comakery / dynamic-royalty-license Goto Github PK

What are the best options for limiting liability?

The license should be compatible with copyrightable aspects of written work, clothing, photographs, video, and graphic design. Generally things that can be represented digitally in a repository.

re:

The Open Innovation Business Model
Core contributors accept contributions in exchange for royalty tokens
Operations companies (e.g. web hosts, software distributors, manufacturers) pay royalties for use of the IP to token holders

What is open about that? Haven't you just re-invented fairly standard proprietary IP royal practices but called them open?

Thanks to @fractastical (Joel) for this comment.

There was a lot of work done on Distributed Collaborative Organizations that should be integrated into the governance model by:

• Joel Dietz, Swarm
• Greg Xethalis, Katten
• Primavera de Filippi, Harvard / LOVE
• Jim Hazard, Common Accord

Here's a link to the Swarm DCO license:
https://swarm.gitbooks.io/dco-book/content/dco-model-template.html

It should be clear that the individual receiving the royalties is repsonsible for their own taxes. Also, we don't want the royalty payer to be burdened with a 1099 form.

Is it advantageous to select a jurisdiction based on limited liability, associations rights to hold assets, etc?

In some cases this may be a temporary agreement. This case should be covered in the agreement or at least thought out.

The agreement should support repository forking. This is intimately tied with the question of contribution valuation.

One interesting feature would be to tie the coins to a repository date and version. Forks would only distribute royalties for tokens issued prior to the date of the last repository commit.

However, new contributions would need to be valued in a way that would honor previous commits.

Valuing work is a complex topic and may require some variations. The agreement should be flexible enough to change and accommodate multiple protocols.

It's possible that a blockchain will fail or that a new technology will emerge with superior properties. If that occurs the license should allow transference of the royalty token table.

This one may and should make folks nervous as it's where trust in the human legal system and trust in the math of the blockchain may intersect.

Should include

• a contributor license agreement
• maintain rights to the IP they contribute in other contexts similar to the Twitter innovators patent agreement?

Raised by @jesseposner

The "Base Award" needs to be clarified, but I'm not sure what is meant by "Minor Open Contribution" and "Open Contribution." I'm assuming "Core Contributor hourly rate" applies to contributions by core contributors.

Can we reduce the risk of broken references between docs by merging the license and governance agreement? Or is it better to keep them separate with URL references between them?

May be draw on:

• https://github.com/citizencode/self-organization-constitution
• Citizen Code's internal constitution (currently private)
• Swarm DCO license

Must have:

• method for delegating budgets to individuals
• empowerment for individuals to make operational decisions
• audit trail and advice requirement for decision makers
• role for prioritizing certain features / issues / tasks
• allowance for autonomous open contributions outside of prioritized tasks

Should have a generic Communication Address variable. Email will not be primary communication medium in many use cases.

Royalties should be applicable to revenue derived from the use of the licensed software.

• It shouldn't apply to all of an organizations gross revenue (that would be unusable)
• It shouldn't be easily dodgable by charging for a related service and offering swarmbot for free

Can one license support this or does there need to be one for equity and the other for royalties?

CC0 license?