Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Common Source (ne Open Corporations)

Expand Messages
  • Michael Bauer
    Thanks for the feedback everyone. I appreciate the criticism. Maybe I should ve let my mom read it first. At least I d ve started the new year with a little
    Message 1 of 5 , Jan 1, 2002
      Thanks for the feedback everyone. I appreciate the criticism. Maybe I
      should've let my mom read it first. At least I'd've started the new year
      with a little love.

      :)

      I think I should re-title the piece "Open Corporations". I'm advocating
      the establishment of formal decentralized legal entities that represent
      open source projects. These entities are assigned copyright, provide the
      source code under a "common source" dual-licensing scheme ala Sleepycat
      (sans GPL similarities), and manage royalty and other revenue streams on
      behalf of developers. The license is not new and is only secondary to the
      main point, which is a more comprehensive re-thinking of managing open
      source projects through decentralized open corporations.

      I need to address a number of specific issues that have been raised here,
      such as how are these open corporations managed, how is equity allocated,
      and what is to be done about forking. I tried to address some of these,
      such as insuring protocol compliance to minimize the effects of forking,
      but certainly need to articulate on these points more clearly (thanks for
      some of the ideas concerning equity allocation, Josh). I think I need to
      add some additional points, such as it may be in the interests of open
      source "customers" like IBM, HP, etc, to be able to interact with (and
      even support) open source projects if they are managed as "corporations".

      The other thing I think I need to do is split the article up. The
      analysis of open source companies should probably be de-coupled from an
      "open corporations" piece. This may help tighten up the analysis and
      allow me to go into a bit more depth. I think your point about tying the
      complaints about open source to the success or failure of various
      companies is a good one, Jim. And the list does need to be tightened up a
      bit too, with sourceforge, sourcexchange and mysql ab properly treated. I
      will draw the line as to not including ibm, yahoo, disney, nokia, berkely
      and the us government as not being pure open source plays. This will also
      give me a chance to address the value of establishing standards that an
      open source project provides as you've pointed out Kevin.

      Again, thanks for all the suggestions. If you don't mind I'd like to post
      the revisions later. Your help is much appreciated before I move onto the
      Free Software Business list. Where I think I may drop the
      anti-Stalmmanistic rhetoric.

      :)



      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Michael Bauer http://www.michaelbauer.com bauer@...
    • burton@openprivacy.org
      ... Hash: SHA1 ... I like Open Corporations a lot better. ... I think you will have much better luck. There are some very smart people
      Message 2 of 5 , Jan 1, 2002
        -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
        Hash: SHA1

        Michael Bauer <bauer@...> writes:

        > Thanks for the feedback everyone. I appreciate the criticism. Maybe I
        > should've let my mom read it first. At least I'd've started the new year
        > with a little love.
        >
        > :)
        >
        > I think I should re-title the piece "Open Corporations". I'm advocating the
        > establishment of formal decentralized legal entities that represent open
        > source projects.
        <snip/>

        I like Open Corporations a lot better.
        <snip/>

        > Again, thanks for all the suggestions. If you don't mind I'd like to post the
        > revisions later. Your help is much appreciated before I move onto the Free
        > Software Business list. Where I think I may drop the anti-Stalmmanistic
        > rhetoric.
        >
        > :)
        <snip/>

        I think you will have much better luck. There are some very smart people over
        there that have a lot of experience in this area.

        This is probably the wrong list for your follow-up.

        Kevin

        - --
        Kevin A. Burton ( burton@..., burton@..., burtonator@... )
        Location - San Francisco, CA, Cell - 415.595.9965
        Jabber - burtonator@..., Web - http://relativity.yi.org/

        And the beast shall be made legion. Its numbers shall be increased a thousand
        thousand fold. The din of a million keyboards like unto a great storm shall
        cover the earth, and the followers of Mammon shall tremble.
        - from The Book of Mozilla, 3:31 (Red Letter Edition)
        -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
        Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
        Comment: Get my public key at: http://relativity.yi.org/pgpkey.txt

        iD8DBQE8MkbpAwM6xb2dfE0RApPVAJ9fFGHaWEiIZbSFWy+s3gjMZMX68wCfVWvI
        8+PxoxCCGAx9BqIA3UrQfx0=
        =oUNb
        -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
      • chris cook
        ... Exactly. And maybe one day we ll be looking at Open Government as well. Seems to me that one of the key elements of the Open Corporation lies in how it
        Message 3 of 5 , Jan 2, 2002
          >From: Michael Bauer <bauer@...>
          >
          >I think I should re-title the piece "Open Corporations".

          Exactly. And maybe one day we'll be looking at "Open Government" as well.

          Seems to me that one of the key elements of the Open Corporation lies in how
          it raises its working capital.

          In the model I advocate this is accomplished by effectively "lending" the
          merit shares to financiers for a period of time under a "Repo" - "sale and
          Repurchase" agreement.

          FWIW that is a mechanism whereby institutional shareholders can generate
          income by lending out securities which they hold.



          _________________________________________________________________
          Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
        • Todd Boyle
          ... Hmmm.. we don t need 6% interest on the merit shares. What we need is a scheme where investors can fund developers, betting on horses, who then are freed
          Message 4 of 5 , Jan 2, 2002
            At 02:32 AM 1/2/02, chris cook wrote:
            >Seems to me that one of the key elements of the Open Corporation lies in how
            >it raises its working capital.
            >
            >In the model I advocate this is accomplished by effectively "lending" the
            >merit shares to financiers for a period of time under a "Repo" - "sale and
            >Repurchase" agreement.
            >
            >FWIW that is a mechanism whereby institutional shareholders can generate
            >income by lending out securities which they hold.


            Hmmm.. we don't need 6% interest on the merit shares. What we need is
            a scheme where investors can fund developers, betting on horses, who then
            are freed from the worry about money matters and even from worrying about
            managing their merit shares against other developers. A free agent system,
            I mean.

            If there is a developer in a Democratic model project then, why shouldn't he
            sell and assign all of his present and future merit shares to his "sugar
            daddy",
            for some duration like the 2002 season? The sugar daddy provides a paycheck
            (or more likely a mixture of flat salary plus incentive formula based on the
            results of the project). If the developer or investor wants out, then at that
            point in time, the rights to merit shares up to that point can remain
            permanent,
            but the process of transferring merit shares for financing, simply stops.

            Todd
          • chris cook
            ... Depends on the investor. Some want income; some want capital gain. But whichever, there is always going to be a punt element. ... That s exactly what a
            Message 5 of 5 , Jan 2, 2002
              >From: Todd Boyle <tboyle@...>
              >
              >Hmmm.. we don't need 6% interest on the merit shares. What we need is
              >a scheme where investors can fund developers, betting on horses, who then
              >are freed from the worry about money matters and even from worrying about
              >managing their merit shares against other developers. A free agent
              >system,
              >I mean.
              >
              Depends on the investor. Some want income; some want capital gain. But
              whichever, there is always going to be a "punt" element.


              >If there is a developer in a Democratic model project then, why shouldn't
              >he
              >sell and assign all of his present and future merit shares to his "sugar
              >daddy",
              >for some duration like the 2002 season?

              That's exactly what a sale and repurchase agreement can do. All we are
              talking about is the nature of consideration receivable.

              > The sugar daddy provides a paycheck
              >(or more likely a mixture of flat salary plus incentive formula based on
              >the
              >results of the project). If the developer or investor wants out, then at
              >that
              >point in time, the rights to merit shares up to that point can remain
              >permanent,
              >but the process of transferring merit shares for financing, simply stops.


              Why not? Is there a sugardaddy.com out there?

              Chris


              _________________________________________________________________
              Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
              http://www.hotmail.com
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.