Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Wyl Newland <wylnewland AT gmail.com>]

New thread: Brainchild Pool--was "Use cases for NonCommercial license clause"
Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
<cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
On 4/21/05, Greg London <email AT greglondon.com> wrote:
> ... trying to marry .. the concept of a gift economy and a compulsory 
> license ...
> ... NC-SA is a combination that doesn't make sense ...
> ... a matter for a contract between authors

Having take the entire notion and inherent complexity of a daisy chain
and beneficiary list off the table, let me put onto the table the
competing notion of a "brainchild pool" (per Mr. Prodromou's current
discussion of in cc-community)

I am trying to marry the concept of a gift economy with a compulsary
license permitting NC-SA within a community of editors and
beneficiaries, operating under a contract concerning the commons
emerging, throughout the downstream of each original work.

Producers join the commons of the brainchild-pool containing the
original work.  While the pool emerges around the original work,
nothing prevents any producer from adding their own original works
into the commons, thereby increasing the number of brain-children
blending together in a pool.

The brainchild-pool decides whether consumers may consume and
distribute freely or must pay a subscriber fee of some sort, perhaps
per original-work, perhaps for the pool itself.

> ... limiting who can enter the commons .. 
> ... what share they get

The brainchild-pool-contract decides who enters.  It must also codify
the share-determination mechanism.  Perhaps the contract must also
secure an up-front agreement to a contract ammendment process.

> Intellectual ideas are abstract and do not suffer the problems of a commons

This is mostly true for copyright but untrue for patentable brainchildren.

By changing from a chain to a brainchild-pool, am I getting closer to
something acceptable?