Thanks for sharing the post, it sparked a very interesting
conversation in Delhi.

I think there are a number of issues with the open concept idea,
starting with the definition of concept in this case. Assuming we
avoid philosophic ambiguities over what is a concept and ownership of
it and restrict the domain to a space that is an alternative to
patenting, then we still will have a problem determining the origins
of concept - the originality question. The method/theorem behind
calculating the hypotenuse is attributed to Pythagorus, as history
has recorded it that way, but I would take the Socratic argument and
say that originality of the method is open for all time. I would
think Socrates would not have made claim to the Socratic method.

While mapping an origin of species is possible, a genealogy of
concepts will hold true only by agreement - originality by common
acceptance, the social contract - and made problematic with disputes
over deriatives and differences. Uniqueness will always be debatable
(as with the point about originality), and I imagine fame (and
artificial immortality) would be a greater incentive than money to
fight over the claim of originality of concepts.

I think a formal system of attribution will result in the atomization
of concepts/methods, the same problems we see with fair use in the
over-exercised copyright/trademark/patent regimes. Even if use is
not a problem here (i.e. use it freely but attribute it), we may be
moving towards unnecessary attribution overheads (be it in action/
archive or making the psychic note). Licensing such as CC, while a
healthy alternative, is a form of licensing proliferation
nonetheless. Imagine the many acts/methods/concepts that could be
attributable on a daily basis (like tipping), and now imagine the
energy and effort to do so. I think the attribution system you are
thinking about exists already, but not in formal terms, they are
embedded in tradition, science, general knowledge, etc., and there
may be value in keeping it all license free.

I think there is a need to safeguard a license-free public domain, that is fast diminishing because of claims from the right and the left. We should avoid freeing anything up that’s essentially the most free and be careful about extending the concept of property. I can see how resetting defaults is necessary (and therefore CC) in a world where the default is set to copyright. And I understand the desire to cover methods/concepts where no alternative exists to patents; however, I think there are sets of knowledge that are license-free (if not also attribution-free) in the public domain, which we can consider default-less and may diminish (both the present sets and possibly the acceptance of new future sets) with the adoption of a commons. We may not want to set any defaults in this case, even in the name of innovation - some of these license-free and/or attribution-free concepts have been the giants, as it were :).