Open Business: Difference between revisions

From P2P Foundation
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
 
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:


'''Open Business = website and blog on open business models'''
'''Open business = a business that operates around the principles that are similar to those of the free software and open source movements, i.e. with 'free' and 'open' content.'''


URL = http://openbusiness.cc/


There is also a website and weblog of the same name, monitoring developments in this area. See below.
=Definition=
Our own proposed definition is the following:
- An open business is based on open forms of content and does not rely on IP protection
- An open business has a partnership-based (non-manipulative) relation with its customers, the community of producers of the open content, and co-nurtures the Commons from which it lives
- The open business is run collaboratively, in a non-authoritarian fashion and uses transparent processes
=Discussion of Open Business characteristics=
Definition by Openbusiness.cc
http://www.openbusiness.cc/2006/06/05/what-is-an-openbusiness-part-ii/
A recent thread on OpenBusiness.cc sought to identify characteristics which merit or disqualify a business from being 'open'. The following positive indicators summarise parts of the discussion. Among other dimensions the main concern appears to be:
Should our definition of "Openness" include a normative dimension?
If "Openness" is essentially a smart strategy to make profits whilst enabling users to share content, yet does not allow them to make derivatives, is this a boundary which should apply?
It may be important to remember what Richard Stallman, the father of free software, notes in this regard: "While free software by any other name would give you the same freedom, it makes a big difference which name we use: different words convey different ideas". He is right and opposed the term Open Source software, because he wanted to make a normative point. Free software is associated with the freedom to tinker, adapt and build upon, not with giving away product for gratis. In this sense "Free business" might have been the better term for describing a trend, which leads to more open business practises. But we do not seek a definitive definition for what Open Business is, rather we are seeking to find common characteristics of what an OpenBusiness is, as delineated from traditional business structures, norms and conventions.
'''Practices 'libre' / 'copyleft' notions of IP'''
Typically this dimension implies a business that uses Creative Commons licenses to distribute their digital works or a comparable spirit in its firm's dealings, particularly in its licensing practices. It's a matter of contributing to the commons or public domain by avoiding private appropriation. There are many conceptions of what it means to be 'libre', electing not to restrict distribution of your digital works being a low standard, whilst many argue derivations must be permitted.
To which aspects of a business can these notions be applied? The concept of 'code' now extends from its original software context to the materials and resources underlying a creative project. For example in a musical context, code entails multi-track recordings, 'parts' or samples, perhaps even details of the specific artists and recordings which influenced a product. How the notion of code can be extended in this regard is an especially interesting topic on which contributions and examples are needed.
In this regard, a further distinction deserves more thought. Whilst it is fairly simple to designate outputs as open, it is also possible to pursue open notions to your production processes or inputs. For example, a business might focus on works resulting from collaboration or decentralised production, or it might encourage derivations from CC-licensed works.
'''Sharing content and services i.e. giving something away gratis'''
By giving something away for free, a business can develop extensive networks, communities and platforms which can then generate opportunities to create revenue. Precisely what a business has to share is a function of its particular business model. For example, record labels (e.g. Beatpick, Loca) can facilitate the sharing of their recordings whilst charging for higher quality versions, whilst web 2.0 services such as Flickr offer free platforms for sharing of pictures.
There is however, given its capacity for generating revenue, a potentially cynical and profiteering aspect to this approach to sharing. For example, criticism has recently been levelled at MySpace for its submission to Rupert Murdoch, and subsequent revision of its conditions of usage.
'''Progressive governance and organisational structures'''
It may be possible to share the code underlying a business, meaning the intricacies of administering a sustainable business. This might involve writing and publishing a logistics guidebook, covering a range of simple and generic organisational practices, or perhaps even detailed examples on how to structure deals or agreements with media partners, suppliers and clients. Publishing and sharing this aspect of code is heretical in the culture of 'industry secrets', yet it is very appealing to those accustomed to the principles of free-software.
Also, open can indicate that the business itself has been created cooperatively and owned collectively, as opposed to the more traditional private/public ownership structures. Workers are greatly incentivised by having a higher stake in a concern, in part from feelings of responsibility and opportunity, but also from the likelihood of higher remuneration. A business can be more open still if it is owned by its members / users, managed by its stakeholders and develops entirely transparent accounting procedures.
"A business that does not use copyright or patents to privatise intellectual contributions, but leaves it in the public domain, while building a service model around it. An open business model uses and enriches the Commons, focusing on the monetisation of the services."


'''Information on the Open Business site'''
"I consider a company which depends on secrets to be less open than one which relies on patents, which is in turn less open than one that relies on neither."


"Creative Commons England/Wales board-member Christian Ahlert has just launched OpenBusiness. This is the result of an intensive research project into "open" business-models that don't rely on overbroad copyright/patent/trademark rights or are based on free/open source software and open content under Creative Commons licenses. It consists of case-studies aimed at entrepreneurs and funders who are trying to get their heads around what the characteristics of a successful open business are."
"'Open Businesses' create value for people and companies without slowing down economic or cultural flow with unnecessary fences. Rather than locking customers into a gated world, Open Businesses put the customer at the centre of their value proposition, collaborating with competitors to use standards to improve customer's actual experience."
(from cory doctorow at boing boing)


"The two main aims of the openBusiness project are to build an online resource of innovative business models and to publish this resource in hardcopy as The openBusiness Guide. This website has been designed to gather business models from around the world.
"Open Business is really a return to business or commerce fundamentals."


Editorial Process: Using this website, openBusiness is gathering business models and collating community comments and suggestions to create a comprehensive resource that supports both new and existing open business ideas. Before becoming a part of The Guide, an idea is first published as a model. This starts with a member of the OB community submitting a model, which is immediately published onto the site. Once a model is published the process of peer review begins. All members of the openBusiness site are invited to comment on the models. The discussion that members generate will produce ideas, strategies and revisions which will assist the author to further develop or fine-tune their own business. After this process of peer review the model will be transferred into The openBusiness Guide. The Guide is a wiki, meaning that every user is able to contribute to the guide and correct mistakes or omissions. The collection of models on the website will serve as the main source for content in The openBusiness Guide."


=More Information=


'''Chris Ahlert reflects on the expansion of peer production outside the knowledge field'''


URL = http://openbusiness.cc/category/models
Please check our directory of P2P Business Concepts [http://p2pfoundation.net/index.php/Category:Business] and our directory of P2P Companies [http://p2pfoundation.net/index.php/Category:Companies].


"The main difference between software and material good productions concerns their outcomes: software and material good. Software is a kind of information and immaterial in its essence, and hence extremely easy to copy, distribute and share. On the other side, material goods are not copyable at all, and are not so easy to share ultimately. This difference leads to an important consequence: when material goods are sold a producer is alienated from the goods sold. Conversely, when software are "sold" a producer does not lose them. To show the possibility of expanding the FOSS model, we draw upon the following analytical division of the production of any economic areas:
Some related Delicious Tags to monitor developments:


(1) The production of `knowledge of production'. It is part of the means of production and mainly an outcome of R&D activities, and a part of that is already in public domain;
* [http://del.icio.us/mbauwens/P2P-Business P2P-Business]
* [http://del.icio.us/mbauwens/Open-Source-Commercialization Open Source Commercialization]
* [http://del.icio.us/mbauwens/P2P-Capitalism P2P-Capitalism]


(2) The production of `material goods'. It uses the outcome of the previous production and is usually the end product that is sold to consumers (TVs, furniture, cars, etc);


(3) The "production" of services. It may be regarded as the work of installing, fixing and maintenance of material and immaterial goods.
==The Open Business site and weblog==


In the software area, however, the end product is not the result of (2), but of (1), since software are part of both the means and the outcome, of the software production, and of course are not material. Software are part of the means to produce more software.In the proprietary model, software are artificially regarded as a material good, and thereby as if were an outcome of the activity (2). The price of the end software endows the cost of the activity (1), whose outcome is kept secret and privately owned. On the contrary, free software are regarded as information and kept free through the GPL-like licenses; software sources are open and produced cooperatively. In the FOSS business model, what pays the "cooperative R&D" to develop free software is the selling of material goods and services related to the software developed cooperatively.
URL = http://openbusiness.cc/


In other areas of economy, concerning material goods, these are not sharable of course, as well are not shareable tools, machinery and other physical infra-structures. However, the knowledge of production is indeed sharable and, in a sense, very similar to software. That is the clue for expanding the FOSS model to other economic areas.In the traditional capitalist model, the knowledge of production is regarded in the same way as software in the proprietary model: the R&D outcome and knowledge of production in general are held secret, privately owned, and, in the specific case of material production, often protected against competitors through patents. So, knowledge of production are mostly developed and owned privately, and their costs are endowed in the price of material goods, and may lead to consumers' locking, monopoly, etc. Conversely, knowledge of production could regarded in the same way as free software: any knowledge of production could be developed cooperatively and owned collectively. We may call it as the Free Open Knowledge of Production (FOKP) model, and think of an specific FOKP for each area of production, from TVs and cars, to furniture and houses. To clarify this idea, we now develop a complete parallel with the FOSS model to show how the FOKP model would work, hypothetically. In the FOKP model, the knowledge of production of any economic areas is developed in a voluntary FOKP community of developers, producers and consumers, which is a huge, strong and friendly community, based on sharing and cooperation, not only on competition and race for money. In this cooperative environment, many gifted developers work together for the common good. There is a free knowledge ideology behind this model, that is about giving freedom to developers, producers and consumers of material goods, unlocking information and supporting free flow of innovation.


There is a key feature in the FOKP model: its GPL-like licenses keep free every new knowledge of production developed, from previous ones. Everyone is free to distribute free knowledge, but only if they distribute it under the same free license, which secures the collective property of free knowledge of production, and assures the 4 freedoms to every developer, producer and consumer:
'''Information on the Open Business site'''


(0) The freedom to use the knowledge of production, for any purpose;
"Creative Commons England/Wales board-member Christian Ahlert has just launched OpenBusiness. This is the result of an intensive research project into "open" business-models that don't rely on overbroad copyright/patent/trademark rights or are based on free/open source software and open content under Creative Commons licenses. It consists of case-studies aimed at entrepreneurs and funders who are trying to get their heads around what the characteristics of a successful open business are."
(from cory doctorow at boing boing)


(1) The freedom to study the knowledge of production, and how the produced good should work, in order to adapt it to your needs;
"The two main aims of the openBusiness project are to build an online resource of innovative business models and to publish this resource in hardcopy as The openBusiness Guide. This website has been designed to gather business models from around the world.


(2) The freedom to redistribute copies, so you can help your neighbour;
Editorial Process: Using this website, openBusiness is gathering business models and collating community comments and suggestions to create a comprehensive resource that supports both new and existing open business ideas. Before becoming a part of The Guide, an idea is first published as a model. This starts with a member of the OB community submitting a model, which is immediately published onto the site. Once a model is published the process of peer review begins. All members of the openBusiness site are invited to comment on the models. The discussion that members generate will produce ideas, strategies and revisions which will assist the author to further develop or fine-tune their own business. After this process of peer review the model will be transferred into The openBusiness Guide. The Guide is a wiki, meaning that every user is able to contribute to the guide and correct mistakes or omissions. The collection of models on the website will serve as the main source for content in The openBusiness Guide."


(3) The freedom to improve the knowledge of production, and release improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits;


Through FOKP licenses, the production of free knowledge becomes intrinsically cooperative and community driven: the entire FOKP community may participate in developing free knowledge of production, reporting problems of goods produced, deciding about new features that are needed in certain goods, writing documentation, translating consumers' needs, etc. In short, free knowledge are produced cooperatively by many people, and free licenses are what adds a magic glue to the FOKP community, the good feeling that comes from doing good for others, and knowing that it will continue to do that good for as long as it is used. The model also leads to a new kind of business: the FOKP business model, which is based on selling only the material goods and services, but not the outcome of R&D activities that is mainly developed cooperatively and owned collectively. Open organisations profit not from a private knowledge of production, but from the proper production of material goods and related services, that is, from the work actually realised to make them. Competition is then accomplished over the kinds, variety, combination and quality of the produced goods and services. Presumably, this new model has several consequences: (a) innovations are more consumer oriented to their actual needs; (b) generally, free knowledge of production are quicker developed, and the material goods produced using them present more quality than the proprietary ones; (c) cooperation and competition are both widely stimulated, speeding technological advance; and (d) consumers' locking and monopolies are naturally avoid. This vision is powerful: it does seem to be feasible in some way or another. But we should be cautious as far the actual viability of the FOKP model."
(http://openbusiness.cc/category/models)


[[Category:Encyclopedia]]
[[Category:Encyclopedia]]


[[Category:Business]]
[[Category:Business]]

Revision as of 04:25, 22 June 2006

Open business = a business that operates around the principles that are similar to those of the free software and open source movements, i.e. with 'free' and 'open' content.


There is also a website and weblog of the same name, monitoring developments in this area. See below.


Definition

Our own proposed definition is the following: 


- An open business is based on open forms of content and does not rely on IP protection

- An open business has a partnership-based (non-manipulative) relation with its customers, the community of producers of the open content, and co-nurtures the Commons from which it lives

- The open business is run collaboratively, in a non-authoritarian fashion and uses transparent processes


Discussion of Open Business characteristics

Definition by Openbusiness.cc

http://www.openbusiness.cc/2006/06/05/what-is-an-openbusiness-part-ii/

A recent thread on OpenBusiness.cc sought to identify characteristics which merit or disqualify a business from being 'open'. The following positive indicators summarise parts of the discussion. Among other dimensions the main concern appears to be:

Should our definition of "Openness" include a normative dimension?

If "Openness" is essentially a smart strategy to make profits whilst enabling users to share content, yet does not allow them to make derivatives, is this a boundary which should apply?

It may be important to remember what Richard Stallman, the father of free software, notes in this regard: "While free software by any other name would give you the same freedom, it makes a big difference which name we use: different words convey different ideas". He is right and opposed the term Open Source software, because he wanted to make a normative point. Free software is associated with the freedom to tinker, adapt and build upon, not with giving away product for gratis. In this sense "Free business" might have been the better term for describing a trend, which leads to more open business practises. But we do not seek a definitive definition for what Open Business is, rather we are seeking to find common characteristics of what an OpenBusiness is, as delineated from traditional business structures, norms and conventions.


Practices 'libre' / 'copyleft' notions of IP

Typically this dimension implies a business that uses Creative Commons licenses to distribute their digital works or a comparable spirit in its firm's dealings, particularly in its licensing practices. It's a matter of contributing to the commons or public domain by avoiding private appropriation. There are many conceptions of what it means to be 'libre', electing not to restrict distribution of your digital works being a low standard, whilst many argue derivations must be permitted.

To which aspects of a business can these notions be applied? The concept of 'code' now extends from its original software context to the materials and resources underlying a creative project. For example in a musical context, code entails multi-track recordings, 'parts' or samples, perhaps even details of the specific artists and recordings which influenced a product. How the notion of code can be extended in this regard is an especially interesting topic on which contributions and examples are needed.

In this regard, a further distinction deserves more thought. Whilst it is fairly simple to designate outputs as open, it is also possible to pursue open notions to your production processes or inputs. For example, a business might focus on works resulting from collaboration or decentralised production, or it might encourage derivations from CC-licensed works.


Sharing content and services i.e. giving something away gratis

By giving something away for free, a business can develop extensive networks, communities and platforms which can then generate opportunities to create revenue. Precisely what a business has to share is a function of its particular business model. For example, record labels (e.g. Beatpick, Loca) can facilitate the sharing of their recordings whilst charging for higher quality versions, whilst web 2.0 services such as Flickr offer free platforms for sharing of pictures.

There is however, given its capacity for generating revenue, a potentially cynical and profiteering aspect to this approach to sharing. For example, criticism has recently been levelled at MySpace for its submission to Rupert Murdoch, and subsequent revision of its conditions of usage.


Progressive governance and organisational structures

It may be possible to share the code underlying a business, meaning the intricacies of administering a sustainable business. This might involve writing and publishing a logistics guidebook, covering a range of simple and generic organisational practices, or perhaps even detailed examples on how to structure deals or agreements with media partners, suppliers and clients. Publishing and sharing this aspect of code is heretical in the culture of 'industry secrets', yet it is very appealing to those accustomed to the principles of free-software.

Also, open can indicate that the business itself has been created cooperatively and owned collectively, as opposed to the more traditional private/public ownership structures. Workers are greatly incentivised by having a higher stake in a concern, in part from feelings of responsibility and opportunity, but also from the likelihood of higher remuneration. A business can be more open still if it is owned by its members / users, managed by its stakeholders and develops entirely transparent accounting procedures.

"A business that does not use copyright or patents to privatise intellectual contributions, but leaves it in the public domain, while building a service model around it. An open business model uses and enriches the Commons, focusing on the monetisation of the services."

"I consider a company which depends on secrets to be less open than one which relies on patents, which is in turn less open than one that relies on neither."

"'Open Businesses' create value for people and companies without slowing down economic or cultural flow with unnecessary fences. Rather than locking customers into a gated world, Open Businesses put the customer at the centre of their value proposition, collaborating with competitors to use standards to improve customer's actual experience."

"Open Business is really a return to business or commerce fundamentals."


More Information

Please check our directory of P2P Business Concepts [1] and our directory of P2P Companies [2].

Some related Delicious Tags to monitor developments:


The Open Business site and weblog

URL = http://openbusiness.cc/


Information on the Open Business site

"Creative Commons England/Wales board-member Christian Ahlert has just launched OpenBusiness. This is the result of an intensive research project into "open" business-models that don't rely on overbroad copyright/patent/trademark rights or are based on free/open source software and open content under Creative Commons licenses. It consists of case-studies aimed at entrepreneurs and funders who are trying to get their heads around what the characteristics of a successful open business are." (from cory doctorow at boing boing)

"The two main aims of the openBusiness project are to build an online resource of innovative business models and to publish this resource in hardcopy as The openBusiness Guide. This website has been designed to gather business models from around the world.

Editorial Process: Using this website, openBusiness is gathering business models and collating community comments and suggestions to create a comprehensive resource that supports both new and existing open business ideas. Before becoming a part of The Guide, an idea is first published as a model. This starts with a member of the OB community submitting a model, which is immediately published onto the site. Once a model is published the process of peer review begins. All members of the openBusiness site are invited to comment on the models. The discussion that members generate will produce ideas, strategies and revisions which will assist the author to further develop or fine-tune their own business. After this process of peer review the model will be transferred into The openBusiness Guide. The Guide is a wiki, meaning that every user is able to contribute to the guide and correct mistakes or omissions. The collection of models on the website will serve as the main source for content in The openBusiness Guide."

Retrieved from "https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Open_Business&oldid=6238"