Licensing and Trademarks for Decentralised Brands

The evolution of software licenses and governance over intellectual property, including trademarks and know-how, is significantly influenced by the emerging concept of decentralised brands. This article explores how the progression of AI technology may drive the evolution of open-source licenses towards a middle ground between commercial and open-source models. It anticipates a more controlled licensing of access and exploitation, adhering to safety regulations (AI Alignment) and audits by the governing bodies responsible for decentralised brand governance.

Licensing and Trademarks Today: An Overview

In today’s digital era, understanding the intricacies of licensing and trademarks in the software industry cannot be overstated. This article briefly explores these topics, focusing on the evolution and current state of software licensing, especially open-source licenses, and trademarks’ critical role in technology.

Open-source software, a term often misconstrued as synonymous with free use, is governed by specific licenses that set the rules for its use, modification, and distribution. This contrasts with proprietary software, where access to and modifying the source code is usually restricted. Open-source licenses come in various forms, each with legal terms and restrictions essential for compliance and mitigating associated risks.

These open-source licenses can be broadly categorised into two main types: copyleft and permissive. Copyleft licenses are characterised by a requirement that any code derived from the original open-source code inherits its license terms. This creates a continuum of openness and sharing, ensuring that the open-source nature of the software is retained in all derivative works. On the other hand, permissive licenses offer a higher degree of freedom for reuse, modification, and distribution, making them more flexible regarding integration with different types of software.

The most popular copyleft licenses include the GNU General Public License (GPL), which mandates that any software using GPL code must distribute all its source code under the same GPL license. This makes GPL a strong copyleft license, preserving the open-source nature of the software through all stages of its use and development. The Affero GPL (AGPL) adds a critical clause for network-distributed software, closing a loophole in the GPL. Lesser General Public License (LGPL) offers similar terms but with some variations for smaller projects. The Eclipse Public License (EPL) is commonly used for business software and allows a mix of EPL, non-EPL, and even proprietary code under certain conditions. The Mozilla Public License (MPL) is the least restrictive copyleft license, allowing modifications and use in closed-source and proprietary software under specific conditions.

In contrast, the most popular permissive licenses include the Apache License, which requires license notifications and copyrights on the distributed code but allows derivative works to have different licensing terms. The MIT License, known for its simplicity and clarity, permits extensive freedoms with the original code, with the only requirement being the inclusion of the original copyright and license notice. The Berkeley Source Distribution (BSD) License is similar to the MIT license but has variations that add more requirements or restrictions related to reuse and other terms. Lastly, the Unlicense, by placing open-source into the public domain, imposes no conditions on its distribution.

Parallel to the world of open-source licensing, trademarks in the software and technology sector play a crucial role in protecting the identity and reputation of products and companies. Trademarks, symbols, words, or phrases are legally registered to represent a company or product. They serve as a tool for differentiating products and services in the market, ensuring brand identity protection and maintaining consumer trust. In the fast-paced technology sector, where innovation and rapid changes are the norms, trademarks become increasingly vital in maintaining a distinct identity in a competitive environment.

While open-source licenses promote sharing and collaboration, trademarks remain crucial in preserving the unique identity of software products. They ensure that the reputation and quality associated with a product are not diluted or misrepresented, even in an environment that encourages open development and distribution. This highlights the delicate balance and interplay between open-source licensing, which democratises software development and usage, and trademarks, which safeguard software products’ distinct identity and integrity.

In conclusion, the landscape of software licensing, particularly open-source licensing, alongside the governance of trademarks, is undergoing significant changes. Open-source licensing has emerged as a powerful community-building tool for development and empowerment, enabling innovation, collaboration, and knowledge sharing. Trademarks provide a useful framework for protecting product identity and reputation in the digital marketplace. Navigating these aspects effectively is crucial for the success and sustainability of software products in the modern technological era.

Presentation of the Decentralised Brand Concept

A “decentralised brand” is a dynamic entity that bases its identity and operations on the collaboration and contribution of a diverse community: individuals, legal entities, NGOs, and other stakeholders. This model operates within a flexible legal governance structure, which plays a crucial role in managing intellectual property rights, utilising licensing mechanisms and trademarks to maintain control over the brand and the outcomes of community collaboration. It functions as a consortium of independent but interconnected participants who operate commercially or for social purposes within a governed framework of a decentralised brand. This approach fosters innovation and inclusivity, allowing for a more organic and participatory brand evolution.

The advent of social networks and the widespread use of the internet have fundamentally shifted how brands interact with their audiences. In a decentralised brand framework, these platforms become more than just channels for marketing and communication; they transform into participatory platforms where consumers contribute to brand development and narrative. This shift enables a more inclusive brand-building process, fostering a sense of community and shared ownership.

Blockchain technology offers a unique proposition for decentralised brands by creating an immutable, transparent ledger of transactions and interactions. This technology underpins the trustworthiness of a decentralised brand by ensuring that all actions, whether by the brand or its community, are transparent and accountable. Moreover, blockchain facilitates the implementation of smart contracts, which can automate various aspects of brand governance, from intellectual property management to fair compensation for community contributions.

Artificial intelligence (AI) in decentralised branding is about more than just optimising marketing strategies or consumer engagement. It plays a pivotal role in analysing vast amounts of data generated by community interactions, providing insights that drive decision-making. AI can also personalise user experiences, ensuring that each community member’s interaction with the brand is tailored to their preferences, enhancing engagement and loyalty.

The decentralised brand concept is still experimental, particularly concerning incentivisation and governance mechanisms. Brands venturing into this new territory must be willing to experiment, learn, and iterate. This includes testing various models of community engagement, reward systems, and decentralised decision-making processes. The goal is to find a balance where the brand and its community can co-create value in a mutually beneficial ecosystem.

Decentralised Brands Licensing Models

There is a significant gap between commercial and open-source licensing models from the intellectual property point of view. This chapter proposes a novel licensing approach that bridges this divide by introducing a “decentralised brand licensing model.” This model, drawing inspiration from copyleft principles, also allows for the forking of projects under the condition that a new decentralised brand is created by a subset of the original brand’s community. This approach fosters innovation and collaboration while ensuring fair use and contribution recognition.

The decentralised brand licensing model should be characterised by its flexibility and adaptability, accommodating various constraints. Below, we enumerate at least ten potential restrictions that can be imagined within this model:

• Brand Integrity Preservation: Licensees may fork and create a new brand, provided they maintain the integrity and core values of the original brand.
• Contribution Tracking: Mandatory tracking of individual contributions to ensure fair recognition and compensation within the decentralised brand ecosystem.
• Quality Assurance: Forked projects or brands must adhere to predetermined quality standards and undergo regular audits.
• Community Engagement Requirement: Licensees must actively engage with and contribute to the broader community, fostering an environment of continuous collaboration and improvement.
• Revenue Sharing Model: In cases where commercialisation occurs, a revenue-sharing model benefits both the original and forked brand creators.
• Usage Limitations: Specific restrictions on using the brand or software in certain industries or for certain purposes, aligning with ethical or social values.
• Modification Transparency: Any modifications or derivatives must be transparently documented and shared with the original brand’s community.
• Non-Exclusivity: The license allows for non-exclusive use, ensuring that a wide range of users can further adapt and utilise the brand or project.
• Dispute Resolution Mechanism: Establishment of a clear, fair, and transparent mechanism for resolving disputes arising from the use or modification of the brand.
• Sustainability and Social Impact Clause: Licensees must demonstrate how their use or modification of the brand contributes to sustainability and positive social impact.

In conclusion, the decentralised brand licensing model offers a third way, balancing the freedom of open-source with the structure of commercial licenses. Introducing constraints like those listed above ensures that while innovation and creativity are nurtured, the original brand’s values, quality, and integrity are preserved. This model paves the way for a new era of collaborative development, where communities can dynamically evolve and grow while maintaining a cohesive and responsible approach to brand and project development.

Adapted Open Source Licenses for AI

As we venture into an era of rapid technological innovation, the development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies presents extraordinary potential and significant challenges. There is a growing realisation that future AI systems may become so powerful and intelligent that they could independently initiate technological businesses or culturally influence society in uncontrollable and unintended ways. This chapter explores the need for adapted open-source licenses for AI technologies to address these emerging challenges.

The core idea revolves around the potential of future AI technologies being too powerful to be left unchecked. For instance, they might be capable of autonomously creating business models or beginning to culturally influence society in ways that are undesirable and impossible to control. In this context, the concept of “Decentralized Brand” becomes crucial, particularly its aspect of axiological values. Future AI technologies must align with a set of values defined through licensing. Thus, future licenses for open-source AI models should explicitly prohibit forking a model or software if it does not align with the set of values established by the license.

Furthermore, licensing must mandate the verification of both the system and its outcomes, setting clear exploitation limits. This requirement ensures that AI systems are developed and used responsibly, respecting ethical guidelines and societal norms. Another aspect to consider is the potential for future government legislation on AI technologies. Smaller firms may need help to meet such regulatory requirements independently, suggesting that collaboration will be essential. This situation could foster an environment where balancing innovation and social safety becomes possible through collective efforts.

Additional considerations for restricting open-source licenses in future AI models and technologies could include:

• Ethical Usage Enforcement: Licenses must ensure that AI is used for ethically validated purposes, prohibiting applications that could harm individuals or society.
• Transparency in Decision-Making: AI systems should be transparent in their decision-making processes, allowing for human oversight and understanding.
• Limitation on Autonomous Functions: Restricting AI’s ability to perform certain autonomous functions without human approval or intervention.
• Data Privacy and Protection: Ensuring AI systems adhere to strict data privacy and protection standards to safeguard personal and sensitive information.
• Responsibility for Actions: Clearly defining the responsibility and accountability for actions taken by AI systems, especially in critical applications.
• Collaborative Development: Encouraging joint development and sharing of AI technologies to avoid monopolisation and ensure widespread benefits.
• Continuous Monitoring and Evaluation: Mandating regular monitoring and evaluation of AI systems to ensure they remain aligned with ethical standards and societal values.

In conclusion, developing adapted open-source licenses for AI technologies is crucial to balancing the scales of innovation and societal safety. These licenses must ensure that AI aligns with ethical standards and societal values while encouraging collaboration to meet regulatory requirements and foster responsible development. This approach will be pivotal in harnessing the potential of AI while safeguarding against its risks.

Conclusion

The decentralised brand represents a significant shift from traditional, top-down brand governance to a more collaborative, community-driven approach. By harnessing the power of social networks, blockchain, and AI, decentralised brands can cultivate deeper trust and engagement with their communities. However, achieving a fully functional decentralised brand is iterative and requires continuous experimentation, particularly in refining incentivisation and governance models. From a legal perspective, incentivisation and governance models refer to the rules controlling trademarks and the licensing of collaboration results to the members of the decentralised brands. As technology evolves, so will the strategies and best practices for decentralised branding, paving the way for more adaptive, resilient, and collaborative brand ecosystems.