Disclaimer: this is a brainstorm of ideas on what is practical. I am a free culture advocate. I understand that without invention my own ideals have practical limitations. I don't believe that invention is impractical, however accomplishment without first inventing is.
If any of what is said causes you to question OUR ideals, please meditate on and rationalize what was said: I HOPE YOU DON'T CHANGE WHAT YOU BELIEVE.
Please avoid getting triggered, please don't start a flame, and please understand not every issue needs resolution immediately.
Most ideas in this thread will need to be outrageous to be helpful. If everyone disregarded those ideas simply for being outrageous, they will never develop into less outrageous ideas. /end-disclaimer
I was thinking about some of what Luke has said about certification law, and the only way I can rationalize it is to doubt this has been tested in court absent of patents-held.
None of these standards organizations have problems owning patents, only free culture advocates do. Maybe some slight cognitive dissonance is involved (sorry to say so bluntly Luke), but, if these types of precedents are to be held up absent patents-held, that would mean an expansion of standard copyright I don't think many courts would be comfortable with.
At the end of the day, if people can just copy the standard disregarding anyone present as a certification entity, there is no economic support to be had for anyone involved. It wouldn't agree with my morals if someone had to ask Luke's permission to make an EOMA card, but I know otherwise isn't practical yet. Enter Patent-Left. The hack-solution is to make the standard itself an "open patent license" that if anyone can follow, then they are assumed to possess the license with burden of proof falling on anyone wishing to prove they aren't following it.
This is a hack, because, much like invariant sections in the GDFL, an author can arbitrarily refuse changes to any certain part(s) they choose. How do we capture the moral behind why patents exist, while still honoring free culture? *stop, meditate, write what you think, then keep reading*
vvv *skip this if you careless about learning economics* vvv Perhaps, we can make rules about "contractual equity" so, if someone wants to sell what they make, they pick a currency "declare 'owning' an instance of the license" which only becomes valid after selling "equity" towards a right-to-cancel-the-license to a minimum number of I.D.-ed citizens of a country minting that currency at a minimum price (in technical terms, a minimum market cap per a minimum capita). Oh hell that's messy. Hard to believe that's less messy than the first hack. Let me list the problems with my own proposal. Economically: What/Who determines a fair market cap and a fair minimum capita for a given patentleft license? How do we establish sybil protection across cryptocurrency markets (what "should be" a "citizen" to them?)? Politically: How can a market cap fairly account for currency conversions? How can a person from a country minting a currency with a smaller market exert the same influence over a project as there larger market counterparts? How do people from countries without a national currency even participate, much less equally? How do we prevent citizens from countries with multi-currency systems from getting unfairly punishing or rewarding treatment (if only one currency is recognized, that's punishing, but, if all are recognized, that's rewarding, since there are drawbacks to multi-currency systems [including tangibly devaluing* all currencies involved compared to adopting any one as a single-currency] and those who can choose between currencies exert an influence over what currencies a project uses that others can't)? Is there any way legally possible anywhere to prevent people with multiple citizenships from being able to be counted as that many multiple people? Morally: We would be treating any one individual as not "good enough" to copy/modify a patent unless they have "this" many supporters who are at least "this" economically involved, which is unfair by my morals and, if avoidable, would likely render every other question easily answerable. While associating people with their nation's currencies prevents manipulating the value of currencies they have no stake in, using official documentation associates people with a nation that has chosen them rather than a nation they have chosen, which is unfair by my morals and, if avoidable, would likely render every political question here easily answerable (except that, if someone solves this "hard problem" only in the context of currencies rather than in general, they inherently give money as a concept extra utility, which bothers my personal ethic). If equity is transferable, that would allow individuals who haven't contributed to a project in no way to acquire leverage to make decisions about that project's direction, but, if equity isn't transferable, interest in judging the project from eventually dying (metaphorically and literally) and, while if trade-able then the right-to-cancel-the-license could be as fungible as whatever is traded despite conflicting interests, if not trade-able then there may be little way to gratify or enable those who strive to ensure interest in judging a project doesn't die (metaphorically and literally) (except that, even if a messy hack protects a project with trade-able equity towards right-to-cancel-the-license from conflicting interests, using money to enable without gratifying a receiver is a classic "hard problem" in economics which is the root cause and would bother my personal ethic to see ignored).
* Tangible Value: a Bayesian sum* of the items on a Bayesian list** of all that a currency could buy which one could sue discrimination if denied sale, counting every item on that list as a fraction of an item divided by the number of currencies it's legally guaranteed a right-of-sale. * Bayesian sums treat all that is different as different regardless of how different. ** Bayesian lists treat any number of identical items as that many different items. ^^^ *end skip* ^^^
IMO, a clean solution: greatly motivates forming large/complex cooperatives while not requiring the participation of more than one individual; guarantees that trust in a project comes from authority on that project and authority on a project comes from research of that project; all while ensuring attention to a project is proportional to trust in that project.
Please have some helpful input/feedback. Thank you in advance. If in doubt, post away anyway: I won't fault you!