open capital License?
If we define the open paradigm as the one's right to access information or resources, then what is the equivalent ,to GPL, license when it comes to resources and especially capital(infrastructure)? (When it comes to capital, open access can be a bit more restrictive, ie allowing only the consumers and producers to have access ) The gpl license prohibits that subsequent releases of the code as closed-source. This is a protection mechanism that needs to be used for capital as well. Here capital is not an idea, but a material thing that either exists now or we have a promise for its existence in the future(money). Has anyone defined a license or a set of rules that need to apply to money and the existent capital so as to be called open capital? I think that we are lucking a good rule set when it comes to money. As I have said in this list many times before, inequalities can arise even in an environment where all knowledge is open source and all resources are peer governed simply because we have small differences in abilities and thus a difference in accumulated value(money) which if it reaches critical mass could lead again to big inequalities(since money create money). -- Sincerely yours, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
If we define the open paradigm as the one's right to access information or resources, then what is the equivalent ,to GPL, license when it comes to resources and especially capital(infrastructure)?
The GNU GPL can be thought of as a "Trade Agreement" that requires every Object instance be accompanied by the 'Virtual' Sources of that Object. All Objects are composed of both 'Virtual' and 'Physical' Sources. See http://SourceFreedom.blogspot.com and http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/one-loaf-per-child/2007/06/14 for more on my metaphysical viewpoint. The Virtual Sources of a table are the blue-prints for that Object and the DNA of the tree which was used to create the wood planks, and the design of the screws or nails and the recipes for the glue and varnish or paint and the designs of all the tools used to create those things, and the plans and designs of all the factories and mines and pipes and wires, etc. and the DNA of all the organisms involved, recursively for that entire chain (really tree) of production. These are the 'Virtual' Means of Production. The 'owners' of each of these Virtual Sources has a claim of Copyright, and may choose to apply Copyleft through the GNU GPL so each User gains access to all those Virtual Sources. The Physical Sources of a table are the actual instances of the specific wood planks and screws or nails and glue and varnish or paint and all the tools and factories and organisms and water and land used in the production of that particular instance. These are the 'Physical' Means of Production. The GNU GPL uses Copyright to enforce Copyleft, and so can only operate in the Virtual realm. And so we need a way to use Property Rights to enforce a sort of 'PropertyLeft' that insures each User (let's call them Consumers when speaking of the Physical realm) gains access to the Physical Sources of any the Objects they receive. ... It is easy to misunderstand the reason for giving everyday Users access to Sources. Most Users cannot program a computer, so telling them they have guaranteed access to the Virtual Sources (source-code) is thought to be of no value at all since what would they possibly do with it? The same could be said of a Consumer gaining access to the dangerous tools and machinery needed to create a table. But the economic consequences of that access are enormous. When Users own the Physical Means of Production (especially when they own in groups to achieve efficiency in scale), they can hire any qualified Workers to install and operate and maintain that equipment without paying more than the real costs of operation. When Users co-own the Physical Sources and accept the Objects as the return for that risk, then there is no buying or selling of those Objects because they are already in the hands of those who need them. Every Worker is also a Consumer of *something* (not necessarily of that for which they have skill operating the Sources), and so we must protect the Workers' ability to Consume and can then treat work as a problem to be minimized, automated and even eliminated. ... And so what will it take for Consumers to gain access to the Physical Sources of the Objects they need? I envision PropertyLeft being a "Terms of Operation" for any group of owners that choose to apply it to their property. The terms I have discovered so far are (this is a work in progress): 0.) Investors become real co-Owners. This means middle-to-upper income Consumers will prepay (a kind of crowd funding) the purchase of land and water-rights and plants and animals and tools needed to create a "Vertically Integrated Permaculture Mosaic" as an agricultural-based production arena required for the production of what might be thought of as a "Basic Outcome" for all participants. 1.) A Promise-to-work is a kind of Investment. This means middle-to-lower income Consumers will prepay (think a variant of crowd sourcing mixed with scheduled time-banking) by committing to work in the future in return for co-ownership in the VIPM. 2.) Product is the Investor's return. This means the product is never sold (except surplus as defined in #3) because each co-owner has spread their investments across all the Physical Sources of production for which they predict they will need the Objects, and in just enough to receive the amount the need. This eliminates profit because the final transaction does not occur. This is known as economic imputation. 3.) Profit is the Payer's Investment. This means we will charge profit against those who buy surplus Objects, but treat (at least some % of) as an Investment in more Physical Sources that will finally vest to the Consumer who paid it so that every Consumer incrementally gains co-ownership in the Physical Sources needed to produce all the Objects they need. 4.) Any subgroup may secede for any arbitrary reason while retaining their property ownership. This is an attempt to address the Tyranny of the Majority.
I think that we are lacking a good rule set when it comes to money.
This is an Intra-Owner Trade Agreement (IOTA) forming the basis of real Insurance Titles for any good or service. Tickets (or Tokens) issued against future instances of those Object(ive)s could be thought of as a kind of expiring currency with a window of validity. For example, for a specific dozen eggs do not exist until some date, and then will rot after some amount of time afterward (or be sold in an attempt to cover storage costs). Maybe this is like demurrage. On the other hand, within the VIPM, token-passing is driven toward zero though never fully eliminated because people will always be changing their minds about which Objects they want, and so will continually be adjusting their investments in Sources when the overpay for Objects for which that they do not yet have Source co-ownership. Here are some older writings about this subject: http://CommunityWiki.org/en/PropertyLeft http://ShareWiki.org/en/PropertyLeft Sincerely, Patrick Anderson http://ImputedProduction.BlogSpot.com http://SocialSufficiencyCoalition.BlogSpot.com
Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis wrote:
If we define the open paradigm as the one's right to access information or resources, then what is the equivalent ,to GPL, license when it comes to resources and especially capital(infrastructure)?
Here is another attempt to explain how the pattern of the GNU GPL can be brought into the physical realm. The core issue here is treating "Profit as Payer Investment" so every User gains co-ownership in the growth of that collective and so gains the material "source code" of all the goods and services he uses even though he may not have the skills needed to 'program' (operate) those sources. The GNU GPL uses Copyright to insure all Object Users gain access to the Virtual Sources of that production. The KNU GPL will use Property Rights to insure all Object Users gain access to Physical Sources of that production. For example, imagine a late-coming User buys a sandwich from a restaurant operating under the terms of the KNU GPL. We will charge Profit against that latecomer and immediately invest that overpayment in more land, water-rights, wheat seed, chickens, tomato seed, beef cattle, alfalfa, tools, etc. needed to create *future* sandwiches of that exact type. I think the User should probably have some amount control over the direction of those investments within the collective (maybe he didn't know he wouldn't like that kind of sandwich), but probably should not be able to sell or "cash out" those shares until some time-out or until some conditions are met that I do not yet yet understand so as to 'stablize' the collective by essentially requiring Users gain the co-ownership needed to secure their future needs are met without being at the mercy of other owners.
iep, some hinting
The KNU GPL will use Property Rights to insure all Object Users gain access to Physical Sources of that production.
my (shareful) approach is more based in develop more related shareful yourself if there's competition for acces. i am seeing this option as an optional clause for the core (i call it socilaistic 49 for when the owner offers the 49 of shares of his object, 99 for when 99%, and freed or 100 for when he is owner but doesn't want to be owner) . freed shareful is commons for me, . views...
For example, imagine a late-coming User buys a sandwich from a restaurant operating under the terms of the KNU GPL.
We will charge Profit against that latecomer and immediately invest that overpayment in more land, water-rights, wheat seed, chickens, tomato seed, beef cattle, alfalfa, tools, etc. needed to create *future* sandwiches of that exact type. I think the User should probably have some amount control over the direction of those investments within the collective (maybe he didn't know he wouldn't like that kind but probably should not be able to sell or "cash out" those shares until some time-out or until some conditions are met that I do not yet yet understand so as to 'stablize' the collective by essentially requiring Users gain the co-ownership needed to secure their future needs are met without being at the mercy of other owners.
stability here could be achieved by offering the investor / buyer further scheduling / choosing from a list of 'converted to if delay of', he keeps the property, he can take it away but risks difamation if noncompensated damage, not being able to come back here. The having to invest in future sandwichs could be a default, whether friends of the sandwich, if any estated by the sandwich creators(...), should have preference in the investing of profit. They will also be defaultly owned by the investor, but he also having an assistential list for giving away property rights / responsability. This donees list doesn't need to be phrased in the license,
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Hi everybody!
If we define the open paradigm as the one's right to access information or resources, then what is the equivalent ,to GPL, license when it comes to resources and especially capital(infrastructure)?
Consumers who co-own the Means of Production (or the "Physical Sources") will have full access and control of that capital infrastructure.
The gpl license prohibits that subsequent releases of the code as closed-source. This is a protection mechanism that needs to be used for capital as well.
All consumers must gain access to the Physical Sources of production for the goods and services they will use. Here are the rules I think we need in a GNU GPL for the material world: We can begin by pooling small consumer investments (crowd funding) to purchase farms and factories and mines and cell-phone towers, etc. Each consumer/owner will co-own some (likely unequal) amount of the Physical Sources needed to produce the amount of goods and services he predicts he will need in the future. Each consumer/owner will accept the good or service directly as the return for the investment risk - thereby short-circuiting the usual need to buy and sell the product. Latecomers who buy surplus must also gain access to the Physical Sources and so we can do this by treating profit as the payer's investment so every consumer incrementally becomes co-owner of the infrastructure needed to produce all the goods and services they each want. Workers cross-commit future labor to gain co-ownership in the Physical Sources of that which they need the results, not necessarily the Physical Sources they know and want to operate (though it is best if someone who chooses to milk cows is also a milk drinker since that will insure he has personal reason to keep the milk clean). Subgroups can secede from the majority for any arbitrary reason while retaining their portion of property ownership. Sincerely, Patrick Anderson http://ImputedProduction.BlogSpot.com http://SocialSufficiencyCoalition.BlogSpot.com
participants (3)
-
Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis -
flawer -
Patrick Anderson