Personal tools

User:Ownut

From GPLv3 Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Revision as of 21:43, 29 May 2007
Ownut (Talk | contribs)

← Previous diff
Revision as of 22:30, 29 May 2007
Ownut (Talk | contribs)

Next diff →
Line 1: Line 1:
Hello freedom seekers. My name is Patrick Anderson. Hello freedom seekers. My name is Patrick Anderson.
-I've been working on writing some kind contract, treaty or private law that joint owning investors could apply to physical Sources of Production such as Land, Tools, Buildings, Plants, Water, Computers, Networks, etc. to generalizing the spirit of the FSF's GNU GPL into the physical realm, and would appreciate any feedback (negative comments are usually most helpful) about why this cannot work.+I've been working on writing some kind contract, treaty or private law that joint owning investors could apply to physical Sources of Production such as Land, Tools, Buildings, Plants, Water, Computers, Networks, etc. toward a generalization of the spirit of the FSF's GNU GPL into the physical realm, and would appreciate any feedback (negative comments are usually most helpful) about why this cannot work.

Revision as of 22:30, 29 May 2007

Hello freedom seekers. My name is Patrick Anderson.

I've been working on writing some kind contract, treaty or private law that joint owning investors could apply to physical Sources of Production such as Land, Tools, Buildings, Plants, Water, Computers, Networks, etc. toward a generalization of the spirit of the FSF's GNU GPL into the physical realm, and would appreciate any feedback (negative comments are usually most helpful) about why this cannot work.


Contents

Information vs. Physical

All physical things host (store and express) information.

No information can be stored or expressed without physical hosting.

Software is usually stored on optical or magnetic media and is expressed with a computer and electricity.
Mechanical design is stored on paper (blueprints) or on a computer (CAD) and is expressed with machines that copy (manufacture) that design.
Genetics (DNA) is stored in seeds, spores, eggs or living organisms and expressed through water, soil, air, and sun.


Type vs. Instance

It has been argued that comparing software to spaghetti is an overstretched analogy.

But this conclusion may be invalid because the comparison is between the Type of an Object (all possible copies of a computer program) and a single Instance of another Object (one particular copy of spaghetti).

Software can NOT be copied without access to physical Sources of Production. It requires land, a computer, at least one instance of the software, magnetic or optical media, tools, energy and time.
Spaghetti CAN be copied with access to physical Sources of Production. It requires land, soil, at least one wheat seed, water, tools, energy and time.


We have limited our investigation to information (type) because that happens to be the domain of Copyright. But all information requires a physical host, so the real differences between Software and Spaghetti are much smaller than they appear.


A revised analogy might look like either of:

  • Comparing Type (information):
All possible copies of this software type; limited by physical Sources.
When I cook spaghetti, I do object if someone else eats that INSTANCE, because then I cannot eat it. His action hurts me exactly as much as it benefits him; only one of us can eat the spaghetti, so the question is, which?
All possible copies of this spaghetti type; limited by physical Sources.
But if you eat your own copy of that type of spaghetti affects you directly and me only indirectly. Whether you give a copy to your friend affects you and your friend much more than it affects me. I shouldn't have the power to tell you not to do these things. No one should. Not even Monsanto.


  • Comparing Instance (physical):
The CD/DVD, Hard Drive or RAM that host this copy of the software.
When I write software, I do object if someone else takes that INSTANCE, because then I cannot also use it. His action hurts me exactly as much as it benefits him; only one of us can use THAT PARTICULAR COPY, so the question is, which?
The mashed and pressed wheat seeds (noodles) that host this copy of spaghetti.
But if you run or change a program I wrote affects you directly and me only indirectly. Whether you give a copy to your friend affects you and your friend much more than it affects me. I shouldn't have the power to tell you not to do these things. No one should. Not even Microsoft.


Consumer Freedom

The FSF's GNU GPL is an international Free (as in Freedom) Trade Agreement that requires the 'virtual' Sources of Production be made available "at cost" to any Consumer that receives an Object Instance, regardless of price.

Owners of physical Sources pay the real and recurring costs to invest, install, operate and maintain them.

Competition for consumer profit occurs only between Source Owners, never between non-owning Workers since no work can be done without access to physical Sources of Production.

Owners receive profit when consumers pay more than cost.

Consumers pay profit (price above cost) when they calculate there is no better alternative. Profit is a measure of the Consumer dependence on Owners. Wage is a cost of production.

A revenue sharing agreement between owners of physicl assets could require Consumers be given the option to accept shares of controlling ownership in physical Sources of production whenever they pay more than cost.

Consumers would gain control as profit becomes an investment in their name toward physical Sources used to create more copies of that Object Type.

This holds the economy in a sort of tension that continually adjusts to the dynamic demands of Object Users so the perfect case of Consumer Ownership is always being approached, though never quite reached except for Consumers with very static wants.

Profit is meaningless and competition is perfect when an Object Consumer is also the Owner of the physical Sources for that Object.

  • Scarcity is never sought and sources are real insurance.
  • Low prices are always good and tend toward cost.
  • New users gain control whenever paying price above cost.
  • Old owners loose control whenever failing to pay costs.
  • Product is reward for owners; profit is new user growth.
  • Profit is held by new users as their investment in sources.
  • Unemployment is not a problem. It is the second goal.
  • Work is to be eliminated as a hurdle on the road to riches.
  • Competition is between all artisans, not just between owners.
  • Wages are minimized and permanent solutions are sought.
  • Dumping is harmless as the goal is product, never profit.


News

News articles
We need Freedom Hosting for an alternative to GPL news from non-free Google.


Notes

Take the Free Software licensing quiz and test your knowledge of the GPL and LGPL.

Red Hat couches Microsoft-Novell pact as a Linux win

Microsoft answers IP questions posed in LXer open letter

Daniel Wallace, who has been fighting a quixotic pro se battle against the GPL on antitrust grounds, has lost his appeal to the United Stated Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Patent discussion

LiveCD distros differ from those installed to HD?

Building a license better than the GPL

flexible licensing

Personal Homepage

The Comical Ecology Of Political Economy

Useful local links

Recent changes All pages