Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: Share-revenues as an alternative to Non-commercial

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "David Christie" <dc AT sover.net>
  • To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts" <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: Share-revenues as an alternative to Non-commercial
  • Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 09:04:03 -0700

Greg London said:

You will not see thousands of contributers to a market
economy license, and your share-revenue is a market
economy license.

I agree (with basically everything you said). Including your definitions of gift/market economies (well put). And Share-revenue isn't the right license for Linux, obviously.

But consider copyleft licenses, like GPL and Sleepycat. These also function to enable commerce, through dual-licensing schemes. For example, Sleepycat sells commercial licenses which grant exemption the copyleft provision of their open source license. MySQL does the same thing. This is very common. That's why those open source developers are profitable. It's their business model.

It's quite true they don't get thousands of gifts of developer hours. They pretty much have to do it all themselves. (They did get to use some open source that already existed, and they often cooperate with each other, and users debug for them). But their source is open for inspection, they meet the Open Source Definition, and non-commercial users (in fact even commercial users who can stomach copyleft or don't redistribute the code) get to use their work gratis. Derivative works are allowed. Yet they're profitable because they can sell commercial licenses too.

Obviously commercial models are not the best model for huge public works like Linux or Apache. It's great those projects are strictly a gift economy. But commercial uses of open source are important to open source developers who need to generate revenue. If you don't believe that, we disagree. I think it's healthy that the open source world has a market economy as well as a gift economy.

I've nothing against the gift economy. I'm happy to contribute enhancements and bug fixes to open source projects I use, gratis. But I need (some of) my own open source projects to operate in the market economy, too.

The question of whether an open source project that has commercial revenues (through dual-licensing or some other scheme like Share-revenues) can fairly reward its open source contributors (beyond the first generation) is an unanswered one. I know of no existence proof for a system that does that well. And my Share-revenues idea does not say how to do it, or ensure it will happen.

But I don't agree it's necessarily impossible. It may be impossible to make a license that does it automatically -- it may depend on human nuance and relationships too much. So I think a commons license should not attempt to spell out who pays what to whom. It should enable experimentation downstream.

I think we need new licenses (such as new provisions to CC licenses) that facilitate experiments in both the gift and the market economies, and to the extent possible, permit the same works to be used in both.

--
Bounty Hunters: Metaphors for Fair IP Law.
http://www.greglondon.com/bountyhunters/
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page