|10-27-2004, 10:53 PM||#1|
Join Date: Apr 2002
With such a license as I am musing on, the mere knowledge of a concept implies the right to use it. However, the extent to commercial use allowable is limited by the extent to which the concept is applied commercially by its owner. I.e., if the owner of a mudbase netted $1,000 from ventures using the mudbase, then anyone else could use the mudbase for ventures with a net gain of up to but not exceeding $1,000. Furthermore, if someone produced a derivate of the mudbase and netted only $500 (which is within the limit allowed to them), anyone could use that derivate, but only for ventures netting up to $500.
This would be on a per person basis, such that an infinite number of persons could each earn up to the limit. Organizational entities could earn over the limit, but any amount in excess of what may be distributed to the owners must be invested elsewhere or reinvested in the organization itself -- OR -- invested in the owner of the originating concept, thereby increasing the limit that can be earned by all in the subhierarchy.
Further, if one particular derivative shows more potential for success than the orginal concept, the owner of the original concept could invest in that derivative. Due to the way the process works, the other investors in that derivative are allowed to make as much from it as the owner of the originating concept makes from that derivative. (And if there are no intermediate derivatives, then they can flat out make as much as the owner of the original concept.)
Every application of a concept is going to be unique in one way or another, because at the very least, the situation to which it is applied is always unique. Therefore, every specific application of a concept is in fact a new derivative of that concept. This includes any specific applications of a concept made by the original owner of that concept. With the licensing I described, the market value of the application can be distinguished from the market value of the originating concept by the original owner's personal ability and desire to apply his or her concept or derivatives thereof.
That last sentence is a large jump in logic on my part. So it's almost certainly wrong, though it sounds right to me at the moment. I really hate that feeling -- don't you? In any case, such a license would be #### to manage.
|A silly licensing idea, just for fun. - Similar Threads|
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|Crazy Idea||Torren||MUD Coding||2||02-25-2004 06:36 PM|
|Large vs Small (not in that sense silly!)||Taniquetil||MUD Builders and Areas||10||06-04-2003 10:36 AM|
|Ethical? Licensing and accepting donations...||DSer||Legal Issues||11||01-02-2003 03:52 PM|
|New MUD Idea||Letum||Advanced MUD Concepts||17||01-01-2003 04:05 PM|
|NEW MUD IDEA FOR YOU!||Ryunt||Advertising for Staff||7||05-14-2002 11:59 PM|