We recently added number 180 to our favorites. Why? Because Jeff Jarvis, internet and media expert, mentioned BurdaStyle in his new book “What Would Google Do?” on page 180!
And this is what he writes:
…Another challenge: fashion… Just as the internet democratizes news and entertainment, it is opening up style…See also BurdaStyle.com’s open-source sewing from the German publishing empire Burda, which decided to take copyrights off its dress patterns and invite the public to use them, adapt them, create their own, and share them. The site is filled with patterns, how-tos, and discussion…
If you’re interested to learn more, we highly recommend reading Jeff’s book and his blog Buzzmachine.
Feb 17, 2009, 08.51 AMby nora
Zora, did you see the update on Terms & Conditions? You find the purchasing terms right there.
Feb 10, 2009, 06.36 AMby Luis Lavena
zora,
Noone said anything about sharing with others. The conversation did go on the concept of “free patterns” and “open source” confusion.
I believe the removal of copyright restrictions allow you to do so.
However, I believe all the other services provided are worthy for you, so paying for the patterns not for the pattern itself but for the contribution has more value, or doesn’t?
Feb 9, 2009, 08.46 AMby Luis Lavena
For even more direct information, I’m adding here a direct link to FSF about charging for free software:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
Feb 9, 2009, 08.42 AMby Luis Lavena
There is a misunderstanding from your definition zora.
As defined by the Free Software Foundation, in their philosophy page:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
When talking about free software, it is best to avoid using terms like “give away” or “for free,” because those terms imply that the issue is about price, not freedom.
Is possible to charge for something that has copyright restrictions removed. You charging the user for the service provided, being hosting, research, documentation, production and or support.
Open Source has nothing to do with price, instead is related to licensing and the development model.
There is a thin line that generates this confusion and FSF clearly documented in the above mentioned link and the terminology page:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
Is really tricky find the differences between Free Software (political movement) from Open Source (development model).
Feb 5, 2009, 08.54 AMby nora
Hi jfgutierrez,
Thank you for your remark. There is a common misunderstanding about the term ‘free’ in relations to open source. Open source means free as in ‘free speech’, not ‘free beer’. So you can charge for the product, but you have to make sure that the product can be changed and used by others to be developed further. Hence and at the same time, people can base their business upon it. If you check out the ‘Free Software Defintion’, it says: “Free software is a matter of liberty, not price”. We substituted software with patterns.
Again – Our aim is the sharing of intellectual property and allowing the public to adapt it to their specific needs. We assimilated the (open source) concept to BurdaStyle, removing the copyright from our patterns. Our open source sewing patterns are free to be used as a base for your own design. Whatever you sew, you can sell if you like. We believe that removing copyrights from our designs will inspire creativity and spawn multiple new designs.
Feb 5, 2009, 08.37 AMby jfgutierrez
Only it’s technically not open source anymore unless you guys sent out another email changing things back that I didn’t get.
My understanding is “Burda Style” Patterns are priced accordingly going forward. Members are also free to charge for their designs. This in my book is not open source it’s “sort of” open source.
I feel it is unethical for you to call yourself “open source” anymore or to allude to its open source nature by posts like this one.
But Jeff Jarvis is right in the assumption that the concept of a truly open source design site was potentially one of the most exciting and explosive ideas on earth at least for a while it was.
As a business woman I certainly can understand the financial constraints that would lead to a business decision to keep the site going but I’m still suspicious that all other avenues of revenue streams were not explored properly probably due to bad planning and my strong feeling was that this decision was premature. Not knowing the inner workings of the business or not had a peak at the books this is just conjecture on my part. I based my suspicion on the exact wording of the email I received as it seemed hasty and reactionary.
Sorry but obviously I am disappointed at both the change and this post.
Feb 4, 2009, 07.12 PMby erdronen
awesome! that is so exciting!