Personal tools

User:Ownut

From GPLv3 Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Revision as of 22:30, 29 May 2007
Ownut (Talk | contribs)

← Previous diff
Revision as of 01:31, 30 May 2007
Ownut (Talk | contribs)
GPLv4 will free rivalrous mass to host infinite information
Next diff →
Line 4: Line 4:
-= Information vs. Physical =+= Physical hosts Virtual =
-All physical things host (store and express) information.+All physical things are hosts for the storage and expression of virtual things.
-No information can be stored or expressed without physical hosting.+Information (any virtual thing) must be hosted by material goods that have the physical properties of "mass" or "energy".
-: Software is usually stored on optical or magnetic media and is expressed with a computer and electricity.+=== Examples ===
 +* Audio and Video have been hosted on a wide variety of physical things including a metal cylinder, grooved plastic discs, photoreactive film, etc.
 +* 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.
-: 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.+=== Instance hosts Type ===
- +
- +
-==== Type vs. Instance ====+
It has been argued that comparing software to [http://GNU.org/philosophy/why-free.html spaghetti] is an overstretched analogy. It has been argued that comparing software to [http://GNU.org/philosophy/why-free.html spaghetti] is an overstretched analogy.
Line 27: Line 27:
-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.+Discussion of Free Software licenses limits our investigation to the virtual realm of information 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:+==== A revised analogy might look like either of: ====
-* Comparing Type (information):+* Comparing Type (infinite info):
-: All possible copies of this software type; limited by physical Sources.+: ''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?+:: 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.
-: All possible copies of this spaghetti type; limited by physical Sources.+: ''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.+:: 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):+* Comparing Instance (rivalrous mass):
-: The CD/DVD, Hard Drive or RAM that host this copy of the software.+: ''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? :: 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.+: ''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.+:: 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?
-==== Consumer Freedom ====+=== More thoughts (please organize or comment) ===
 + 
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. 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.
Line 55: Line 56:
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. 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.+Owners receive profit when consumers pay more than cost. Consumers pay more than cost when they calculate there is no better alternative. That profit is a measure of the Consumer's dependence on those Owners. Wage is not profit, it is a cost of production.
 + 
 +Let's write a revenue sharing agreement to help owners begin syndicating freedom in the physical realm. Maybe we could call it "General Public Law" -> GPLv4.
 + 
 +GPLv4 could require Consumers be given the option of accepting shares of controlling ownership in physical Sources of production whenever they 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.+The Consumers of a GPLv4 Object would slowly gain joint control of the physical Sources still available for investment; or would be growing the cooporation as the current owners would use those funds to buy more land, buildings, plants, tools, water rights, etc.
-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.+I don't want to have artificial limits, but wonder if there should be some kind of delay in transferring control to the Consumer if they tend to just immediately sell their shares for cash, and also for the disruptiveness of too many hands in the kitchen too soon...
-Consumers would gain control as profit becomes an investment in their name toward physical Sources used to create more copies of that Object Type.+A social Operating System can stabilize when profit is an investment in the Object Consumer's behalf 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. 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.

Revision as of 01:31, 30 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

Physical hosts Virtual

All physical things are hosts for the storage and expression of virtual things.

Information (any virtual thing) must be hosted by material goods that have the physical properties of "mass" or "energy".

Examples

  • Audio and Video have been hosted on a wide variety of physical things including a metal cylinder, grooved plastic discs, photoreactive film, etc.
  • 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.


Instance hosts Type

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.


Discussion of Free Software licenses limits our investigation to the virtual realm of information 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 (infinite info):
All possible copies of this software type; limited by physical Sources.
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.
All possible copies of this spaghetti type; limited by physical Sources.
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 (rivalrous mass):
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.
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?


More thoughts (please organize or comment)

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 more than cost when they calculate there is no better alternative. That profit is a measure of the Consumer's dependence on those Owners. Wage is not profit, it is a cost of production.

Let's write a revenue sharing agreement to help owners begin syndicating freedom in the physical realm. Maybe we could call it "General Public Law" -> GPLv4.

GPLv4 could require Consumers be given the option of accepting shares of controlling ownership in physical Sources of production whenever they pay more than cost.

The Consumers of a GPLv4 Object would slowly gain joint control of the physical Sources still available for investment; or would be growing the cooporation as the current owners would use those funds to buy more land, buildings, plants, tools, water rights, etc.

I don't want to have artificial limits, but wonder if there should be some kind of delay in transferring control to the Consumer if they tend to just immediately sell their shares for cash, and also for the disruptiveness of too many hands in the kitchen too soon...

A social Operating System can stabilize when profit is an investment in the Object Consumer's behalf 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