This is an interesting idea, I need to think on it, so just a few thoughts:
* I could get behind this if the open license is something like MIT or Apache, ideally WTFPL or public domain even. I worry that AGPL would lead to corruption in ways that I don't see yet, probably through copyright and IP, so someone like the RIAA/MPAA would end up owning the collective somehow.
* Open source was/is compelling to me because I thought that freedom through free software could be a model for humanity. I'd prefer that society went toll-free, rather than adding a toll to free software. So stuff like UBI, expanding the commons by making internet free like public land, roads and bridges, etc etc etc. Coming at this from an abundance (rather than scarcity) mindset.
* Along those lines, I thought that maybe something like a lien could work (not sure if that's the right word). For example, say a company uses 100 pieces of open source software. That would show on an open source "ledger" as a debt of 100. If a developer wrote 1 of those, the company would have a "debt" to them of 1%. So if the company nets $1 million per year in profit, it's kind of like 1% of that is owed to the developer, or $10,000. Some companies owe billions of dollars in open source debt. Until they pay that, maybe there should be limits in how they can exercise their power. Perhaps they could be banned from lobbying the government, for example, or risk losing the use of any open source license for profit until they pay their debt. So I guess the real power of the Collective would be to blacklist companies that abuse their power.
> I could get behind this if the open license is something like MIT or Apache, ideally WTFPL or public domain even.
That would defeat the purpose. If the license freely given to everyone were permissive, then companies would have no reason to pay for a different one.
> I worry that AGPL would lead to corruption in ways that I don't see yet, probably through copyright and IP
* I could get behind this if the open license is something like MIT or Apache, ideally WTFPL or public domain even. I worry that AGPL would lead to corruption in ways that I don't see yet, probably through copyright and IP, so someone like the RIAA/MPAA would end up owning the collective somehow.
* Open source was/is compelling to me because I thought that freedom through free software could be a model for humanity. I'd prefer that society went toll-free, rather than adding a toll to free software. So stuff like UBI, expanding the commons by making internet free like public land, roads and bridges, etc etc etc. Coming at this from an abundance (rather than scarcity) mindset.
* Along those lines, I thought that maybe something like a lien could work (not sure if that's the right word). For example, say a company uses 100 pieces of open source software. That would show on an open source "ledger" as a debt of 100. If a developer wrote 1 of those, the company would have a "debt" to them of 1%. So if the company nets $1 million per year in profit, it's kind of like 1% of that is owed to the developer, or $10,000. Some companies owe billions of dollars in open source debt. Until they pay that, maybe there should be limits in how they can exercise their power. Perhaps they could be banned from lobbying the government, for example, or risk losing the use of any open source license for profit until they pay their debt. So I guess the real power of the Collective would be to blacklist companies that abuse their power.