[David Prenatt:]
> >
> > On this note, the biggest problem with ODP is the fact that it is
> > not truly open content, much less open source.

[Jimmy Wales:]
>
> I agree with this completely, but then I don't understand why you
> write this on the xodp.org website:
>
> >
> >As for XODP data, it is freely distributed through "co-branding,"
> >but it is most certainly NOT open content. The difference between
> >these two methods of free content distribution is very sublime,
> >but the bottom line is that the value of co-branded data cannot be
> >corrupted or compromised as easily as the value of open content
> >data can be. For more information about co-branding XODP data,
> >please click here.
>
> I encourage you strongly to release the XODP data under free
> license. It's been a long time now, and alternative directory
> projects have *not* been gaining the momentum we need to overtake
> the lead of ODP.

On that same page, you will note that I refer XODPers to Wikipedia should they
wish to volunteer their time and talents for an open content (read free content)
project. However, I am very reluctant to release the data for the XODP Web
Guides under a free license because the concept of creating guides which target
keywords is still unproven and (IMHO) exclusive control over XODP Web Guides
content and the XODP Web Guides concept is a key ingredient to proving the
concept. Moreover, the concept relies upon contracting "work for hire" and
co-branding the content rather than exploiting volunteer labor as ODP does.

This is not to say that I do not wholeheartedly believe in a truly free content
project such as Wikipedia. Like open source programming, developing content for
an encyclopedia is a project which is particularly well suited for the open
source ideal.

As for the failure of other projects to overtake ODP's lead, I think that can be
attributed to the dot-com crash. To wit, there's very little money to be made
in content right now.

[Jimmy Wales:]
>
> True open licenses are important for us to be able to share content
> and work together, instead of running proprietary fiefdoms.

I wholeheartedly agree in the inherent value of open/free licenses, but I also
think that there is room for proprietary works. To wit, great works of fiction
and music would lose much of their value if they were freely licensed. As such,
I favor copyright protection for such works, subject to the limitations of "fair
use."

[Jimmy Wales:]
>
> On 3apes, I have posted a draft of a license derived from the GNU
> FDL.
> http://www.3apes.com/about/license.html
>
> It is essentially the GNU FDL, but with a lot of the complexities
> about "cover documents" and "invariant sections" removed. It was
> written with directory data in mind.

I wish you the best of luck in developing a free directory. There have been
other attempts to do this a la wiki, but they inevitably encounter problems with
quality control.

I think the key to creating a free directory is developing the free software
which people would need to create and maintain a hierarchical directory style
database, and (as noted below) there are many coding projects currently underway
at SourceForge which hope to do just that.

[Jimmy Wales:]
>
> > http://xodp.sourceforge.net/similarprojects.html
> >
> All of these are software projects. Does anyone know of a similar
> list of free/nonfree alternative projects?

I began a list in the links section < http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/links >
of this Yahoo! eGroup, but this is only available to people who actually join
the group because of the way Yahoo! eGroups are set up. Eventually, the content
in the links secton will be published under a free license on a Web site where
it can be viewed by anyone.

[Jimmy Wales:]
>
> I think volunteers who work for nonfree projects should reconsider.
> You're giving your hard work to someone who will not release it
> freely -- why? Are you hoping to make money from it? This seems
> unlikely, because there's a very strong tension between quality
> search results and search results driven by a need to make money
> (i.e. selected because they have been paid for). And Overture,
> FindWhat and several others, do an excellent job of providing *paid
> listings*.

I echo these sentiments. At the same time, I think that it would make sense for
people to volunteer their time for a Web directory with proprietary content if
that Web directory was operated by a non-profit organization which they wanted
to support. Moreover, there are people who volunteer their time for proprietary
directories like Zeal because they want to promote their hobby or interest.

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq