This idea reads like a joke, but there's something to it.

One feature request: In addition to high-level milestones, it would be cool if a partially-funded project would generate a public, highly detailed implementation plan.

Also, IANAL but MIT is still a license with a copyright holder. I don't think saying "it's MIT, we all own it" is defensible. The courts might view all this code as public domain.

▲

digdugdirk 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I've always wanted to figure out how to implement a cooperative source license. Something like, you're allowed to do what you want with it, but any derivative work requires the same license, and X% of any income goes to the cooperative?

Not sure how it'd work, but there's absolutely a niche for a privacy focused data cooperative out there.

▲

8note 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

if fable is writing it, courts my declare that its not even public domain? not a copywrightable work

▲

NewJazz 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That'll translate across copyright jurisdictions.

▲

lwyrup 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don’t know, if the design itself is copyrighted you could argue that the AI is just a bunch of hired workers that built it for extremely low wages.

If I hired a bunch of people to build me a house, and I drafted the architectural plans with the help of a paid architect, neither the architect nor the builders have ownership over the home.

So if a collection of people design something together maybe that has merit, they collectively paid for Anthropic to build it for them…

▲

jonhohle 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I’m pretty sure copyright office has settled that already. Inly human expression can be copyrighted:

> As described above, in many circumstances these outputs will be copyrightable in whole or in part—where AI is used as a tool, and where a human has been able to determine the expressive elements they contain. Prompts alone, however, at this stage are unlikely to satisfy those requirements.

https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...

	▲	tgma 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The United States Copyright office. There's a whole world outside the US. And even then they can change their mind. Does not hurt to backstop with an explicit license.

▲

unmole 38 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> you could argue that the AI is just a bunch of hired workers that built it for extremely low wages.

I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such an assertion.

With apologies to Mr. Charles Babbage.

▲

timcobb 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think pooling/donating tokens will be a thing. Not sure if like this, but in some format. The Django project, for example, came out and said they don't want your tokens, but I think a lot of people/projects will (do?) want your tokens.

▲

fny 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Why not just give a project money and let them decide how to spend?

▲

bitmasher9 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Donating tokens to a software project is a bit like donating food to a hungry person.

I think it might be beneficial to use blockchain, so that the donor can audit which prompts the token-pool they donated too performed. Perhaps donating tokens can also give you votes on which prompts are entered.

	▲	jagged-chisel 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It’s more like donating snack cakes to a hungry person.

▲

pitched 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The good ones all seem to be pointing in the direction of Django. Which, on its own, says a lot about how likely people will care about vibe-coded anything, whether pooled or not.

▲

oofdere 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

yeah it should really be CC0

▲

dietr1ch 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Should it? If it was real world infrastructure, like a bridge it'd be easier to say that it belongs to those who lead the project and those who put down the money

	▲	SequoiaHope 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The nice thing about a CC0 work is that it belongs to everybody. The leaders of the project have the same rights to use and modify the software as they do with software they have exclusive copyright over. In fact copyright does not grant the rights holder any new rights they did not have, it only restricts the rights of other people.
	▲	oofdere 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		it probably already is in the public domain under US law, this just gives it the same status across jurisdictions

▲

stogot 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Highly detailed plan with time for the backers to comment and suggest improvements*

▲

fragmede 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The problem with running open source code is the security aspect, but with Mythos running point, how would you distribute revenue is the real question.

Which market is even left after since the sasspocaloypse?

	▲	galaxyLogic 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Maybe the financiers of a project just need it, they need it working, not to generate revenue for them?