The best political theory relies on objective measures… like the Labor Theory of Value (LTV).
I agree that labor time is the most reliable measure. My point was that the LTV is fiercely resisted by bourgeois economists that are unashamedly pro-business. My objection is not the LTV, but your proposed method of proving it.
I think I would call the possibility of using AI to preform the objective measure ‘surveillance socialism’.
Using similar methods to automated DevOps functions used by corporates for scientific management to suit their own private wealth interests, very similar tech could be used to encourage collaboration among developers and users.
I think it is less likely that an adversary would be created, and more likely that some collaborators may use automation to ‘game’ the system to their own advantage, or ideological antagonists trying to shut it down.
None of this ought to discourage us from developing it though.
The license text does not have to contain the detail. It’s quite possible to achieve this through project governance, a bit like a ‘code of conduct’ where the implementation details are updated dynamically while the license text refers to the objective measure through an active link.
Your license could be simplified by removing the implementation details and simply providing a link to them.
The implementation could become a part of your product portfolio.
I read the license and my first impression was ‘it’s complicated’. I am suggesting you simplify it by actively linking to the implementation detail.
Licensing is possibly the most important detail of your working life, not something to rush IMO:
Focusing on the problems of justifying intellectual property is important not because these institutions lack any sort of justification, but because they are not so obviously or easily justified as many people think.
We must begin to think more openly and imaginatively about the alternative choices available to us for stimulating and rewarding intellectual labor.
E. C. Hettinger, ‘Justifying Intellectual Property’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 31–52, 1989.
This would possibly require a small web app that handles the current protocol, which could at first be simply an agreement to post output from IDE extensions that monitor time spent. On it’s own, this would be a blunt instrument but over time, with blending data from LOC and possibly also financial contributions you would end up with a very smart measuring system.
In terms of “the ethical angle”, I am referring to your presentation where (from memory) you do implicate readers in ethical considerations. I had a similar problem when I wrote a license with economic restrictions. I started out using ethical rhetoric but that attracted very low effort rebuttals from FLOSS evangelists which have an eccentric allergy to ethical licenses.
I reviewed the way I presented the license to attract better calibre critique and so far, it has at least stopped the hate from FLOSS zealots… since I am using the same argument for economic restriction that FLOSS advocates use around vague and idealist notions of freedom and openness - namely that licenses ought to enable the outputs we value… quality, fairness, performance, security and so on so forth.
: Adam Mossoff, ‘Saving Locke from Marx: The Labor Theory of Value in Intellectual Property Theory’. 2012.