A discussion of hybrid open source and proprietary licensing models.

[aryeh AT miai-siw.org]

Tell me if I am wrong but isn't this just an other facet of  
Sustainable Intellectual Work (http://www.miai-siw.org)?

--Aryeh

Quoting Ryan Schultz <theoryshaw AT yahoo.com>:

> Thanks Marshall for the feedback.  If at all interested, I rewrote and tried
> to clarify my argument for finding this alternative, community-based CC
> license.
>
> http://studiowikitecture.wordpress.com/2007/05/11/win-win-ip-rights/
>
>
>
> Here's a quote, from
> <http://www.amazon.com/Wikinomics-Mass-Collaboration-Changes-Everything/dp/1
> 591841380/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-6577930-9904042?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175876811
> &sr=8-1> 'Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything' that I feel
> really sums up this approach:
>
>
>
> "The interesting model is the one that falls in the middle ground-a model
> that says we're collaboratively building something that will be privately
> owned by our consortia, or maybe your shares of ownership are apportioned in
> proportion to how much you brought to the table.  One could envision a
> 'digital-age co-op" with peer rating systems that dynamically apportion
> shares to contributors based on the community's assessment of the value
> added by individual contributors.  Annual profits from sales and serves
> could then be distributed across the community of contributors"
>
>
>
> Ryan
>
>
>
>
>
>   _____
>
> From: Marshall Van Alstyne [mailto:marshall AT MIT.EDU]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 5:14 PM
> To: cc-bizcom AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Cc: Ryan Schultz
> Subject: Re: [Cc-bizcom] an alternate licensing option where the 'community'
> determines value-not the contributors
>
>
>
> Ryan, here are several thoughts based on the questions you raised.
> Apologies for a delay, I've been preparing a tenure package and that has
> dominated all other tasks.    Your set of issues around NonCommercial and
> Commercial licenses raise multiple follow up ideas!
>
> At 03:16 PM 4/17/2007, you wrote:
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> I think you've nailed one of the biggest problems.  In fact, it seems there
> are related two sub-problems.  One is hold-up from a single owner -- in this
> case the (c) holder -- who will want to negotiate for a chunk of value.  The
> other is the cleverness of the idea can be lost if you try to negotiate and
> accidentally disclose it.
>
> Either way, I agree that these 2 kinds of risk discourage a person from
> making any kind of investment beforehand.
>
>
>
>
> 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?
>
>
>
> One possibility that I like a lot is to use a default menu.  That is,
> suppose the license has an offer of the following form:
>
> If you make $x amount of money, then contribute y% of revenue to the
> original work.
> If you make $(x+d) amount of money, then contribute (y+n)% of revenue to the
> original work.
> etc.
>
> Alternatively,
>
> If you keep your piece closed for x years, then contribute y% of revenue to
> the original work.
> If you keep your piece closed for (x+d) years, then contribute (y+n)% of
> revenue to the original work.
> etc.
>
> This set of default options lets the person writing the derivative work
> choose based on a fairly clear set of terms.
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> This idea is pretty interesting.  I see at two possible concerns.  (1) Is
> that there is still some uncertainty over what the final % will be.  I agree
> it seems that the "community," however defined, is likely to be more neutral
> in assessing value but there is still some lack of clarity beforehand. (2)
> Have you thought about how large a community you need?  If it's very small,
> there may be too few voters to establish a meaningful baseline so there
> might be a need to build the community first.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> Overall, this idea sounds quite useful.  A good reputation system can be
> used to "rate the rater" and help ensure integrity in the review process.
>
> This "information revelation" mechanism looks like it should require a
> subsidy i.e. some means of compensating the raters for their time and
> effort.  If done well, it could be covered out of the revenues generated by
> the pool of derivative works themselves.
>
> Another form of information disclosure mechanism could be to have people who
> actually download the derivative work themselves state what % of value the
> new piece adds.  This is harder to "fake" since someone must actually pay
> for the good (so if you're going to stuff a ballot box it's going to be
> costly).  It's also unbiased because the person doing the buying is not
> independent of the person doing the rating.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> This is also an excellent point.  It has long been an established tenet of
> economics that more complete information leads to greater efficiency in
> production.  Such a system should be as transparent as possible.
>
> Note also that it should also align incentives the right way e.g. no one
> should have a reason to misrepresent their rating, and the raters' votes
> should correspond closely to the consumers' reasons for buying.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> Personally, I think the questions you raise are very interesting.  Plenty of
> thought munchies 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.
>
>
> There is some good discussion on the Free Software Business (fsb) discussion
> group but aside from that, I've found very little on this topic.  Thanks for
> raising some interesting issues.
>
> MVA
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cc-bizcom mailing list
> Cc-bizcom AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-bizcom