[FM Discuss] updated IBD

[Daniel James]

Hi Camille,

> fruit is a FINITE resource whereas culture and software are NOT.

I'm not sure that's true. Near-zero-cost copying doesn't enable
zero-cost production, and we can only copy what has already been made.

> The Mona Lisa is so valuable because we've all seen it reproduced
> and remixed so many different times.

Actually, I think that painting had high value before the advent of
digital copies. If you could only see it in the Louvre I don't think it
would be worth any less, just like hearing a recording of a musician is
not the same as seeing them live. Otherwise no-one would pay for a real
painting, they would buy a high resolution copy (and optionally bid for
the reproduction rights).

> Does  this mean we should turn our backs on open source? Shutter our 
> doors and become non-Free because hey "We gotta eat!"

Not at all, I'm just suggesting that free culture may be difficult to
sustain over the long term if there is a net flow of resources out of
the community.

> maybe you should bone up on your open source business models 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_models_for_open_source_software>.

I don't deny that business models for Free Software can work, because
software has the intrinsic problems of being expensive to make, never
being finished and rapidly going out of date. Cultural products may or
may not be expensive to make, but the other two problems need not apply.
(Software manuals are perhaps more like software than most cultural
products).

On a positive note, I wonder if there may be practical cultural models
in non-commercial/commercial licensing, backed by solid attribution. For
example if someone writes a software manual, and someone else uses it
for free training, the trainer doesn't pay. If they are charging for the
training, they pay a reasonable amount to the attributed authors - say
10% of the course fee - perhaps via the organisation hosting the
Booktype instance.

If the trainer becomes a contributor to the manual, they will get some
of that income back. That would create a positive feedback loop, with an
incentive for the many trainers around the world to use and contribute
to the manuals. It might also encourage the delivery of free training.

I personally would not have a problem with the Flossmanuals Foundation
collecting money for commercial use of a book I had written. I might
choose to donate some or all of that money back to the Foundation.

Cheers!

Daniel