new licensing model

[Matthew Seth Flaschen]

>>"- to give authors the opportunity to get paid even when their works were used 
>>in the works of other authors and the copies of the works of other authors are 
>>used for making money."

That goal is fundamentally contrary to OSD #1.  Take your "new licensing model" 
elsewhere.  Furthermore, this is for proposing concrete licenses.  To find out 
how to do so, read http://opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.php#approval
-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Nikolai" <n_k at au.ru> 

> New licensing model 
> 
> This article is my explanation why, from my point of view, the new licensing 
> model is necessary. 
> 
> I decided to start developing new licensing model a few months ago after 
several 
> email talks with people regarding some ideas about Open Source, KM standards, 
> Social Networks Analysis, Text Structuring, Text Viruses and Media projects 
> based on citizen's journalism and multi-blog software platform jDnevnik.com - 
> http://jdnevnik.com , which won this year Russian Sun Microsystems contest in 
> J2EE category - http://ru.sun.com/news/press/2005/september/pr010905.html . 
> 
> All these talks indicated me that something stops the constructive dialogues 
and 
> this must have some general explanation. That was a question. 
> 
> In my understanding the relevant problem is following: 
> 
> Currently content based business, free content exchange and growing deluge of 
> content in the web are lacking in opportunities: 
> - to get global recognition for authors and their works; 
> - to see what's new, the derivative works, based on the original and other 
> derivative works and therefore not to "invent a wheel", decide which work is 
> worth to develop further, forecast a progress and trends of the development 
and 
> education; 
> - to give authors the opportunity to get paid even when their works were used 
in 
> the works of other authors and the copies of the works of other authors are 
used 
> for making money. 
> 
> Yes, you can add some other problems. But if to consider all this as a whole, 
I 
> see a contradiction between old-fashioned business and non-profit models (with 
> their complicated legal restrictions to use content and with closed 
strategies) 
> and social nature of the web with its growing speed of copying and sharing 
> content in every corner of the Earth. 
> 
> Consider: 
> 
> 1. Licensing. 
> 
> I did not find a proper solution among the licensing models I saw. Maybe it is 
> because they are not business, that normally must generate equivalent value 
for 
> its insiders and outsiders. 
> 
> These models declare some protection of copyright, but author can not see who 
> and how uses his/her work legally. In my understanding it opposes free 
exchange 
> of content to the opportunity to commercialize it. Any restrictions to develop 
> the works further (because author does not see the ways to get paid from this 
> development) stop innovations and give rise to piracy and break copyright. 
Open 
> Source movement for any sorts of content (source code, text, graphics, audio, 
> video, etc.) would be more attractive for people if the mentioned problem will 
> be solved. 
> 
> Also I consider copyright as a fundamental human right (for everyone) - it 
> should not be even registered according the law of many countries. To be the 
> right and since the web has not national borders a proper scheme relevant to 
> this reality must be established to stop the war between content authors and 
> users. Tell me who can win this war and why we must spend resources for legal 
> "weapon" instead of legal peace? 
> 
> 2. News service. 
> 
> Big commercial media represent the fragmented picture of the events with the 
> short term perspective and according their own policy - they are not about 
> derivative works (how things go further). Citizen's journalism may look like 
the 
> big commercial media with one difference - displaying what big commercial 
media 
> usually refuse to display. 
> 
> 3. On-line sale. 
> 
> It is not about paying every author, whose works was used in the 
commercialized 
> work. 
> 
> So, that is why I started developing the new licensing model (the Licence 
> itself, the structure for its software implementation, the business model for 
> partnership) with a use of my methods of structuring texts. 
> 
> One of the Licence's ideas, which I represent here, is to make the sequence of 
> digital works (from the original work to the last derivative work and back) 
> visible for everyone to decide where to connect with variants of use. Also I 
> tried to combine free copying of works in any quantity, their free use for not 
> making money and paid use for making money. Paid use means for authors the 
> opportunity to get paid even when their works were used in the works of other 
> authors and the copies of the works of these other authors are used for making 
> money. 
> 
> I think this Licence may accelerate innovations because authors could focus on 
> their works and be interested in their further development by other persons. 
> 
> The Licence v. 0.1 - http://tvl.ton.net.ru/Lic_ru_en_v01.pdf is not yet ready 
> for use because it needs corrections, software and organizational 
> infrastructure. It needs thinking people as well. 
> 
> Why not think about a precedent to establish a business, which could provide 
> free global service for authors to assist them in creating innovative content 
> and benefiting from it even if they have only knowledge and access to the web? 
I 
> am entirely open for any well-founded criticism, comments, suggestions and 
> partnership to make it real. There are many variants to implement this. Let's 
> talk via email or at my blog - http://jdnevnik.com/upravlenie . 
> 
> Link to this article - http://jdnevnik.com/upravlenie@2005.12.15:1 
> 
> Special thanks to Liza Wohlfart 
> 
http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-site/whoswho.cgi?action=detail&id=118110&autho 
> rid=724122 and Ed Mitchell 
> 
http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-site/whoswho.cgi?action=detail&id=105288&autho 
> rid=706152 , who explained me the need to transform my abstract 
> http://jdnevnik.com/upravlenie@2005.11.28:1/$comments 
> to the article. 
> 
> Nikolai Krjachkov 
> 
>