovators to collaborate around the realization of its vision of making openness in contract processes the new norm. The steering group currently leading the Open Contracting Partnership is composed of the Construction Sector Transparency Initiative (CoST), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) on behalf of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), Integrity Action, the government of Colombia, the Philippines Government Procurement Policy Board – Technical Support Office (GPPB-TSO), Oxfam America, Transparency International and the World Bank Institute, where the Partnership’s secretariat is currently hosted. 


Originally posted here by Felipe Estefan on 21 January 2014, under a CC by license.

The quest for strategies to monetize free software

I’ve discussed recently with a friend of mine photographer, illustrator and animator about the status of GIMP, Inkscape and Blender. The good news is that professionals increasingly know about these free software tools, which is already a great step forward compared to the past years. Pierpaolo acknowledged how powerful all of them are but also noticed how different they are all from other similar software in the same field. It occurred to me that while other desktop tools like Open/LibreOffice have ways to raise money to finance the development of new features, improve the user experience and interface, etc Gimp and Inkscape are primarily developed by volunteers (Blender’s development is financed by the non profit Blender Foundation through grants and donations). This whole led me to think again about how hard it is for free software projects to invest time and energy in refactoring the GUI when there are so many cooler things to add to the core functions of the software (think of the eternal complaint about quadricromy support in GIMP). Would these be interested in improving their UI if they had more money available or if they had actual ‘customers’ instead of users?
When I was thinking about all this I learned that Sourceforge released a new program to fund development of free/open source software with a revenue sharing program called DevShare. Reading the press release, DevShare offers free software developers the option to bundle extra software with their downloads and share revenues with SourceForge. When a user downloads FileZilla for example, she’s offered the option to install also another piece of software with FileZilla. SourceForge is not the first site to offer bundled downloads but it does it with a better approach, avoiding traps. They looked at best practice policies to avoid confusing end-users with misleading installation flows and promises to provide clear documentation and procedures to uninstall undesired applications.
The revenue sharing with the developers is what is most interesting to me: developers who voluntarily decided to join similar programs are often required to spend time integrating their applications with third party installers, and have limited control over what and how that’s offered to their end-users. SourceForge’s program on the other hand seems to be very open and transparent towards the developers. I’ll be following the evolution of the program, hoping that free lance open source developers find motivation.

FileZilla bundle HotspotShieldFileZilla installer
FileZilla installer (left) and
FileZilla bundle HotspotShield (right)


An article by Stefano Maffulli; originally published on 16 July 2013 under a CC by license; taken from here.

Monday, January 20, 2014

The Open Defintion


The term knowledge is taken to include:
  1. Content such as music, films, books
  2. Data be it scientific, historical, geographic or otherwise
  3. Government and other administrative information
Software is excluded despite its obvious centrality because it is already adequately addressed by previous work.
The term work will be used to denote the item or piece of knowledge which is being transferred.
The term package may also be used to denote a collection of works. Of course such a package may be considered a work in itself.
The term license refers to the legal license under which the work is made available. Where no license has been made this should be interpreted as referring to the resulting default legal conditions under which the work is available (for example copyright).


The Definition

A work is open if its manner of distribution satisfies the following conditions:


1. Access

The work shall be available as a whole and at no more than a reasonable reproduction cost, preferably downloading via the Internet without charge. The work must also be available in a convenient and modifiable form.
Comment: This can be summarized as ‘social’ openness – not only are you allowed to get the work but you can get it. ‘As a whole’ prevents the limitation of access by indirect means, for example by only allowing access to a few items of a database at a time (material should be available in bulk as necessary). Convenient and modifiable means that material should be machine readable (rather than, for example, just human readable).


2. Redistribution

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the work either on its own or as part of a package made from works from many different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale or distribution.


3. Reuse

The license must allow for modifications and derivative works and must allow them to be distributed under the terms of the original work.
Comment: Note that this clause does not prevent the use of ‘viral’ or share-alike licenses that require redistribution of modifications under the same terms as the original.


4. Absence of Technological Restriction

The work must be provided in such a form that there are no technological obstacles to the performance of the above activities. This can be achieved by the provision of the work in an open data format, i.e. one whose specification is publicly and freely available and which places no restrictions monetary or otherwise upon its use.


5. Attribution

The license may require as a condition for redistribution and re-use the attribution of the contributors and creators to the work. If this condition is imposed it must not be onerous. For example if attribution is required a list of those requiring attribution should accompany the work.


6. Integrity

The license may require as a condition for the work being distributed in modified form that the resulting work carry a different name or version number from the original work.


7. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
Comment: In order to get the maximum benefit from the process, the maximum diversity of persons and groups should be equally eligible to contribute to open knowledge. Therefore we forbid any open-knowledge license from locking anybody out of the process.
Comment: this is taken directly from item 5 of the OSD.


8. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the work in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the work from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
Comment: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license traps that prevent open material from being used commercially. We want commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it.
Comment: this is taken directly from item 6 of the OSD.


9. Distribution of License

The rights attached to the work must apply to all to whom it is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.
Comment: This clause is intended to forbid closing up knowledge by indirect means such as requiring a non-disclosure agreement.
Comment: this is taken directly from item 7 of the OSD.


10. License Must Not Be Specific to a Package

The rights attached to the work must not depend on the work being part of a particular package. If the work is extracted from that package and used or distributed within the terms of the work’s license, all parties to whom the work is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original package.
Comment: this is taken directly from item 8 of the OSD.


11. License Must Not Restrict the Distribution of Other Works

The license must not place restrictions on other works that are distributed along with the licensed work. For example, the license must not insist that all other works distributed on the same medium are open.
Comment: Distributors of open knowledge have the right to make their own choices. Note that ‘share-alike’ licenses are conformant since those provisions only apply if the whole forms a single work.
Comment: this is taken directly from item 9 of the OSD.


original source:

If you want to fix EU copyright, this is the right time

If you want to fix the EU copyright system, this is the right time. In fact, we have just a few days to complete the consultation about the copyright reform that was launched and promoted by the EU Commission and its "iron lady" Neelie Kroes. The definitive deadline is February 5. [EXTENDED TILL MARCH 5]
N. Kroes in an official press release pointed out the importance of this initiative:

An effective, modern copyright system could play a significant role ensuring a vibrant single market for online content in Europe: not to mention supporting education, science and our economy. It also needs to stimulate innovation, and promote the production of new creative content.
I know there are many different views out there about copyright modernisation, and I hope we will hear from many different voices in our consultation.
The entire questionnaire includes 80 issues, but you do not have to fill out everything and can skip questions if you want to.
Here you can also find an online guide that make it much easier and faster.
If you are a EU citizen, don't miss this opportunity.

You may also be interested in:

UPDATING (20 Jan 2014, h. 16:44): This post has been retweet just by Neelie Kroes. I feel honoured.

Sunday, January 19, 2014

Announcing Wikimedia’s New Community-Centered Trademark Policy

The Wikimedia sites are built by a community of volunteers. Today, we finalized a new trademark policy that is specifically tailored to the innovative events and outreach that Wikimedia volunteers conduct to build sites like Wikipedia and its sister projects. The policy was developed through a seven month long consultation with our community of users. It received almost 550 comments and over 340 changes to the policy (you can actually see all changes to the draft in the wiki revision history).
Together, we created a policy that will empower the collaborative community that makes the Wikimedia sites thrive. Focusing on the community, the new policy is unconventional in how it provides expansive use of the Wikimedia marks while maintaining legal protection. It was designed to be clear and easy to understand, with the help of an information design workshop at Stanford Institute of Design. The result of our work is released under a Creative Commons license, so feel free to build on it when designing a policy for your own trademarks. (Just make sure to change the trademarks in the policy!)
The new policy makes it easier for community members to use the marks in the following ways:
    • New uses of marks without requesting a license: The new policy contains an intuitive summary listing the many ways community members may use Wikimedia marks without a separate license. It allows community members to use the marks on all Wikimedia sites and even outside the sites to facilitate common activities that advance our mission.
    • Clearer explanation of fair use: Our consultations revealed confusion over how to use Wikimedia marks under fair use and whether US fair use laws would apply in countries that do not recognize the same fair use rights. The policy now clearly describes many examples of how Wikimedia marks may be used in, for example, news reporting without additional permission, regardless of where the user resides.
    • Streamlined licensing procedures: We are introducing a “Quick license,” which grants community members the ability to quickly start using Wikimedia marks for a photo contest or GLAM event after emailing it to us. No need to wait for approval! Quick licenses are easy to read. They include only the most essential provisions, with a brief explanatory key of each provision.
  • Straightforward language: Unlike the policies of many other companies, our new policy uses simple words, short sentences, and straightforward sentence structure to make it easier to follow. We recognize that some readers of the policy may not be native-English speakers, so we avoided using legalese to ensure easy translation into multiple languages. To verify the simplicity of the language, we applied various readability indices and rewrote text flagged as difficult until it had a better readability score.
  • User-friendly layout: After considering cutting-edge information design principles, we used icons, color coding, typography, and white space to make the policy both visually appealing and easily accessible. Many community members approved of the design, and felt that, “it’s very approachable and easy to read.” We also included a color-coded summary to provide a brief overview of how to appropriately use the Wikimedia marks.
  • Many helpful Frequently Asked Questions: The new FAQ section includes answers to 86 questions, compared to a mere 24 in the 2009 policy. The FAQs are based on issues that commonly arise in our trademark licensing process and questions raised during the policy discussions. In addition, the FAQs are grouped in categories that mirror the trademark policy provisions and are interlinked with relevant provisions to allow easy navigation between the two documents.
The new policy will now be presented for review to the Wikimedia Board of Trustees. If approved, it will replace the existing policy from 2009. The old policy became outdated with the rapid expansion of the Wikimedia projects that introduced new and unanticipated uses for the Wikimedia marks. A table at the end of this blog post shows how the new policy compares to the 2009 policy.
The development of this innovative policy could not have been possible without the hard work and dedication of the Wikimedia community. With their collaborative input, we were able to expand and clarify provisions of the policy to better serve the needs of community members in their work to promote and improve Wikimedia projects. The permissive use of marks is unmatched by the policies of other websites. We sincerely thank community members who participated in the policy discussion for once again making Wikimedia innovators of the online world.

Yana Welinder, Legal Counsel *
Geoff Brigham, General Counsel

* Many thanks to Stephen LaPorte and Manprit Brar for all their work with this blog post and the trademark policy generally. We would also like to thank everyone at WMF who worked hard to make the new policy possible.


Original source: under a CC BY 3.0 license.
"Trademark-table-01-2014" by Wikimedia Foundation - Yana Welinder, under CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported, from Wikimedia Commons

What is Copyleft?

Copyleft is a general method for making a program (or other work) free, and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well.
The simplest way to make a program free software is to put it in the public domain, uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the program and their improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software. They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a proprietary product. People who receive the program in that modified form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the middleman has stripped it away.
In the GNU project, our aim is to give all users the freedom to redistribute and change GNU software. If middlemen could strip off the freedom, we might have many users, but those users would not have freedom. So instead of putting GNU software in the public domain, we “copyleft” it. Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to further copy and change it. Copyleft guarantees that every user has freedom.
Copyleft also provides an incentive for other programmers to add to free software. Important free programs such as the GNU C++ compiler exist only because of this.
Copyleft also helps programmers who want to contribute improvements to free software get permission to do so. These programmers often work for companies or universities that would do almost anything to get more money. A programmer may want to contribute her changes to the community, but her employer may want to turn the changes into a proprietary software product.
When we explain to the employer that it is illegal to distribute the improved version except as free software, the employer usually decides to release it as free software rather than throw it away.
To copyleft a program, we first state that it is copyrighted; then we add distribution terms, which are a legal instrument that gives everyone the rights to use, modify, and redistribute the program's code, or any program derived from it, but only if the distribution terms are unchanged. Thus, the code and the freedoms become legally inseparable.
Proprietary software developers use copyright to take away the users' freedom; we use copyright to guarantee their freedom. That's why we reverse the name, changing “copyright” into “copyleft.”
Copyleft is a way of using of the copyright on the program. It doesn't mean abandoning the copyright; in fact, doing so would make copyleft impossible. The “left” in “copyleft” is not a reference to the verb “to leave”—only to the direction which is the inverse of “right”.
Copyleft is a general concept, and you can't use a general concept directly; you can only use a specific implementation of the concept. In the GNU Project, the specific distribution terms that we use for most software are contained in the GNU General Public License (available in HTML, text, and Texinfo format). The GNU General Public License is often called the GNU GPL for short. There is also a Frequently Asked Questions page about the GNU GPL. You can also read about why the FSF gets copyright assignments from contributors.
An alternate form of copyleft, the GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL) (available in HTML, text, and Texinfo format), is designed for programs that are likely to be used on servers. It ensures that modified versions used to implement services available to the public are released as source code to the public.
A compromise form of copyleft, the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) (available in HTML, text, and Texinfo format), applies to a few (but not all) GNU libraries. To learn more about properly using the LGPL, please read the article Why you shouldn't use the Lesser GPL for your next library.
The GNU Free Documentation License (FDL) (available in HTML, text and Texinfo) is a form of copyleft intended for use on a manual, textbook or other document to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifications, either commercially or noncommercially.
The appropriate license is included in many manuals and in each GNU source code distribution.
All these licenses are designed so that you can easily apply them to your own works, assuming you are the copyright holder. You don't have to modify the license to do this, just include a copy of the license in the work, and add notices in the source files that refer properly to the license.
Using the same distribution terms for many different programs makes it easy to copy code between various different programs. When they all have the same distribution terms, there is no problem. The Lesser GPL, version 2, includes a provision that lets you alter the distribution terms to the ordinary GPL, so that you can copy code into another program covered by the GPL. Version 3 of the Lesser GPL is built as an exception added to GPL version 3, making the compatibility automatic.
If you would like to copyleft your program with the GNU GPL or the GNU LGPL, please see the license instructions page for advice. Please note that you must use the entire text of the license you choose. Each is an integral whole, and partial copies are not permitted.
If you would like to copyleft your manual with the GNU FDL, please see the instructions at the end of the FDL text, and the GFDL instructions page. Again, partial copies are not permitted.
It is a legal mistake to use a backwards C in a circle instead of a copyright symbol. Copyleft is based legally on copyright, so the work should have a copyright notice. A copyright notice requires either the copyright symbol (a C in a circle) or the word “Copyright”.
A backwards C in a circle has no special legal significance, so it doesn't make a copyright notice. It may be amusing in book covers, posters, and such, but be careful how you represent it in a web page!

Original source:
Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.

Saturday, January 18, 2014

Definition of Free Cultural Works

Stable version
This is the stable version 1.1 of the definition (take from The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at Definition/Unstable. See authoring process for more information, and see translations if you want to contribute a version in another language.


This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose. It also describes certain permissible restrictions that respect or protect these essential freedoms. The definition distinguishes between free works, and free licenses which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is not a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free."


Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of humanity to access, create, modify, publish and distribute various kinds of works - artworks, scientific and educational materials, software, articles - in short: anything that can be represented in digital form. Many communities have formed to exercise those new possibilities and create a wealth of collectively re-usable works.
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their amateur or professional status, have a genuine interest in favoring an ecosystem where works can be spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. The easier it is to re-use and derive works, the richer our cultures become.
To ensure the graceful functioning of this ecosystem, works of authorship should be free, and by freedom we mean:
  • the freedom to use the work and enjoy the benefits of using it
  • the freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it
  • the freedom to make and redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression
  • the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works
If authors do not take action, their works are covered by existing copyright laws, which severely limit what others can and cannot do. Authors can make their works free by choosing among a number of legal documents known as licenses. For an author, choosing to put their work under a free license does not mean that they lose all their rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above.
It is important that any work that claims to be free provides, practically and without any risk, the aforementioned freedoms. This is why we hereafter give a precise definition of freedom for licenses and for works of authorship.

Identifying Free Cultural Works

This is the Definition of Free Cultural Works, and when describing your work, we encourage you to make reference to this definition, as in, "This is a freely licensed work, as explained in the Definition of Free Cultural Works." If you do not like the term "Free Cultural Work," you can use the generic term "Free Content," or refer instead to one of the existing movements that express similar freedoms in more specific contexts. We also encourage you to use the Free Cultural Works logos and buttons, which are in the public domain.
Please be advised that such identification does not actually confer the rights described in this definition; for your work to be truly free, it must use one of the Free Culture Licenses or be in the public domain.
We discourage you to use other terms to identify Free Cultural Works which do not convey a clear definition of freedom, such as "Open Content" and "Open Access." These terms are often used to refer to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws, or even for works that are just "available on the Web".

Defining Free Culture Licenses

Licenses are legal instruments through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Culture Licenses do not take any rights away -- they are always optional to accept, and if accepted, they grant freedoms which copyright law alone does not provide. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing exemptions in copyright laws.

Essential freedoms

In order to be recognized as "free" under this definition, a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation:
  • The freedom to use and perform the work: The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. For kinds of works where it is relevant, this freedom should include all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work. There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations.
  • The freedom to study the work and apply the information: The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".
  • The freedom to redistribute copies: Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, as part of a larger work, a collection, or independently. There must be no limit on the amount of information that can be copied. There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied.
  • The freedom to distribute derivative works: In order to give everyone the ability to improve upon a work, the license must not limit the freedom to distribute a modified version (or, for physical works, a work somehow derived from the original), regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications. However, some restrictions may be applied to protect these essential freedoms or the attribution of authors (see below).

Permissible restrictions

Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms. In particular, requirements for attribution, for symmetric collaboration (i.e., "copyleft"), and for the protection of essential freedom are considered permissible restrictions.

Defining Free Cultural Works

In order to be considered free, a work must be covered by a Free Culture License, or its legal status must provide the same essential freedoms enumerated above. It is not, however, a sufficient condition. Indeed, a specific work may be non-free in other ways that restrict the essential freedoms. These are the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free:
  • Availability of source data: Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions. This can be the score of a musical composition, the models used in a 3D scene, the data of a scientific publication, the source code of a computer application, or any other such information.
  • Use of a free format: For digital files, the format in which the work is made available should not be protected by patents, unless a world-wide, unlimited and irrevocable royalty-free grant is given to make use of the patented technology. While non-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy must be available for the work to be considered free.
  • No technical restrictions: The work must be available in a form where no technical measures are used to limit the freedoms enumerated above.
  • No other restrictions or limitations: The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above. A work may make use of existing legal exemptions to copyright (in order to cite copyrighted works), though only the portions of it which are unambiguously free constitute a free work.
In other words, whenever the user of a work cannot legally or practically exercise his or her basic freedoms, the work cannot be considered and should not be called "free."

Further reading

  • See Licenses for discussion of individual licenses, and whether they meet this definition or not.
  • See History for acknowledgments and background on this definition.
  • See the FAQ for some questions and answers.
  • See Portal:Index for topic-specific pages about free cultural works.


New versions of this definition shall be released as soon as a consensus (achieved directly or through a vote, as per the authoring process) has developed around suggested changes. Numbering shall be 0.x for initial draft releases, 1.x, 2.x .. for major releases, x.1, x.2 .. for minor releases. A minor release is made when the text is modified in ways which do not have an impact on the scope of existing or hypothetical licenses covered by this definition.

Friday, January 17, 2014

A survey about copyright in the digital age

a brief introduction
Maybe you all need a recap of the previous episodes.
My name is Simone Aliprandi and I am an Italian independent researcher working in the intellectual property field. On February 1, 2011 I announced on the web (via several mailing-lists and blog posts) the opening of a survey about some sociological issues related to copyright in the digital age. It was a pretty long online questionnaire that I realized as a part of my PhD research. Since that initial announcement I have always “solemnly” promised that all the results would be released with an “open approach”. Now my PhD has closed, my thesis has been defended (successfully), and the data has been adequately processed and commented; so it is the moment to publish them, using open content licenses, both on the web and in open access journals.

a pilot research
Please consider that this research study (as it is) does not claim to be anything hard and incontrovertible. I did all the best I could did within a PhD program and with the limited resources concerning a PhD project, but I am aware that it has some methodological limitations. More than anything else, I wish you could appreciate this project as a “pilot research” with the main purpose to explore how copyright can be analyzed from a sociological point of view. I really hope that in the future I will have the opportunity to pose the survey again (or maybe a similar/new one), thus to collect much more information and make much more observations on it. That is why all your comments and suggestions will be very precious; you can leave them writing in the provided field under each article of the website or sending me a private message. The project is really “open”, and not only on the license side.

mission and objectives of the research
This research study aims at providing a sociological impartial approach to an analysis of intellectual property issues that takes into direct account the viewpoints of "average citizens", as opposed only to those of stakeholders and experts. As a matter of fact, very few studies address such framework so far. In fact, most of them have been produced by major entertainment or software companies in order to monitor and anticipate market trends, thus considering common individuals as consumers and potential buyers, instead of users in more general terms. This strategy gives way to a distorted perception of collected data, or at least provides a very limited perspective on their outcome and analysis.
Therefore, this study focuses on a different perspective and will address three broader research fields:
  • most common behaviors of Internet users when they get, distribute, or otherwise deal with online content under copyright;
  • the average perception of Internet users about copyright itself, that is, whether they see it as a primary or minor problem, a useful tool or a useless burden, etc.;
  • the level of awareness of Internet users about mechanisms and principles currently governing copyright law, in order to expose their actual level of knowledge on related issues.

learn more
A web-presentation of the results of the survey is available at
There you can also find several articles related to the project and the complete report with more than 500 charts extracted from the dataset.
Since all the material is provided for free under open content licenses, the intellectual acknowledgement of my authorship is the only compensation that I require. So help me in sharing correctly my work. Remember also to respect and correctly link the CC license applied to the work.
This web-presentation is an offspurt of my PhD thesis “Copyright in the digital age. An empirical research about behaviours, social perceptions and level of awareness between internet users", defended on January 2012 within the PhD program in Information Society at Bicocca University of Milan.

Suggestions for National Constitutions

Aside from the specific articles below, I think that laws should require approval by a vote of the legislature and a direct vote of the people. The use of direct democracy as a part of the process seems to have protected the people well in Switzerland and Iceland.



Human rights

Human rights apply to all physical persons under the state's power or jurisdiction. They do not apply to legal creations such as corporations, which have whatever rights are granted to them by legislation.



No treaty or international agreement may infringe the state's power to regulate the kinds of goods and services that may be offered for sale under its jurisdiction, or the allowable ways of producing them (regardless of where production is done); or to make such regulations consistent with human rights as are needed to protect society's public health, the country's financial health, its general standard of living, the environment, sustainability of economic activity, workers' rights, or human rights.
The state's exercise of the above power does not incur compensation to any party except as required by the state's own legislation.



Aside from individuals spending small amounts, private spending to influence elections may be limited by legislation and the spenders may be required by legislation to identify themselves.


Closing the Revolving Door

The participation of former state officials in commercial activities that aim at influencing government, or were regulated by them in their official capacity, may be limited by legislation for up to 10 years.



No state activity may be privatized unless the resulting private entity will sell its products or services in a competitive market that consisting mostly of private buyers.
If a former state activity was previously privatized in a way that contradicts this rule, the state can renationalize it paying, as compensation, the amount that the state received for it when it was privatized, minus the profit gained during the privatized entity's existence by that entity, and through that entity by related entities.


Right of reverse engineering

The right of an individual to study the functioning of any technological product that she owns or rents, and to publish what she learns about it, shall not be limited by any law, or by any contract agreed without individual negotiation.


Copyright and patent power can be decreased, not just increased

Copyrights and patents are temporary privileges created as artificial incentives, meant to achieve a balance between two public goals: the publication of new works and ideas, and the freedom to use existing published works and known ideas.
The state may through legislation increase or decrease the extent of existing copyright and patent privileges, or future ones. Decreasing a privilege does not entitle the holders of the privilege to compensation.


Freedom from computerized surveillance

The right of privacy from technological surveillance shall not be infringed without justification. Therefore, no party, whether public or private, may use information technology to systematically and automatically store beyond a short time any information about individuals or their activities, except when inherently necessary for dealings entered into by those individuals, for determining the taxes they owe, for enforcing regulations on their business activities, or pursuant to a court order detailing the persons to be surveilled and the information to be stored.


Freedom of recording

Persons' rights to openly carry out occasional photography and/or recording in places open at that time to the public, and to publish the results, shall not be infringed.


Agricultural Freedom

Farmers' rights to save, propagate, breed, and sell the food plants or animals that they have lawfully grown shall not be infringed.


Prohibition of general-purpose identity documents

Because general-purpose identity documents promote general surveillance, the state shall not issue credentials to individuals except for a specific limited purpose, and no such credential shall be checked for any purpose other than the one for which it was issued except pursuant to due process of law.
Published in 2013 in the public domain by Richard Stallman.

Version of 7 July 2013.
Published in 2013 in the public domain by Richard Stallman (take from

Thursday, January 16, 2014

The Italian Constitutional Court experiments an open data approach (with a CC license)

The Digital Agenda reform which ratified for the Italian legislation the idea of ​​open data is starting to bring results and this time it happened to judiciary data.
At the end of March 2013 on the official website of the Constitutional Court an "experimental" open data section (with all the data of the Court are published in XML format) has finally appeared.

The published data include:
  • The archive of all the verdicts (about 18 thousand texts from 1956 to present);
  • The archive of the maxims;
  • The identity records of the Constitutional Judges, with the dates of oath, cessation and a brief biographical note;
  • The rules pending before the Constitutional Court.
The online consultation of the Constitutional Court website was already free (free as in "free beer"); but this is obviously a step further, allowing an effective reuse of this mass of information. Effective from a technological point of view, with the availability in standard and interoperable format; and effective from the legal point of view, thanks to the application of an open content license (Creative Commons BY-SA).

Somebody will say: "hey, there is no copyright on verdicts!". Sure, we all agree. But if verdicts are printed on paper and stored in the dusty folders of the courts, how can we make them really open and reusable? Having a digitized entire dataset available is a big step. And remember that in Europe we also have the so complicated database right.
We should greet this decision as an excellent example for all the main Italian courts: the major courts (Court of Cassation and State Council) and maybe also the biggest local courts (Milan, Rome, Naples...).

Read the Italian version  |  Read the Spanish version 


Copyright Week: Read-only access is not enough

Today is the third day of Copyright Week, and today, we’re focusing on open access. As EFF put it in the Copyright Week principles:
The results of publicly funded research should be made freely available to the public online, to be fully used by anyone, anywhere, anytime.
This is a principle that Creative Commons has always upheld. It’s crucial that the public has free online access to the research it pays for. It’s important, too, not to forget the second part of the principle: “…to be fully used by anyone.” In CC’s opinion, simply giving the public access isn’t enough. It’s impossible to enable full use without communicating the legal rights available to downstream users of those works. The definition in the seminal Budapest Open Access Initiative makes this point clear:
By “open access” … we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself.
The open license attached to open access publications has enabled innovations that would have been impossible without it. For example, Daniel Mietchen (co-winner of the Accelerating Science Award Program), developed a software tool to crawl and export multimedia files from openly licensed science articles in PubMed Central. The tool has uploaded over 13,000 files to Wikimedia Commons, where they’ve been subsequently used in more than 135 English Wikipedia articles.
In some ways, 2013 was a great year for open access. In the United States, the White House issued a groundbreaking directive requiring that most publicly funded research be made available to the public, and Congress introduced the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), a bill that would require those federal agencies with yearly external research budgets exceeding $100 million to provide the public with online access to research articles stemming from such funding within 6 months of publication in a peer-reviewed journal. And several states are considering public access policies of their own. In Europe, Neelie Kroes, Vice President of the European Commission for the Digital Agenda, helped launch a pilot to open up publicly funded research data.
But the march toward open access is long and slow. Open licensing requirements for publicly funded research should really go hand in hand with those for other publicly funded materials, including educational resources and cultural works. Creative Commons recently formed the Open Policy Network and the Institute for Open Leadership to equip advocates for open policy across disciplines.
A few months ago, we published these infographics to help make the economic case for open access to publicly funded research:

The point is obvious: the fewer restrictions are put on the public’s use of materials, the more swiftly scientific progress, the more efficiently those research grants can achieve their purpose of advancing knowledge.

An article by Elliot Harmon (January 15th, 2014) under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (taken from