Semantic code project: next steps: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 15: Line 15:


===Opensource vs IP===
===Opensource vs IP===
I think it is vital to recognise that this project should be a free, open source, public utility. The “drift to complicatedness” the information revolution has enabled has been accompanied by a view that legal technology in itself is proprietary when in fact it is better regarded as a common API between market participants. Contract technology should not ''proprietary'', that is to say; rather contracts — agreements made out of contract technology — may be ''confidential''. To confuse a contractual ''confidence'' with a proprietary right in [[intellectual property]] is to make a category error. No-one should extract [[rent]] from boilerplate.
This project should be a free, open source, public utility. The the model should be open architecture, open-source, freeware. GitHub or MediaWiki, not ISDA. No-one should extract [[rent]] from boilerplate.


Therefore the model should be open architecture, open-source, freeware. GitHub or MediaWiki, not ISDA.
The information revolution has enabled our “drift to complicatedness” — with that a view has emerged that the resulting “legal technology” is somehow has intrinsic value, is proprietary and should be commercially protected. It is better to see good market-standard contractual terms as a common interface between market participants: a public utility that enables business to get done with minimal friction. No-one should try to own it or extract rent from it. Contract ''technology'' should not ''proprietary''; rather contracts — agreements ''made out of'' contract technology — may be ''confidential''. To confuse a contractual ''confidence'' with a proprietary right in [[intellectual property]] comprising the contract is to make a category error.  


===Ask===
===Ask===