A discussion of hybrid open source and proprietary licensing models.

["Ryan Schultz" <theoryshaw AT yahoo.com>]

Let’s say I make a derivative work using someone else work that’s under the “NonCommericial” license option and I want to commercialize it to make money.  Under this license I have to approach the original licensor to work out a commercial licensing agreement to establish payout percentages.  I run the risk, however, that the original licensor will not want to come to a fair and balanced assessment of each other’s contribution.  With this potential risk loaming in the future, I am less likely to even start a derivative work in the first place—there’s less initial incentive.  What if, however, there was a New Licensing option—somewhere between ‘Attribution Non-commercial’ and ‘Attribution No Derivatives’—that stated that you are free to pursue commercial gain without consent, but if the derivative work marks money, the payout percentages are assessed by the community and not left up to the individuals and their lawyers to determine?  So in other words, under this agreement the assessment of value contribution is determined by the community and not the individual parties.  In this case I can have a little more confidence using someone else work initially, knowing that if my derivative work does indeed make money, that the community’s assessment will mostly likely grant a fair evaluation.

 

What is the community in this case?  Well that could take many forms depending on the media and/or mode of distribution.  In the music industry, diehard fans could determine, through some type of ranking system, how each artist should be paid out.  If, however, asking the public to audit contribution becomes too overwhelming, there could be a pool of editors that get paid to make these assessments.   This system of editors, however, would have to be anonymous in a sense, to avoid the possibility of bribery or kickbacks.  An additional safeguarding mechanism could be utilized were the editors in turn rank each other.  Editors that show an unusual high level of bias would be flagged by the community of editors and thus facilitate a higher level of consistency.    

 

Although I’m sure there’s ways to establish a fair assessment of value, this licensing system would require a transparency in accounting as well—such that contributors would be assured that all the revenue is accounted for.  Transparent accounting might be a tall order, but if artists demand it, producers will find a way too oblige. 

 

Anyways, Just a little food for thought.  Let me know if there’s any major hurdles I’m not considering in implementing a system like this… just thinking out loud here.

 

Is there any current discussion out there that addresses this idea?  I could not find any. If you could forward, I’d be much appreciative.

 

 

Thanks