1. The Problem with the Zero-Sum Game Mindset

We live in a world where the dominant way of thinking is a “zero-sum game”—that’s a fancy way of saying that for one person (or company) to win, others have to lose. It’s like imagining a pie: if I take a big slice, there’s less left for everyone else. This mindset makes people believe that success means taking as much as you can, without considering how your actions affect the rest of the world.

This approach doesn't just happen at an individual level; it's how countries and companies often operate too. Everyone is competing to be the best, the fastest, the most profitable, and in doing so, they might push down or cut off others. It’s about grabbing as much of the pie as possible instead of finding ways to make the pie bigger for everyone.

The downside? We end up with everyone focusing only on their own gains. Innovation gets stifled because people hoard ideas rather than sharing them, and the general mindset is that if someone else wins, I lose. This creates a culture of suspicion, defensiveness, and competition, which ultimately limits what we can achieve together.

What is a Positive-Sum Game?

Now, imagine if we changed the rules of the game. Instead of seeing the pie as a fixed size, what if the pie could get bigger? That’s what we call a “positive-sum game.” In a positive-sum game, instead of fighting over the same limited pie, we figure out how to make the pie grow so that everyone gets more—maybe even more than they could have grabbed in the zero-sum situation.

When you shift from a zero-sum mindset to a positive-sum mindset, you’re no longer focused on beating others, but on how everyone can win more together. The idea is that by collaborating, sharing resources, and helping each other, we can create new opportunities and benefits that weren’t there before.

In other words, instead of each person trying to grab the biggest slice, we work together to make the pie twice as big—or even ten times as big. Suddenly, everyone’s slice is bigger, and the rewards are much greater for everyone involved.

Sounds like a no-brainer, right? Why wouldn’t we want to make the pie bigger so that everyone gets more? But here’s the tricky part: How do you get everyone to stop playing the zero-sum game and start focusing on a positive-sum approach? That’s the big question—and solving it is harder than it seems.

2. Open Source Licenses: A Step in the Right Direction, But Not Enough

Open-source licenses were supposed to be a game-changer for this problem. The idea behind open source is simple: let's share our code, ideas, and innovations freely, so everyone can benefit. In a way, it's a step toward a positive-sum game because anyone can take what’s out there, build on it, and create something even better. It’s about making sure knowledge and tools aren’t locked up behind a paywall but are accessible to everyone.

But, as good as this sounds, open-source licenses haven't quite lived up to their promise. The problem is that while open source invites everyone to take from the shared pool of resources, it doesn't always require them to give back. People and companies can use open-source innovations, profit from them, and then walk away without ever contributing to the ecosystem that made it possible in the first place.

This leads to something called the "Tragedy of the Commons." Imagine a field that anyone in a village can use to let their sheep graze. If everyone takes only what they need, the field stays healthy, and everyone benefits. But if a few villagers let their sheep overgraze without replanting or giving back to the land, the field eventually gets destroyed. There’s no incentive to act responsibly if you think others might take more than their share. In the world of open source, this means that companies can drain the innovation “field” without putting anything back in.

So, even though open source made great strides toward a more collaborative and open culture, it still runs into a major problem: there’s nothing stopping someone from taking without giving. This leaves us with the same question: How do we create an ecosystem where everyone not only takes but also contributes?

3. Why Open Source Hasn't Solved the "Tragedy of the Commons"

When open source became popular, there was hope that it would fix the “tragedy of the commons” problem. The idea was simple: if everyone shares what they create, the whole ecosystem would thrive. People wouldn’t need to worry about overgrazing the field or taking more than their fair share because everyone would be committed to keeping the field healthy. Open source was supposed to be the answer to building a positive-sum game—where collaboration meant more for everyone.

But here’s the thing: open source didn’t completely solve the problem. It turns out that, in practice, people don’t always think about the greater good. They act a lot like players in a classic “Prisoner’s Dilemma.”

In the Prisoner’s Dilemma, you and another person are both arrested. You have a choice: betray the other person to guarantee a shorter sentence for yourself or stay silent and hope they do the same. The catch is, you don’t know what the other person will do. If you betray them and they stay silent, you get off easy, and they take the full punishment. But if you both stay silent, you both get a minor punishment, which is the best outcome overall. However, most people, not trusting the other person, end up betraying to ensure they don’t get the worst-case scenario.

In open source, it’s kind of the same. Companies and individuals often choose the strategy that guarantees their own success, even if it means not giving back. They don’t know if others are going to contribute or if they’ll just take the innovations and run. So, many play it safe—they take what they can and keep their own advances private, just in case. This, unfortunately, keeps us locked in a zero-sum game, where trust is low, and everyone is trying to get ahead of everyone else.

The hope was that open source would bring us closer to a collaborative culture, but without a way to ensure that people contribute, it often just reinforces the same old habits: everyone looks out for themselves first.

What if that is part of the solution?

But what if acknowledging that we look out for ourselves first is actually the solution? Instead of trying to create a system that relies on everyone holding hands, singing kumbaya, and playing nice, what if we built a system that embraces human nature—a system where it's perfectly normal and acceptable to prioritize our own well-being and that of our families, community and company before others? What if the system could thrive even when everyone acts in their own self-interest?

4. Breaking Out of the Prisoner’s Dilemma

The way to beat the Prisoner’s Dilemma isn’t to keep playing by the same rules. If you know the game is rigged for everyone to act selfishly, then it’s time to change the game. Instead of sticking to a situation where we’re all locked in our own cells, unsure of what the others will do, we need to find a way to communicate and collaborate—even if the current rules make that hard.

Imagine if, instead of being stuck with no way to trust the other person, you could find a way to pass notes, send signals, or get a message through the bars. Suddenly, the whole dynamic changes because now you’re not playing blindly. You’re able to coordinate and make choices that benefit both of you, not just yourself. The key is to move beyond the restrictive rules and find new ways to work together.

This is what we need to do: stop playing by the old rules that encourage a zero-sum mindset, where everyone looks out for themselves first. Instead, we need to create a new game with better rules—rules that make it possible to act in your own interest while still benefiting the group. It’s about designing a system that allows self-interest and collaboration to go hand-in-hand, so we can create something greater together.

If the current rules make it impossible to win without someone losing, then it's time to rewrite the rules. We need a framework that turns what used to be a win-or-lose situation into a win-win.

5. Introducing the Positive Sum Game License

Let’s talk about a new way to break out of the zero-sum game mindset. I’m proposing a new type of open-source license, one that aims to create a positive-sum environment but starts small—right here in the U.S. Why the U.S. first? Because trying to go global straight away is like trying to calm a storm with a single wave—too many countries are stuck in the zero-sum mindset, treating every win as someone else’s loss. Instead, we need to start with a smaller, focused community that can act as a testing ground for this idea. That’s where this license comes in.

What is the Positive Sum Game License?

The Positive Sum Game License is a new open-source framework designed to encourage collaboration, ethical practices, and shared responsibility—but specifically within the United States to start. Here are the key ideas behind it:

1. U.S.-Only Access: This license is initially limited to American-based companies. The goal is to get U.S. companies to collaborate in ways that create benefits for everyone involved, without the pressures of global competition. It’s about building a strong, positive-sum foundation locally that could one day be expanded globally.

2. State-Level Accountability: Think of U.S. states as mini-nations. Just as different countries might one day join a positive-sum game, states can act as individual test cases. If companies in a particular state are found to be playing unfairly or exploiting the system, the license could be restricted for that state. This means companies have a reason to watch each other’s backs—if one company cheats, the whole state could lose access. It’s a way to promote local accountability and encourage ethical behavior.

3. Share-Alike Requirement: This is a crucial feature of the license. Any software, tool, or product developed using this license must be shared back with the community under the same terms. It’s about making sure that the benefits of innovation keep spreading, like a ripple effect. If you’re using the shared resources, you have to share what you create too—no free rides.

4. Preventing Exploitation by Foreign Companies: To avoid the loophole where foreign companies could set up a token U.S. presence just to exploit the license, there’s a requirement that companies must have a meaningful presence in the U.S. They need to acknowledge revenue here and pay U.S. taxes. This ensures that only genuinely American companies are benefiting and contributing to the system.

Why Start Local?

This U.S.-focused approach is about starting where we have some control and can see results. If we can prove that a positive-sum game works at the state and national levels, then other countries might be interested in joining in the future. The state-based accountability approach is like a mini-experiment for how the system could expand internationally someday—encouraging each region to act ethically to stay part of the larger system.

Benefits of the Positive Sum Game License

• Encourages Collaboration: By focusing on a shared ecosystem, companies have incentives to work together instead of compete. The pie gets bigger because everyone is contributing to making it bigger.

• Promotes Ethical Practices: Accountability at the state level makes companies more likely to play fair. If they don’t, they risk losing access, which keeps everyone honest.

• Prevents Free Riders: The share-alike clause ensures that those who benefit from the shared resources are also giving back. It’s a way to make sure the “field” stays fertile and healthy for everyone.

• Builds a Strong Local Ecosystem: Focusing on the U.S. first allows us to see if the model works before trying to scale it globally. It’s about building a strong foundation before expanding outward.

By starting small and showing how positive-sum games can work on a local scale, we have a chance to change the global mindset. But first, we need to get it right here at home.

6. How the Positive Sum Game License Stands Out

When we look at how the Positive Sum Game License compares to existing licenses like MIT, GPL, Apache, and Creative Commons, the differences are clear. Here's a breakdown of what makes the Positive Sum Game License unique:

A. License Type

• Positive Sum Game License: This is an open-source license with a U.S.-focused restriction, designed to encourage local collaboration before expanding globally.

• Other Licenses (MIT, GPL, Apache): These are generally permissive (MIT, Apache) or copyleft (GPL), with a global reach, allowing unrestricted international access.

Key Difference: The Positive Sum Game License intentionally restricts access to U.S.-based entities, focusing on local collaboration first rather than global, to avoid the pitfalls of the zero-sum mindset at a global scale.

B. Modifications Allowed

• Positive Sum Game License: Allows modifications, but requires that any derivative works adhere to the same license conditions.

• MIT & Apache: Both allow modifications freely, with no share-back requirements.

• GPL: Also allows modifications but mandates that any changes must use the same GPL license.

Key Difference: Like GPL, the Positive Sum Game License enforces a share-back rule, but it is more specific in requiring contributions to the same ecosystem and in alignment with local (U.S.) standards.

C. Geographic Scope

• Positive Sum Game License: Limited to U.S.-based entities to foster a positive-sum mindset locally before considering global expansion.

• Other Licenses: Typically global, with no restrictions on who can use or contribute.

Key Difference: This geographic limitation is unique and aims to create a controlled environment for ethical collaboration and accountability.

D. Share-Alike Clause

• Positive Sum Game License: The share-alike clause is mandatory. Any software, tools, or products developed using this license must be shared back with the community under the same terms.

• MIT & Apache: These licenses do not require any share-alike conditions; modifications can be kept private.

• GPL: Has a mandatory share-alike clause, similar to the Positive Sum Game License, but without the geographic or state-level accountability factors.

Key Difference: The share-alike requirement in the Positive Sum Game License ensures a stronger emphasis on local benefit-sharing and ecosystem growth compared to the more open-ended requirements of GPL.

E. State-Level Conditions

• Positive Sum Game License: Includes state-level conditions. If companies in a particular state abuse the system, the entire state’s access can be restricted, encouraging local accountability.

• Other Licenses: None of the other licenses have this kind of localized accountability mechanism.

Key Difference: The Positive Sum Game License’s state-level conditions are entirely unique, incentivizing companies to monitor and encourage each other’s ethical behavior locally. This micro-level accountability could serve as a model for international expansion.

F. Preventing Exploitation by Foreign Entities

• Positive Sum Game License: Has built-in safeguards to prevent exploitation by foreign companies, requiring a genuine U.S. presence and tax acknowledgment.

• Other Licenses: There are no such restrictions, making them globally accessible and potentially exploitable by entities not contributing to the ecosystem.

Key Difference: By ensuring that only truly American companies can benefit, the Positive Sum Game License tries to avoid the pitfalls of "free riders" that some global licenses face.

7. Envisioning a Positive-Sum Future

Imagine a world where collaboration isn’t just an idealistic dream, but the foundation of how we innovate and grow. With the Positive Sum Game License, we’re not just expanding the pie—we're transforming it into something limitless. In a system built on shared contribution and collective accountability, the gains don’t just add up—they multiply. Every time a company shares its improvements, every time a state ensures ethical practices, and every time someone creates and gives back, the whole ecosystem becomes more powerful, resilient, and creative.

This isn't about settling for a slightly bigger slice; it’s about unlocking potential that we didn’t even know was possible. We move beyond scarcity and competition and step into abundance. The feedback loops created by continuous sharing, local accountability, and aligned interests generate an ever-growing wave of innovation. In this world, companies succeed by lifting each other up, not by tearing each other down. What starts as a small initiative within the U.S. could spread, inspiring other nations and communities to join—not because they have to, but because they see the undeniable benefits of a system that rewards cooperation over competition.

In a truly positive-sum game, we don’t just get more than we had before—we achieve outcomes that were previously unimaginable. Instead of fighting over a single, fixed pie, we create a future where new pies are constantly being baked, each one bigger and better than the last. It’s a future where technology, resources, and knowledge are not guarded or hoarded but shared freely to the benefit of all that share our vision, leading to communities that thrive together, rather than a world divided by winners and losers. This is the promise of the Positive Sum Game License: a future where everyone has the opportunity to win—together.

If you can’t win the game, change the rules

A Positive-Sum License: by Bodo Hoenen