|
|
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) |
| Line 4: |
Line 4: |
| This is a mode of production and ownership designed to generalize the concepts of the [[GNU General Public License]] into the realm of [[Physical Production]]. | | This is a mode of production and ownership designed to generalize the concepts of the [[GNU General Public License]] into the realm of [[Physical Production]]. |
|
| |
|
|
| |
| ==Richard Stallman's Ideas==
| |
|
| |
| The GNU GPL is very clear in it’s goal to insure the virtual Means of Production (source code) should be in the hands of the CONSUMERS.
| |
|
| |
| When RMS speaks of freedom it is always about the User (consumer), not developer, author, producer, worker or owner.
| |
|
| |
| For instance, http://GNU.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html says “‘''Proprietary software is an exercise of power. Copyright law today grants software developers that power, so they and only they choose the rules to impose on everyone else—a relatively few people make the basic software decisions for everyone, typically by denying their freedom. When users lack the freedoms that define Free Software, they can’t tell what the software is doing, can’t check for back doors, can’t monitor possible viruses and worms, can’t find out what personal information is being reported (or stop the reports, even if they do find out). If it breaks, they can’t fix it; they have to wait for the developer to exercise its power to do so. If it simply isn’t quite what they need, they are stuck with it. They can’t help each other improve it''.’”
| |
|
| |
| And the recent interview “Three Minutes with Richard Stallman” at http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,137098-c,freeware/article.html says “‘''With free software, the users are in control. Most of the time, users want interoperability, and when the software is free, they get what they want. With non-free software, the developer controls the users. The developer permits interoperability when that suits the developer; what the users want is beside the point''.’”
| |
|
| |
| If a [[Mode of Production]] is defined by who controls the [[Means of Production]], then the GNU Mode of Production is one in which the [[Consume]]rs and NOT the [[Produce]]rs are at the helm.
| |
|
| |
| ==Patrick Anderson's proposals==
| |
|
| |
| The [[GNU General Public License]] relies upon initial investing owners (developers) ''choosing'' to retain Copyright so they may apply the constraint: '''Virtual Sources must be made available "at cost" to any User with whom you share or trade [[Object]]s'''. This [[Inter-Owner Trade Agreement]] is then perpetually held in place by [[Instance]] owners (anyone owning a ''copy'' of that [[Object]]).
| |
|
| |
| The physical realm is much different, but a variation of these concepts can be applied using regular private property law.
| |
|
| |
| The GNU [[General Public Law]] would similarly rely upon initial investing owners (often called developers by the way) to ''choose'' to add a constraint to any [[Object]] (whether physical or not) of: '''All [[Profit]] (and in fact any amount of [[Price Above Cost]]) must be treated as an investment for that paying customer in more [[Physical Sources]] for the future production of that same kind of [[Object]] so that competition is perfected and democracy becomes direct.''' Wages are one of those costs. Wages are not profit, they are payment for work as arranged between current owners and potential workers.
| |
|
| |
| See our entry on the [[Inter-Owner Trade Agreement]].
| |
|
| |
| =Directory=
| |
|
| |
|
| [[Category:Business]] | | [[Category:Business]] |
|
| |
| [[Category:Governance]]
| |
|
| |
| [[Category:IP]]
| |
|
| |
| [[Category:Peereconomy]]
| |