graham | 6 Jun 17:19 2008
Picon

[ox-en] reprap, exploitation, free goods etc

http://technocrat.net/d/2008/6/5/42592

discussion on several different oekonux related themes..

Graham
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt@...

Patrick Anderson | 8 Jun 16:20 2008
Picon

Re: [ox-en] reprap, exploitation, free goods etc

Even if Rep-Rap did what it claimed, "self-replicating" is the
solution to the problems facing society.

Wheat is already self-replicating (except when Monsanto gets
involved), yet we have almost none left in the US because the insane
drive to keep price above cost caused legislation (the 1996 Farm Bill)
eliminating 'our' reserves.

The solution we keep avoiding is discovering how to share physical
sources in a manner analogous to how Free Software helps us share
virtual sources.

The GPL Society requires physical production, not just "Open Design",
and physical production requires physical sources (traditionally
called the "Means of Production").

Making physical sources available "at cost" to the consumers that use
those products would create a dynamic similar to what Free Software
does in the 'virtual' realm when it makes virtual sources available
"at cost" to the users of those products.

I have an idea how to do this, but it's a bit long-winded.

Patrick

On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 9:19 AM, graham <graham@...> wrote:
> http://technocrat.net/d/2008/6/5/42592
>
> discussion on several different oekonux related themes..
>
(Continue reading)

Patrick Anderson | 8 Jun 16:21 2008
Picon

Re: [ox-en] reprap, exploitation, free goods etc

Oops, I meant:

Even if Rep-Rap did what it claimed, "self-replicating" is NOT the
solution to the problems facing society.

On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Patrick Anderson <agnucius@...> wrote:
> Even if Rep-Rap did what it claimed, "self-replicating" is the
> solution to the problems facing society.
>
> Wheat is already self-replicating (except when Monsanto gets
> involved), yet we have almost none left in the US because the insane
> drive to keep price above cost caused legislation (the 1996 Farm Bill)
> eliminating 'our' reserves.
>
> The solution we keep avoiding is discovering how to share physical
> sources in a manner analogous to how Free Software helps us share
> virtual sources.
>
> The GPL Society requires physical production, not just "Open Design",
> and physical production requires physical sources (traditionally
> called the "Means of Production").
>
> Making physical sources available "at cost" to the consumers that use
> those products would create a dynamic similar to what Free Software
> does in the 'virtual' realm when it makes virtual sources available
> "at cost" to the users of those products.
>
> I have an idea how to do this, but it's a bit long-winded.
>
> Patrick
(Continue reading)

Michel Bauwens | 8 Jun 16:29 2008
Picon

Re: [ox-en] reprap, exploitation, free goods etc

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Quite a bit of background material already in the blog, including references
to Graham's earlier definitional work:

http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/category/open-hardware

Michel

On 6/8/08, Patrick Anderson <agnucius@...> wrote:
>
> Oops, I meant:
>
> Even if Rep-Rap did what it claimed, "self-replicating" is NOT the
>
> solution to the problems facing society.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Patrick Anderson <agnucius@...>
> wrote:
> > Even if Rep-Rap did what it claimed, "self-replicating" is the
> > solution to the problems facing society.
> >
> > Wheat is already self-replicating (except when Monsanto gets
> > involved), yet we have almost none left in the US because the insane
> > drive to keep price above cost caused legislation (the 1996 Farm Bill)
> > eliminating 'our' reserves.
> >
(Continue reading)

Michel Bauwens | 8 Jun 16:49 2008
Picon

Re: [ox-en] reprap, exploitation, free goods etc

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Graham,

http://www.p2pfoundation.net/C%2Cmm%2Cn

I  remember hearing once that the dutch open source car project C,mm,n could
be manufactured as early as 2011

But in the article, Bruce Perens says it is decades away.

Any commentary, both concretely on the common car, but more generally a
timeline of open hardware on a more general scale, would be of great
interest,

Michel

On 6/6/08, graham <graham@...> wrote:
>
> http://technocrat.net/d/2008/6/5/42592
>
> discussion on several different oekonux related themes..
>
>
> Graham
> _________________________________
> Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
> Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
> Contact: projekt@...
(Continue reading)

Patrick Anderson | 8 Jun 18:11 2008
Picon

Re: [ox-en] reprap, exploitation, free goods etc

This is just another "Open Design" project.  There is no intention of
making the factory available "at cost" to the consumers or to
potential consumers.

The act of creating INSTANCES of the car is completely ignored.  We
need "Free as in Freedom" physical production, not just plans.

On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Michel Bauwens
<michelsub2004@...> wrote:
> [Converted from multipart/alternative]
>
> [1 text/plain]
> Graham,
>
> http://www.p2pfoundation.net/C%2Cmm%2Cn
>
> I  remember hearing once that the dutch open source car project C,mm,n could
> be manufactured as early as 2011
>
> But in the article, Bruce Perens says it is decades away.
>
> Any commentary, both concretely on the common car, but more generally a
> timeline of open hardware on a more general scale, would be of great
> interest,
>
> Michel
>
> On 6/6/08, graham <graham@...> wrote:
>>
>> http://technocrat.net/d/2008/6/5/42592
(Continue reading)

Patrick Anderson | 8 Jun 18:13 2008
Picon

Re: [ox-en] reprap, exploitation, free goods etc

Michel,

I didn't find any references to Graham's work here.

I've gone through each post and noted the deficiencies in each.

"How Open is VIA's OpenBook Design?"
*Pure Design*

"What are the specific challenges for open hardware?"
*Pure Design*

"Kevin Carson on peer production as a crisis of capitalism"
Kevin is working on sharing physical sources among DEVELOPERS, not
among CONSUMERS, so has an end-goal of ensuring profit even though
profit can be safely eliminated when physical sources are co-owned by
the consumers.

"Building a post-scarcity society in a patent-and-copyright-encumbered
intellectual climate"
*Pure Design*

"Peernet: Constructing the Open Mesh"
At least Sepp is talking about physical sources here, but it sounds
like all of it will be individually owned.  There is no sharing as far
as I can tell.

"Marcin Jakubowski comments on Stan Rhodes' Peer Trust Network proposal"
This is as close as we get.  Stan is working on the real issue:
sharing physical sources.
(Continue reading)

Patrick Anderson | 8 Jun 20:21 2008
Picon

Re: [ox-en] reprap, exploitation, free goods etc

Graham, Michel, all,

On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Patrick Anderson wrote:
> I didn't find any references to Graham's work here.

I should clarify what I mean by 'work'.

Graham is quoted here in the first article, but all he seems to be
saying is that Free Hardware cannot be accomplished:

"The term free hardware is particularly confusing since it implies
that the physical hardware, rather than its' design, is somehow free.
This is not normally true in the cost sense, and is meaningless
(except metaphorically) in a social sense."

But this is just confusing of the word 'Free' with "give away" which
RMS always warns us against.  We should instead be thinking of
'Freedom'.

"Freedom Hardware" (what I think of as "at cost" Physical Sources) IS
possible, it is just a matter of determining how we will recover the
real and recurring costs of those physical sources.

Is anyone here interested in discussing cost recovery needed for
"Freedom Hardware"?
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt@...

(Continue reading)

Patrick Anderson | 8 Jun 22:44 2008
Picon

[ox-en] Freedom Hardware - or - Hardware Freedom

Pure information such as ideas, plans, intellect, software, video,
audio, genetics, or any design of any kind is not rivalrous, so does
not need owners.  But each copy must be "hosted" by the rivalrous land
and capital needed to store, copy and express it.  It is this
inescapable connection to the physical world that makes bread and
software both infinite in potential, but always limited immediately by
the current number of copies in existence, and into the future by the
Physical Sources and labor needed to make more copies.

We can think of information as the 'Virtual' sources of production,
while 'Physical' sources are the material aspects of reality such as
space, mass and energy.  Examples of physical sources include land,
water, sunlight, seeds/eggs/spores, buildings, tools, computers,
electricity, gas, food, etc.

Information is non-rivalrous in and of itself, but it cannot be
utilized, and will often even cease to exist without Physical Sources
for storage and expression.

The design of a car, the data and code composing a software program,
the genetics of a living organism, a picture, an email, a video or
song, etc. always requires physical space, mass and energy to store
and express it.  Information is not infinite ONLY because it is
permanently anchored to the physical world through this requirement of
hosting.  For instance, when you copy a program, the new copy must be
stored on optical, magnetic or 'flash' media which itself requires
space; and the entire operation requires electricity.  Even if the
program is so small that you can just memorize it, and type it in at
another terminal, it still must reside in your grey matter until
transfer it through the keyboard to the RAM and then hard-drive of the
(Continue reading)

Michel Bauwens | 9 Jun 02:10 2008
Picon

Re: [ox-en] Freedom Hardware - or - Hardware Freedom

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Patrick,

I posted a response comment at the p2p foundation blog, but it doesn't seem
to want to appear, and when I repost it, says it is already posted.

So here's a copy:

Patrick,

this is a very good exposition of your ideas and proposals on user
ownership.

Some comments:

- you write: " it becomes more and more clear that the owners are in control
even if the virtual sources being used are free."

MB: Take the case of free software: can you really say, with the universal
availability insured by the GPL itself, and the relative control on the
productive process by the free software developers, that the owners of the
hardware carrying that software are in control. Surely we have a complex
equilibrium here.

- you write: "The kernel of my idea is to write a contract that causes any
price paid above cost (what would usually be called profit) to become an
investment in more physical sources"

(Continue reading)


Gmane