Setting up a collaborative project for OpenContent
Collaborative projects for open content are very much encouraged for the development of resources for the dissemination of information and increased access to knowledge.
Setting up one could be easy if there are a lot of like-minded people contributing in such project, and who are agreeable to its general purpose or intent. Having a growing number of contributors, however, in the long run would provide certain challenges inasmuch as contributors would have different shades of liberality in the manner the content, in which they contributed on, would be utilized. Discord in the specifics might occur.
The parameters are quite important to determine on the onset, since some contributors might be very liberal in their perspective in the utilization of such content, such in allowing proprietary entities to make profit out of content and allow the greatest possibility for the content’s distribution; while others are more much keen in ensuring a sharing culture, such that they could allow proprietary entities to make profit and modify the content as long as the said entities should also share under the same parameters for its own derivative work; while others might be a little reserved in allowing the content they have contributed on to be commercially exploited by proprietary entities, whether such content has been modified or has been distributed as is.
Truly, contributors might have agreed on the general framework and principle, but for the whole time silent about what to do with the work when it is completed (something like, “let’s cross the bridge when we get there”).
Without being obnoxious, I have to repeat that the parameters have to be determined from the start, else there may be danger that the content’s distribution might be prevented by lack of consensus in the manner the work will be allowed to be used. For when decisions have to be made, how could consensus be reached? Will the organizer’s intent be paramount, ignoring dissents from certain contributors? In this regard, should the work remove all contributions made by those who dissent, and replace said contributions so as to allow the distribution of the work? On the other hand, if it is taken to vote, will a real consensus be had from the inputs from contributors, when a lot of these would not participate, being passive thereon, in reaching the decision? Will there even be any quorum when votes are actually gathered? If not, what happens?
As they say, in any agreement, the devil is in the details.
If the direction and the terms are clear from the start, a potential contributor is aware what would be the parameters for the work created. He/she can choose not to contribute, if he is not agreeable with the terms. He can find a parallel alternative project in which he may agree in contributing. Would it be grand to find initiatives blossoming all around, some pursued perhaps in a different approach but similarly oriented to the same goal that we espouse? Yes, there could be temptation to be populist, but would how far can that be sustained?
