4 ms·

both of these people are making non-exclusionary public goods, so yeah, the parallel is valid. Lots of non-physical goods fit in the same category (when we have

both of these people are making non-exclusionary public goods, so yeah, the parallel is valid. Lots of non-physical goods fit in the same category (when we haven't hamfistedly tried to make them exclusionary), our mechanisms for getting creators rewarded for their efforts suck.

aksss 3y ago
We often think the critical skill is being able to create something of value, but unless it's charity (which has value, dgmw) the critical skill is being able to create something of value to others and then to protect the potential returns. Specifically, this means protecting it from thieves, absconders, seizures, penalties, etc. It's like people saying that good ideas are a dime a dozen, the important thing is execution. Well, one level beyond that is that "execution/schmexecution" - the important thing is capturing a return. To that end, it's worth asking why our "mechanisms for getting creators rewarded for their efforts suck". Is it because copyright is too weak/too strong? Is it because patent process is overly burdensome/costly/a joke? I don't know, but I empathize with your points entirely and think it's worth thinking about. Personally, I think there's room for more nuance in the commercial/non-commercial licensing dichotomy. Specifically, instead of using that as a breakpoint for charging licensing fees, maybe having some revenue threshold after which payments need to be made. I was about to say into a general fund to support open-source developers generally, but that would be ripe for corruption, rent-seeking, and self-dealing (like union administration). Better to go straight back to sponsor the project, IMO. Some products do this - free for organizations with less than x revenue. I've not really seen it much in open source though. Some tooling to make this "10 times easier" could be the next github. But this problem has plagued inventors/creators of all eras. It does seem like we have better tools than ever to deal with it - telemetry, micropayments, etc.

aksss 3y ago

We often think the critical skill is being able to create something of value, but unless it's charity (which has value, dgmw) the critical skill is being able to create something of value to others and then to protect the potential returns. Specifically, this means protecting it from thieves, absconders, seizures, penalties, etc. It's like people saying that good ideas are a dime a dozen, the important thing is execution. Well, one level beyond that is that "execution/schmexecution" - the important thing is capturing a return. To that end, it's worth asking why our "mechanisms for getting creators rewarded for their efforts suck". Is it because copyright is too weak/too strong? Is it because patent process is overly burdensome/costly/a joke? I don't know, but I empathize with your points entirely and think it's worth thinking about. Personally, I think there's room for more nuance in the commercial/non-commercial licensing dichotomy. Specifically, instead of using that as a breakpoint for charging licensing fees, maybe having some revenue threshold after which payments need to be made. I was about to say into a general fund to support open-source developers generally, but that would be ripe for corruption, rent-seeking, and self-dealing (like union administration). Better to go straight back to sponsor the project, IMO. Some products do this - free for organizations with less than x revenue. I've not really seen it much in open source though. Some tooling to make this "10 times easier" could be the next github. But this problem has plagued inventors/creators of all eras. It does seem like we have better tools than ever to deal with it - telemetry, micropayments, etc.