The distinctions are obvious but by and large, you're right, if you do it *right* it's not the worst idea. :)
-
-
Often there are benefits that flow in both direction above and beyond the cash flow (if any). E.g. IBM gets to brag that it knows Linux, and the linux foundation gets extra marketing from IBM. This video game deal COULD have been like that ... but wasn't. Or ... maybe wasn't?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MorlockP @legalinspire and
From my non-lawyer perspective, the core issue is that the first party had some sort of non-analytical view on what's "fair", and it evolved over time. The problem is that he gave promises to party 2, and with those promises the deal was done.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP @legalinspire and
One reason we have law and contracts is that it lets one remove potential headaches and create certainty about the future. Tangentially, I've noticed that there is a continuum of human personality types, from "interaction is a BENEFIT" to "...is a DETRIMENT". I've seen >>>
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP @legalinspire and
this divide play out in topics as odd as maker-spaces / hacker-spaces. Introverts love owning their own tools bc there are never any future debates about access, fairness, etc. Extroverts / left libertarians love sharing not despite but BECAUSE of the future debates. >>>
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP @legalinspire and
"we need to have a three hour meeting to discuss what a fair way to share the metal lathe is, and come up with some rules, and reach consensus" is actually a BENEFIT to some people, not a reason to commit suicide This vid game designer (#1) is prob of this type. >>>
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP @legalinspire and
"sharing without copyright is WONDERFUL because we get to haggle over the details and renegotiate things FOREVER" me: <racks shotgun, aims at own head> /exeunt
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
I don't think that reflects Jason's mindset. He puts his stuff into the public domain precisely so he *doesn't* have to deal with such details. He doesn't want to. The problem is that public domain turns out to work not /quite/ the way he thought, in a very important way.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
I still think "you can use the code/assets but not the name" is the best way for him to achieve what he wants going forward.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
What he wants is, unfortunately, not entirely clear. He's said a few different things about it. +
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
> What he wants is, unfortunately, not entirely clear. LOL, ok, then, never mind. :)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.