We propose adding the following Intellectual Policy statement at the bottom of the home web page: “Intellectual Policy: We encourage anyone using these ideas to enter into separate agreements to reasonably compensate the people who post. But the purpose of this site is to provide an open source platform for ideas. Please do not post an idea, if you intend to later sue for compensation. For details click here. [Here would be highlighted link which would lead to this more formal statement: People who post to this site promise not to sue based on the use of their ideas unless they have entered into an express separate written contract that includes a hand-written signature of the person using the idea.]
An alternative to this “commitment not to sue” policy, would be a version where the innovator would propose a compensation cap – say 5% of revenue capped at $50,000. A condition of being able to read the idea (or possibly of using the site) is that the reader would legally commit to paying the amount requested if the reader ended up using the idea. We are reluctant to add this capped compensation option to the site, because it is cumbersome and offputting for some of the “open source community.”
I agree
No opinion
I disagree
Add your comment
I'm in favour of the first option.
The best part about WhyNot.net is the open nature of contributions & opinions. Indeed, legal issues would be a pain, hence the "commitment not to sue" is welcomed.
IMHO, there's no way to certify the authenticity of "new" ideas; hence, it would probably be unfair to commit on a compensation cap. How about a "token of appreciation" for highlighting the idea in the first place?
Why not give people a choice? Offer a range of legal protections, from full to "fair compensation" to free, and let people choose which one they want for each idea. As long as someone lets people know that he wants compensation for an idea and has filed for protection, people can take the necessary precautions and won't be surprised with an unexpected lawsuit down the line.
Even a protected idea can inspire someone else to come up with new ideas. After all, you posted a brilliant idea that happened to be owned by someone else. Great ideas can be a springboard for new insights, regardless of the motivations of the person who is posting them.
This discussion is very important, but we need to be precise about what we are talking about. The term "open source" refers to computer software where the human-readable source code is available for inspection and improvement. It really does not apply to a discussion about written ideas on this website.
The purpose of WhyNot.net is for people to GIVE AWAY their good ideas, especially the ones that they don't think they would ever get around to implementing themselves.
In keeping with that spirit, the ideal solution for WhyNot.net is to release all of its content into the Public Domain, that is, to share the ideas fully with everyone and for every use whatsoever so they can be expanded upon, refined and implemented to make the world a better place. Because current US copyright law covers everything as you write it, with no need to register it or even place a copyright notice, putting the WhyNot.net ideas in the public domain would mean having a notice on the screen any time someone is about to post an idea or comment that says something like "I hereby forgo any ownership of this information and release it into the public domain for the benefit of everyone."
An alternative, which I would actually recommend over the above, is to allow each poster to choose which Creative Commons license to attach to their post (which rights they want to reserve). See: http://creativecommons.org/learn/licenses/comics1 for an explanation of all the levels of Creative Commons licenses. Personally, I will choose the "pd" Public Domain license every time, but if you have seen my website, you know that already: betterdifferent.com
In the meantime, I added a note to my personal info page on this website which forgoes the Creative Commons "by"- "Attribution Required" restriction (which is now referenced at the bottom of each page on WhyNot.net), meaning you don't have to worry about giving me credit for anything I write.
As a practical matter, it is impossible to switch from a more liberal IP stance to a more protected one, i.e. now that the "by" Creative Commons license is in effect for items already on WhyNot.net, there is no way to back-up and add new license restrictions to previously posted items. That is the beauty of it... once information is out there, it is out there for good. There is no way to come back and sue someone later using copyright law.
Nate