Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Solving the prisoner's dilemma in crowdfunding

[gmail gregor]

Thank you for the answer.

If i got it right, the gist of snowdrift is looking forward, thus
changing the whole culture (hopefully/eventually) into sharing and
giving one.

Also, the term ransom is new to me (wich goes to show i am not really
all too informed). 

Still, was not referring so much to the future works in my question.
What i primarily had in mind was academic works that one needs to pay
access fees (and worse). Thinking, huh, what if all the liberated minds
would chip in, wouldn't eventually all the (digital) culture be freed.

And after reading a few of the pages at snowdrift.coop, i think i might
have my answer. Below are some excerpts:

###
https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/economics
...
Public goods vs club goods

Economists classify non-rivalrous goods (including abstract concepts and
patterns that we metaphorically talk about as “goods” and “resources”)3
as either public goods or club goods.

Public goods are those non-rivalrous resources open to everyone to use
and share freely. Club goods are non-rivalrous resources where access
and/or other privileges are reserved for members of an exclusive club
(such as those who pay a fee).
...
Ideas were either shared freely and openly or controlled through secrecy
and censorship, but, either way, nobody confused them with physical
goods. The modern concept of “intellectual property” developed only
recently as lectures, storytelling, and concerts gave way to physical
media containing texts, drawings, and audio/video recordings.
...
Digital technology has essentially freed recorded works from their
scarce containers. Copies of works no longer require publishing new
physical objects.
...
Laws and business models have not adapted
...
#
https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/free-libre-open
...
“Free/libre” vs “open”

The now-common term “Open Source” also has a problematic
software-centric framing1 and focuses mainly on the development process
rather than on the overall ethics of a project.

Overall, “open” tends to complement rather than replace “free/libre”.
Freedom on its own doesn’t emphasize collaboration, participation, or
transparency. Openness on its own does not necessarily bring freedom
(especially when “open” refers only the source and not to the final
product). Real freedom also requires respect for privacy, and the term
“open” doesn’t really address that concern. At Snowdrift.coop, we care
about both open participation and essential liberties.
...
At Snowdrift.coop, we support the FSF’s mission to rid the world of
proprietary software, but we’re not convinced about the tactic of
demonizing the term “open”. We focus on providing a better economy for
non-scarce goods in order to remove the economic excuse for proprietary
restrictions.
...
FLO

As no single choice covers all our values clearly, the best solution
acknowledges all the terms via the combination free/libre/open or FLO. 
...
#
https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/licenses
...
Our position

Snowdrift.coop emphasizes the importance of cooperating toward mutual
goals of freedom, compatibility, and creative productivity. We want to
maximize the standing of FLO in the world by both acknowledging ideals
and advocating practical strategies.

The main co-founders of Snowdrift.coop support copyleft terms, and the
site itself is copyleft. However, consistent with our dedication to
cooperation and inclusion, we have allied with the Copyfree Initiative
(whose founder joined our steering committee). We allow projects and
users to choose their preferred terms within the scope of general FLO
definitions.

#
https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/project-requirements
Required licenses and FLO definitions

Free/Libre/Open (FLO) means unrestricted freedoms to use, modify, and
share. A few precise FLO definitions compete for recognition as the
standard in different fields.1 Thankfully, the most accepted definitions
are practically equivalent. We do not want to create yet another
competing standard, so we defer to the options listed below.
...
###

And it might be something along the lines of a 1000 mile journey :).

Anyhow, all the best
g


On Sat, 2016-02-20 at 12:30 -0800, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 02/20/2016 02:31 AM, gmail gregor wrote:
> > Hi Aaron,
> > 
> > umm, firstly - i've been following libreplanet discussion group for a
> > couple of years. Because i find the problematic it covers interesting
> > (obviously). Still, this is my first letter.
> > 
> > Just quickly went over snowdrift.coop and let me join in thanking you
> > for the effort. Also for many posts, here on libreplanet.
> > 
> > To the point: do you think that the snowdrift platform could be used,
> > for buying the rights on all sort of (digitally published/released)
> > works, then releasing them under public licences? (Via some mechanics
> > say: each donor gets to put one item on the wish list then choose 3
> > items (out of the same list) that he/she fancy liberating first.)
> > 
> > Anyhow, all the best
> > sincerely
> > g
> > 
> 
> Thanks Gregor. The term for what you're talking about is "ransom" and it
> is highly problematic to *encourage* people to publish non-free anything
> with the goal of ransoming it.
> 
> More thoughts at:
> https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/status-quo-floss#ransom-systems
> 
> It's not impossible for Snowdrift.coop to expand to cover cases like
> that in the long run. However, our focus for now and the foreseeable
> future is on better supporting those actors who are already doing the
> right thing and releasing their work freely but need more support.
> 
> We hope that if we can provide good support for FLO public goods, then
> more people will see that it's possible to get by making FLO works and
> they'll just choose to do so, and anyway the existing FLO stuff will be
> that much better and there will be less need to ransom proprietary
> things. Like all types of ransoming, we're happy when the thing is
> freed, but we don't want to encourage people to keep hostages in the
> first place.
>