A couple weeks ago, my company/employer Flat World Knowledge made a necessary shift in its business model.
Here are the official company statements:
- Why Flat World is Moving from
Free to Fair http://bit.ly/FWK-F2F - The Unanswered Questions about
Free to Fair http://bit.ly/FWK-UQs - Answering More Questions about
Free to Fair http://bit.ly/FWK-MQs
In short, we eliminated the open access Web reader, and set our entry price point at $19.95. Hence the moniker “Free to Fair” for this strategy. With a few exceptions, the market response has been very supportive. For the full view, see John Hilton’s post last week that contains plenty of thoughtful links to a range of opinions.
A debate about free vs. open has since ensued. I have to think that “Free to Fair” had some part in sparking—or at least revitalizing—this debate. It exposed a few gray areas in Creative Commons licenses that were not well-defined enough.
So, I thought I’d write a brief series of posts about the argument around open. Please keep in mind that my views are through the lens of trying to wrap a business model around open as a part of a venture-backed, for-profit company. I will try to be as objective as I can, but I feel that I should disclose my angle.
Part of this exercise revolves around seeking a new license for FWK. Part of it is my own fascination with the topic of copyright and its evolution in the digital age.
***
Disclaimer: All views or opinions expressed on this site are solely those of the author and do not represent those of the author’s employer, Flat World Knowledge.