I agree with David's points:
1) Communicating the expectation that a new concept tool be followed up on (which could be done by the OP or anyone else) or generate active discussion should be communicated to a poster of a new tool
2) Different criteria should be used for tools at different levels of development. For example, perhaps only a concept or functional prototype needs no approval but needs to progress or generate discussion to stay listed. Meanwhile, DIY or commercial products might need moderator approval but become permanent fixtures
I came across this picture which I felt reinforced my reasoning above. The person in that picture obviously didn't have the alternative we do back in his time. I think Louis C.K. illustrates how artists today can create a business model today that circumvents the industry and one of the key features was the lack of DRM in his downloadable product. While that's not quite open-source, it's VERY progressive for the industry and makes a lot of customers happy since they feel like they are given the ownership they are entitled to when they buy something.
Anyway, I was just trying to illustrate my point of how important it is to pick your battles. By not caring about people pirating his product, Louis CK was able to cut out middle men, sell his product more cheaply, and make more money then he would have otherwise. Wins all around!
@danpaluska
The main difference to me seems that public domain does not require downstream users to maintain the work under the same open license. In that way, the "iterate" part of your slogan fails.
I realize that my stance may seem contradictory since I stated that I didn't wish to enter legal battles over IP and I am effectively saying that one should have legal recourse should another mutate and patent one's work, but I think that the very existence of legal recourse should dissuade others from going closed with your R&D.
Also, imagine that someone mutate and patent my work, cutting off my own paths for future development?
What's the intention of the wiki? My assumption was that if I was writing a tutorial about how to assemble a tool, I might make a Wiki page for each component explaining more in detail what does what, how, and why, in case somebody had more questions or needed the info for troubleshooting... The logic being that, for example, an LCD screen, a keypad, or a sensor, is not a tool in itself.
Would that of been accurate or is that comprised in the tool pages somehow?
Comments
Oh nice - I missed Saturday
I agree with David's points:
Parallels
Public Domain vs CERN
What's the intention of the