The intention of the BarCampBankLicense is not to define a new type of license (a difficult, hazardous and lengthy process), but to define what type of generally accepted standard license applies to what type of intellectual production done within the BarCampBank and to specify what is the understanding that should be assumed when refering to a standard license (e.g. author, holder,..).
BarCampBankLicense should be considered as an umbrella, offering a clear description of the legal ground applying to particular intellectual work and offering an identified community capable of representing any individual or group of individual, identified or anonymous that issued intellectual material under the BarCampBankLicense
BarCampBank can be considered as a three-level pyramid with (at level 1: a place to exchange ideas, at level 2: a think-tank, at level 3: an incubator). Because different intellectual works are produced at the different levels, it is necessary what are the standard copyright licenses that apply to each level and type of work and whar is the understanding that should be used when applying those licenses.
With the appearance of patentability of business models in the US, the question should be given careful attention. While other copyright laws, like those in Europe may not give explicit consideration to business models, BarCampBank should take a clear position on the subject.
BarCampBank should serve as un umbrella. In particular, someone producing or contributing to a "business model" released under the BarCampBankLicense should be able to offer the opportunity to implement the business model to his/her employer without having to negotiate with other potential contributors; or conversely, the business models should be implementable by other people without having to negotiate acceptance from employers of any of the contributors or the contributors themselves. BarCampBank is assumed to have full authority to represent the terms of the agreed license for any business models released under the BarCampBankLicense
I think that it could be good that we agree on a framework to handle our intellectual production and that we can provide a clear view of how BarCampBank is empowered to represent any IP released under this "umbrella". Please start contribution. Maybe we can plan one of the next flashmeeting to discuss the details and nail down a first release of BarCampBankLicense.
This is the first shot. In particular I put Creative Common License as a good start. But my understanding of the Common Creative License is still shallow and maybe some other framework might be interesting for specific works. Anyway, I have to do some homework to have a more educated view on the details. I have for example to understand what are the special retainments within CC 2.5 that should be expressed. Any help to understand the arcanes of the different copyright laws and specificities would be greatly appreciated. -- FredericBaud
Frederic, my opinion is that we could personalize the MicroFormats:rel-license-fr on each page. The BarCampBankLicense should by default be comptabile with Open-Content. My fear is the well-known copyright trap vs our implicit objective to maintain mobile content within AbsorptionGroup ? -- ChristopheDucamp January 19, 2007 11:51 CET
Christophe, I think that the BarCampBank license is exactly trying to solve the copyright trap: The idea is to present BarCampBank as a fully qualified copyright owner in place of a multitude of identified or anonymous contributors to a site. The only other way I see preventing the trap is to be released under Public Domain. Even GPL is not enough, because it does not state any rightful interlocutor.
Concerning full adherence to the idea in mobile content, I'm not sure that this is our implicit objective. I think that the BarCampBank site should be a reference where intellectual works should be able to freely and "pragmatically" flow in and out (in particular for AbsorptionGroups), but that BarCampBank should maintain unity of meaning and a single-stop shop for anything regarding disruptive innovations in the world of banking and finance. -- FredericBaud
A few issues:
When we are talking about CreativeCommons licenses, there are different variations of the 2.5 license. There is 2.5 by-sa, 2.5 by-nc-sa, etc. Which variation are we thinking of using here?
Although this will be a one-stop-shop for all things BarCampBank, the nature of OpenContent is that it will be re-used elsewhere. Espcecially if it is released under a license that exlicitly gives permission for it's re-use.
I agree with the idea that a business model should be "open", if possible. This means that it is released under license that explicitly states how it may be re-used. This way, you do not have to negotiate the usage of the model itself. This is the license that I have chosen for http://socialsynergyweb.net/cgi-bin/wiki/ObmLicense The only thing you should have to negotiate with others in the types of models that I am creating should be related the actual revenue generated from your pre-agreed-upon labors. But the models themselves are open to be re-used and modified. If the models are released under an open license (such as by-sa), they should then be highly mobile by default.
I would think of something like 2.5 by-sa (like in the ObmLicense) , with the fact that people may only cite BarCampBank as "by" and should possibly be forced to report the use here. I don't know if it would really work to negotiate compensation for the use of an open business model. I think BarCampBank should offer enough compelling co-assets (like acces to network, knowledge of orginal contributors, possibly enhanced access to capital,..) so that people using an open business model naturally trade with BarCampBanks when the company is founded. Like in usual open source projects, I don't know if any pre-agreed arrangements could really work, I think that people should be ready to contribute and see some kind of fair entity (BarCampBank) in position to collect and possibly redistribute the returns. -- FredericBaud
Frederic, I agree with you re: 2.5 by-sa, and with citing "BarCampBank", vs. any individual name.
I have clarify that I was not suggesting that people might negotiate compensation for the use of open business models. This would not work if they are released under "by-sa" license.
What I was suggesting in the portion that you exported to P2PVenture, was that people may negotiate revenue sharing, or "tithing" around the use of things like open source software. But I talk to you more about that idea at P2PVenture's Forum.
As for the license, though, I agree that 2.5 by-sa should work great for virtually all models and content contained in BarCampBank. Although, keep in mind that by-sa will require your employer, and everyone else in the world, to also release their reworkings under by-sa. So, it may be worth considering and talking about the pros and cons of http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ vs http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/
maybe your employer, or other private businesses, won't want to release their "remix" of BarCampBank creations?
Then again, maybe we want to add the "share alike" clause in order to encourage contribution to a knowledge/business commons. Personally, I tend to prefer by-sa, but I can see how some situations might arise where people will want to have flexibilities to re-use with out carrying the share-alike clause, especially in scenarios like the one you've suggested, where you want to re-use with an employer. Many corporations have not yet reached the point where they are ready to work with "share-alike" concepts. And, I think it will be at least a few years before that starts to change. So, we may want to think about giving contributors here at least some flexibility with some of the content created, especially business models. I'd love to read other's thoughts on this.
Does anyone think there could be scenarios like what I talk about above? Or, would we rather not try and accomodate organizations and people who are shunning standards like "share-alike"? I've chosen a flexible route for my own http://socialsynergyweb.net/cgi-bin/wiki/HomePage OpenConentBusinessModels] project. The default license is by-sa, but I will allow people to designate certain parts of projects with other licenses. For instance, creative artistic output of Extinction Level event project is by-nc-sa, but the business models we are creating to support it are by-sa.
So, it is possible to be flexible. Personally, I am open to working on projects with people who want just a "by attribution" license, if I like the goals and scope and nature of the project. What do others think? --SamRose
Sam, good points! I have not spent enough time on the details of CC 2.5 to have really an educated position. I agree with the fact that things should stay flexible for employers and I would lean in favor of a license like the Apache license that does not seem demanding. But again, I miss a lot of the elements here. At least, it seems to me that we are in synch on the main ideas. With the help of legal people, maybe we could gel on a BarCampBankLicense 1.0 that would clarify which standard license, with what provision we should use. -- FredericBaud
I guess I am still recommending that, we could use CC BY 2.5 by default, which would just require attribution as dictated by us, then allow flexibility on a per-project basis for people to ad clauses like "share alike" to CC 2.5. What do you think about that? -- SamRose
I do not agree with the barcampbank licence. And particularly, I do not agree with the following : ""Barcampbankers are producing intellectual work with common tasks like for example when they write in our Forum pages or Discussion sections. If should be assumed by people who write or people that want to reuse part of these works that the agreed license automatically applies to any these. When people are clearly identifiable, they should be normally considered as authors, of the work with special mention to BarCampBank. When the work was anonymous, BarCampBank should be understood as "the author". When contributions make it difficult to define all the actual contributors to a work, BarCampBank is appropriately understood as "the author" of the work""
In fact, my opinion is that any information provided on a public support (barcampbank) by anyone is a Public information that cannot be protected. Furthermore, when it is anonymous, this information cannot be the property of barcampbank itself as it is stated above! For those reasons I will stop contributing on Barcampbank. PatrickLardant
Hello Patrick, you should not stop contributing!! On the contrary.
Well apparently I'm not ready to be a lawyer since I wrote the text and it seems it makes people angry, even though my intentions were to be helpful. Please anyone can participate to help make the text correct.
In fact, I wrote the text to try to simplify the life of everyone.
First, my intention was to give a context. Because I'm not sure that everything you write on a website is de facto public domain. In France, it can not be the case until you say so (moral ownership are inalienable). In the US, my understanding that it did not reach the US Supreme court, so you're never sure. So the basic idea was to issue an explicit statement. And the idea is to refer to standard licenses (like GPL, or CC 2.5) but to give some context for the specific case of common contributions.
Second, I wanted to provide to people like me when they act as contributors, some kind of assurance. If I write a full page, that I sign it and that someone reuse it somewhere, I would like to be cited as the author. Nothing more.
Third, I wanted to provide to people like me who could be interested in using some or whole part of a collective work (where I possibly was a contributor myself) some kind of assurance. I wanted to be able to use the work by citing BarCampBank only and not have to ask permission or seek for all the possible contributors.
OK, the text is probably not well written to reflect what I've just expressed. So, if everyone thinks this could be a good balance, we can try to make it more adequate.
We can also decide to make the information explicitly public domain. But what is the incentive to write here instead of on your own blog? If you think that's preferable, please change the text of BarCampBankLicense in that direction.
If people want to discuss this, we can move the post to the Discussion section of the BarCampBankLicense page and continue the brainstorming process. -- FredericBaud
Recommendtion: What both Frederic and patrick want is basically covered in CreativeCommons license 3.0
You can either choose CC 3.0 BY, which means:
" You are free:
"source: anon: http://barcampbank.com"
Also, people are more familiar and comfortable with CC licenses, so using them helps to alleviate nagging concerns in people's minds about technicalities. And, they are already vetted by a community of lawyers, so it makes it a lot easier than trying to draft your own (this is why they started the CC project).
In short: save time and agony, use the existing CC licenses -- SamRose
I agree that the licensing must be standard, simple and fair. Should we treat Forums (that could be public domain), white-papers (that could be CC by-share alike) and business models (that could be CC by and no other restrictions)? Or should-we adopt only one form of CC (e.g. by) for the sake of simplicity? The whole point was to put the question on the table. What would people feel comfortable with? -- FredericBaud
... add your name