[P2P-F] open capital License?

Patrick Anderson agnucius at gmail.com
Mon Feb 4 18:56:09 CET 2013

> 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

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

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:

Patrick Anderson

More information about the P2P-Foundation mailing list