|
|
| (5 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| =Comments by Dmytri Kleiner=
| | Follow this link to read the [http://iang.info/en/mhonarc/maillist.html mail archive of the discussion] about the IANG license translation draft. |
| | |
| | |
| Regarding naming, while IANG (IANG Aint No GNU) is funny, I think the
| |
| recursive acronym joke and reference to GNU is too much an insider thing.
| |
| | |
| I am hoping that we can have a license that appeals to wide range of
| |
| artists, software developers, etc.
| |
| | |
| I suggest something like "Peer Production License", the initials PPL can
| |
| also can be an acronym pronounced "people".
| |
| | |
| If possible, I propose we work together to create such a peer production
| |
| license.
| |
| | |
| | |
| Dmytri Kleiner wrote:
| |
| | |
| > "Creative Contribution" means any modification of the Creation in the
| |
| > sense of intellectual property rights, including but not limited to
| |
| > adaptation, correction, translation, sampling, incorporation of, or in
| |
| > another work.
| |
| | |
| What about other forms of labour contribution in the manufacturing and
| |
| distribution process?
| |
| | |
| | |
| > "Creative Contributor" means an individual or legal entity bringing
| |
| > Creative Contributions to a Creative Project.
| |
| | |
| Would prefer something like "Labour Contribution" meaning any individual
| |
| or legal identity contributing labour to the development, manufacturing
| |
| or distribution of the creation.
| |
| | |
| In the productive cycle all workers should own the common-stock, the
| |
| printing press operators as much as the song writers.
| |
| | |
| | |
| > "Economic Contribution" means any form of monetary contribution,
| |
| > including but not limited to donation, purchase, subscription,
| |
| > assessment, investment, capital.
| |
| | |
| IMO, there can not really be an "economic contribution," "investment"
| |
| and "capital," in the sense of selling equity to private owners is
| |
| incompatible with commons-based production. "Purchase," "Subscription,"
| |
| etc, are not contributions, but rather simple exchanges.
| |
| | |
| "donation" is perhaps an exception to this, as it is a non-alienating
| |
| contribution.
| |
| | |
| "capital" in the sense of interest-bearing loan, is likewise not a
| |
| contribution as the money must be returned, including interest.
| |
| | |
| An interest-free loan of money may be considered a contribution to the
| |
| amount of the interest.
| |
| | |
| I am not sure what is meant by "assessment."
| |
| | |
| | |
| > 3.2. CREATIVE PARTICIPATION
| |
| >
| |
| > Creative Contributors can participate, according to the conditions
| |
| > specified in article 6, in all technical or artistic decisions
| |
| > concerning the Creative Project, including but not limited to
| |
| > development orientations and priorities, integration and combination of
| |
| > the different works into the Creation.
| |
| | |
| I am a little confused as to how all "Creative Contributors" can
| |
| participate in all "all technical or artistic decisions."
| |
| | |
| In the context of commons-based peer production, each peer producer
| |
| should be free to make whatever technical or artistic decisions they
| |
| want when employing the common-stock in their own production, so long as
| |
| the conform to the terms of the license.
| |
| | |
| | |
| > 4. DISTRIBUTION
| |
| >
| |
| > Distribution of the Creation, or its reproduction or modification, by
| |
| > the User to any person is unrestricted provided that it is governed by
| |
| > this license without any modification or additional clause, and that it
| |
| > is accompanied by all informations specified in articles 2 and 3. These
| |
| > informations must also be transmitted to any person asking for them, for
| |
| > a cost not exceeding those of data transmission.
| |
| | |
| Not sure about "These informations must also be transmitted to any
| |
| person asking for them, for a cost not exceeding those of data
| |
| transmission."
| |
| | |
| I reluctant to place any responsive future obligations on peer producers
| |
| not engaging in commercial distribution, whatever is required to be
| |
| transmitted, should have been in the distribution itself.
| |
| | |
| | |
| > 5.2. ECONOMIC PARTICIPATION
| |
| >
| |
| > Economic Contributors can participate, according to the conditions
| |
| > specified in article 6, in all economical decisions relative to the
| |
| > Economic Project, including but not limited to priorities and amounts of
| |
| > investments and remunerations, distribution of profits, financing policy
| |
| > and selling price of all products or services including the Creation.
| |
| | |
| Not sure why this is a required clause. "Economic Contributors," in this
| |
| case equity holders in legal entities engaging in commercial
| |
| distribution already have all the right listed.
| |
| | |
| I am more interested in limiting the economic contributors to the
| |
| non-alienating types, i.e. donations and interest-free loans. All other
| |
| economic input should not be considered a contribution, and
| |
| private-equity should be explicitly rejected, as this represent
| |
| enclosure and not commons.
| |
| | |
| | |
| > 6.2. MODALITIES
| |
| >
| |
| > Participation is unrestricted and gratis, and its material organisation
| |
| > is assigned to the Contributors. Each Project is autonomous, including
| |
| > in respect to Projects concerning original or derived creations, and
| |
| > each Contributor is autonomous within a Project. Each Contributor has a
| |
| > voice in all decisions concerning the Project and concerning all its
| |
| > Contributors, including admission of new Contributors in the Project.
| |
| | |
| I am a little confused as to how this relates to 3.2. Is 3.2 meant to be
| |
| apply to the internal participation within a project? If so, perhaps
| |
| the terms it makes should be in the PARTICIPATION section instead.
| |
| | |
| I think this is overall a great approach, defining participation and
| |
| requiring financial information to be public is great.
| |
| | |
| The main area that is missing for me is the limitations on Economic
| |
| Contribution, in particular the prohibition of a User employing private
| |
| property and wage-labour to capture surplus-value derived from
| |
| common-stock of creations.
| |
| | |
| | |
| =Reply by Patrick Godeau=
| |
| | |
| > If possible, I propose we work together to create such a peer
| |
| > production license.
| |
| | |
| I'd be glad to work with you on this license, and maybe if possible on
| |
| its implementation in real world. However, I believe that after we sort
| |
| out the misunderstandings and unclear parts of IANG, we'll realize that
| |
| there's not so much work to do.
| |
| | |
| Also, don't hold it against me if I don't reply to e-mails very quickly,
| |
| first I'm inherently slow, next I've got other personal worries at this
| |
| time...
| |
| | |
| >
| |
| >
| |
| > Dmytri Kleiner wrote:
| |
| >
| |
| >> "Creative Contribution" means any modification of the Creation in the
| |
| >> sense of intellectual property rights, including but not limited to
| |
| >> adaptation, correction, translation, sampling, incorporation of, or
| |
| >> in another work.
| |
| >
| |
| > What about other forms of labour contribution in the manufacturing and
| |
| > distribution process?
| |
| | |
| You're right, ideally all labour contributions should be considered, but
| |
| juridically the rights are attached to the creation, and I fear that
| |
| clauses that go beyond this could be held as abusives. This should be
| |
| checked with a lawyer, however.
| |
| | |
| >
| |
| >
| |
| >> "Creative Contributor" means an individual or legal entity bringing
| |
| >> Creative Contributions to a Creative Project.
| |
| >
| |
| > Would prefer something like "Labour Contribution" meaning any
| |
| > individual or legal identity contributing labour to the development,
| |
| > manufacturing or distribution of the creation.
| |
| | |
| Or perhaps "Work Contribution", the term "work" having the two meanings
| |
| of creation and labour.
| |
| | |
| >
| |
| >> "Economic Contribution" means any form of monetary contribution,
| |
| >> including but not limited to donation, purchase, subscription,
| |
| >> assessment, investment, capital.
| |
| >
| |
| > IMO, there can not really be an "economic contribution," "investment"
| |
| > and "capital," in the sense of selling equity to private owners is
| |
| > incompatible with commons-based production. "Purchase,"
| |
| > "Subscription," etc, are not contributions, but rather simple exchanges.
| |
| | |
| The rationale behind these definitions is that the economy of public
| |
| works should be public, and managed by all those who contribute to it,
| |
| including customers through their purchases and subscriptions. These are
| |
| not exchanges in the sense of market economy but rather contributions to
| |
| a gift economy. Of course, the IANG items will be sold on the market,
| |
| but seller and buyers will not conflict but share the same economic
| |
| entity, like in mutual societies, cooperatives, associations.
| |
| | |
| >
| |
| > "capital" in the sense of interest-bearing loan, is likewise not a
| |
| > contribution as the money must be returned, including interest.
| |
| | |
| Capital should be understood in the sense of common wealth. Even
| |
| non-profit organisations have a capital.
| |
| | |
| >
| |
| > I am not sure what is meant by "assessment."
| |
| | |
| It's my bad translation, I meant imposition or tax. The idea is that if
| |
| the economic project is financed by subventions, tax payers should have
| |
| a voice in it.
| |
| | |
| >
| |
| >
| |
| >> 3.2. CREATIVE PARTICIPATION
| |
| >>
| |
| >> Creative Contributors can participate, according to the conditions
| |
| >> specified in article 6, in all technical or artistic decisions
| |
| >> concerning the Creative Project, including but not limited to
| |
| >> development orientations and priorities, integration and combination
| |
| >> of the different works into the Creation.
| |
| >
| |
| > I am a little confused as to how all "Creative Contributors" can
| |
| > participate in all "all technical or artistic decisions."
| |
| > In the context of commons-based peer production, each peer producer
| |
| > should be free to make whatever technical or artistic decisions they
| |
| > want when employing the common-stock in their own production, so long
| |
| > as the conform to the terms of the license.
| |
| | |
| Of course each producer can make all decisions in an individual project,
| |
| but things are different for a collective project. Take for example free
| |
| software. While being all governed by "free" licenses, some projects are
| |
| managed democratically while others are benevolent dictatorships. There
| |
| are many "forks" (splits) in free software projects, and while they're
| |
| not necessarily a bad thing, they're often caused by power conflicts.
| |
| And power is also an enemy of freedom, you'll probably agree as an
| |
| anarchist ;-)
| |
| | |
| Note that Creative Contributors are defined for a particular Creative
| |
| Project, so contributors of a project cannot claim participation for
| |
| another project, even if it's derived or originating from the other. But
| |
| contributors can nonetheless accept other participants in their project,
| |
| as stated in article 6.2.
| |
| | |
| >
| |
| >
| |
| >> 4. DISTRIBUTION
| |
| >>
| |
| >> Distribution of the Creation, or its reproduction or modification, by
| |
| >> the User to any person is unrestricted provided that it is governed
| |
| >> by this license without any modification or additional clause, and
| |
| >> that it is accompanied by all informations specified in articles 2
| |
| >> and 3. These informations must also be transmitted to any person
| |
| >> asking for them, for a cost not exceeding those of data transmission.
| |
| >
| |
| > Not sure about "These informations must also be transmitted to any
| |
| > person asking for them, for a cost not exceeding those of data
| |
| > transmission."
| |
| > I reluctant to place any responsive future obligations on peer
| |
| > producers not engaging in commercial distribution, whatever is
| |
| > required to be transmitted, should have been in the distribution itself.
| |
| | |
| Maybe it's enough, indeed, but putting some information on a web site is
| |
| not a heavy burden nowadays. If needed, the IANG site could provide the
| |
| hosting.
| |
| | |
| >
| |
| >> 5.2. ECONOMIC PARTICIPATION
| |
| >>
| |
| >> Economic Contributors can participate, according to the conditions
| |
| >> specified in article 6, in all economical decisions relative to the
| |
| >> Economic Project, including but not limited to priorities and amounts
| |
| >> of investments and remunerations, distribution of profits, financing
| |
| >> policy and selling price of all products or services including the
| |
| >> Creation.
| |
| >
| |
| > Not sure why this is a required clause. "Economic Contributors," in
| |
| > this case equity holders in legal entities engaging in commercial
| |
| > distribution already have all the right listed.
| |
| | |
| As stated, these are not only equity holders, but also customers,
| |
| donators, and of course workers investing in their working tool.
| |
| | |
| >
| |
| > I am more interested in limiting the economic contributors to the
| |
| > non-alienating types, i.e. donations and interest-free loans. All
| |
| > other economic input should not be considered a contribution, and
| |
| > private-equity should be explicitly rejected, as this represent
| |
| > enclosure and not commons.
| |
| | |
| On the contrary, opening economic participation to the public will make
| |
| it really public and driven by public interest, since if the creation
| |
| has some use value, users will form a majority, even if probably only a
| |
| minority of them desire to participate.
| |
| | |
| The fact that producers own their working tools does not change anything
| |
| regarding the relation with public. Cooperatives (I happen to work in
| |
| one) operate in a market economy, their interest are in conflict with
| |
| customers about price, and they compete against other companies, even
| |
| other cooperatives.
| |
| | |
| Purchasing a work that is available for free is already a committed act.
| |
| We should have a model that encourages this act, not restrain it.
| |
| | |
| >
| |
| >
| |
| >> 6.2. MODALITIES
| |
| >>
| |
| >> Participation is unrestricted and gratis, and its material
| |
| >> organisation is assigned to the Contributors. Each Project is
| |
| >> autonomous, including in respect to Projects concerning original or
| |
| >> derived creations, and each Contributor is autonomous within a
| |
| >> Project. Each Contributor has a voice in all decisions concerning the
| |
| >> Project and concerning all its Contributors, including admission of
| |
| >> new Contributors in the Project.
| |
| >
| |
| > I am a little confused as to how this relates to 3.2. Is 3.2 meant to
| |
| > be apply to the internal participation within a project? If so,
| |
| > perhaps the terms it makes should be in the PARTICIPATION section
| |
| > instead.
| |
| >
| |
| > I think this is overall a great approach, defining participation and
| |
| > requiring financial information to be public is great.
| |
| >
| |
| > The main area that is missing for me is the limitations on Economic
| |
| > Contribution, in particular the prohibition of a User employing
| |
| > private property and wage-labour to capture surplus-value derived from
| |
| > common-stock of creations.
| |
| >
| |
| | |
| Fortunately, this is not possible for a public to capture surplus value
| |
| from themselves. This is why the public should not only have financial
| |
| information, but also drive the economy of copyleft.
| |
| | |
| I hope that I've clarified a bit the ideas behind IANG. I also hope that
| |
| in near future I have some time to work on a concept of collection
| |
| society that would be managed by the public and not against it.
| |