Ownership of things and establishing who owns what seems to be very important to humans. One time I bought my two young nephews identical toys, and then subsequently watched them fighting over who owned which toy - even though they were exactly alike. What does it mean to own something, and do other animals have a concept of ownership? If I own something I may to some extent monopolise its usage, but what about things which I own but rarely or never use? Can I own something non-physical, like an idea, and if so what does that really mean? Can I own an idea which I duplicated and then modified slightly according to my unique needs?
Although I'm an open source fan I don't think I would ever sign up to the things you're proposing. Forcing developers to pay a fee before they use your system simply ensures that no developers will join your project. The whole saga of non-disclosure, identity verification, anti-competitiveness and software patents I find quite nauseating, as the saying goes "like a monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much loved friend". When true AGI emerges I sincerely hope that it does not appear within the confines of this kind of restrictive system. Powerful new technology concentrated into the hands of a few individuals who exclusively monopolise its use could cause a great deal of damage in my opinion, and hinder its wider application especially within developing countries. Instead I would prefer to see something more akin to a balance of power, where nobody really "owns" the system and it is open to extensive public scrutiny and debate. A more open approach is more likely to lead to a positive singularity, as opposed to some of the dystopian scenarios. On 01/06/07, YKY (Yan King Yin) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How about some brainstorming...? My proposal is this: 1. People post their ideas onto a wiki and discuss them, while carefully keeping a record of who has said what. Also, each person suggests an amount of how much the contribution is worth. If the amount is outrageous people can make complaints about it. 2. Suppose the group end up with some useful ideas / algorithms. Each result will be collectively owned by that result's contributors. 3. Suppose someone (a developer) wants to take a result and implement it? The developer will have to pay a license fee to the contributors, the fee being proportional to the total estimated worth of its "constituents". 4. Also, everyone who participates, must sign a non-disclosure and non-competitive agreement (NDA & NCA). There should also be some way to verify the person's identity. 5. I think this scheme can work for existing AGI projects like Novamente. It will not compromise the control over their ideas / intellectual property because of the NDA & NCA. 6. If something is deemed patent-worthy, the patent will be collectively owned as in (2). The licensing price will be set analogous to (2), so it won't be outrageous. How's that? YKY ________________________________ This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;
----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e
