Talk:IANG License

1. Comments by Dmytri Kleiner

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.

2. 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.

3. Dmytri Kleiner responds

>> 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.

I like that.

In venture communism I promote the concept that all who apply their labour to property are entitled to be among the mutual owners of that property, perhaps something like that can be a clause.

>>> "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.

In my mind the distinct characteristic of a Maussian "Gift Economy" is that value is placed on relationships, and not on individual transactions.

As such, a Gift Economy is an exchange economy, just not measured on a transaction by transaction basis, but rather valued based on mutual benefit over a period of time. Mauss considers mandatory reciprocation of at least equal value to be a fundamental component of the Gift Economy, however pre-monetary economies had a longer term and less transactional measure of reciprocation. Another feature of the Gift Economy, is inversal of "winning" criteria. In a modern consumerist economy, the one who got the most for the least is considered the game "winner," in a gift economy, the one who gives more is considered the winner, and the one who can not reciprocate what he has received is the social "loser."

In neither case is the receiver considered a contributor except by reciprocation.

The concept of the gift economy, imo, is among the most tortured concepts in alternative economy discussions.

"purchases" are simply reciprocations, and therefore not contributions, in other words, not //productive inputs.//

Further, as the information covered by a peer-production license is common-stock, there would be no direct purchases or subscriptions, rather the commons is a common input to production of goods and services.

As such, it is import that we insist that the exchange value captured by deriving goods and services from common-stock is captured by it's "work contributors" and not owners of rent-capturing property. Reproducible information can not have any direct exchange value of it's own as I argue with the Iron Law of Copyright Earnings.

So, while a recording artist can not capture exchange value directly from a recording, a night club or radio station owner can. The trick is how to make sure this exchange value is equitably shared among all the work contributors, and not appropriated by property owners.

This is why the possibility of "economic contributors" is extremely limited, basically outright donors and perhaps interest free lenders can really be considered "contributors," and even these two are problematic, because the donation and/or interest-free loan must benefit the commons as a whole, not simply the "original creator," in order to directly be a contribution to the commons.

This implies the existence of entities that are able to receive such contributions.

>> 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 still do not see customers qua customers as contributors, Workers are already covered under "work contributors" so "economic contributors," imo, should be limited to donors and possibly interest-free lenders.

>> 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.

My view is that this public interest will in most case be manifested in work contributions by individuals and groups joining the project and contributing to it directly.

> The fact that producers own their working tools does not change anything > regarding the relation with public.

The "public" is nothing more that the extended community of producers.

> 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.

They also share public goods, and the amount of common-property the employ in there production could be greatly increased. I do not think that competition and markets cause problems so much as private property and economic rent.

> 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.

Sure, it is not donations that I think we should restrain but rather the ability of property owners to extract rent.

>> 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.

It is possible, as in my example with a radio station or a night club being able to capture surplus value from a recording, even without having any copyright on it.

> 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.

Yes, thank you, and I look forward to more.

I think one key topic I would like to emphasize is that the "public" is a collection of producers, and that in a property-based society, a portion of the total goods produced by these producers is appropriated by non-producing property owners, and that this reduces the amount of wealth the producers can share and exchange with each other.

I would like a peer-production license to take this issue head-on.