[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: IANG license translation draft
Hi Dmytri & Michel,
Dmytri Kleiner a écrit :
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".
Nice name, I like it, even if the acronym is also an insider thing.
But I like IANG too, not because of the double recursive private joke,
but also because it's a monosyllabic word easy to remember, it's
homophonic with a well known term (yin-yang) that pronounces identically
in all languages, while being an original word with this writing.
However, naming doesn't matter that much, as long as we agree on the
contents.
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.
Best regards,
--
Patrick