Open Source Ecology - User contributions [en]

Media-wiki talk:Copyright

2008-03-08T19:07:41Z

AGNUcius: The GFDL and CC-BY-SA are both non-free and cause major legal headaches

Both of these licenses are incompatible with the GNU GPL.

Could we include the GNU GPL as one more of the licenses - as a tri-license, or just use the GNU GPL alone? -- [[User:AGNUcius|AGNUcius]]

----
I don't see why we can't tri-license. Will come back later.

Patrick, are you talking about GNU GPL for written content here, or GNU GPL for actual designs. Written content is different than designs. We should probably specify a copylefted license for hardware design, such as http://www.tapr.org/ohl.html or an appropriate license that addresses hardware design, for hardware designs themselves.

There is also the matter of code that will be generated, which is easy (GNU GPL)

But for license of written content here, we can tri license if you'd like. Maybe you can help me understand why GNU Freedoc and creative commons are incompatible with GNU GPL, and why GNU GPL must be included (I don't have a problem with it at all, just want to understand) --[[User:SamRose|SamRose]] 08:45, 8 March 2008 (PST)

----

First of all, there is no reason to use the GFDL or the any of the CC licenses when the GNU GPL does all that they need to accomplish and avoids the problems they cause. It is unfortunate that the FSF promotes such a mess.

Second of all, there are many reasons not to use them - primarily that they conflict with the extremely important and most used of all Free Content licenses - the GNU GPL.

You say "written content" is different from design, but I would say that line is fuzzy at best and completely absent if we push the concept to it's final extreme.

The "written content" here are concepts, ideas, plans that are the basis of design - whether it is for mechanical design, or (in my case) toward the design of an economic system of operation. There is no reason to separate them.

== GFDL ==
The explanations at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyNotGPLForManuals give no good reasons:

1. Why not be required to offer the Source (the TeX files for instance) to a manual? It would make it possible for an author that wanted to make an improved version to do so with ease. What a terrible idea that it is a burden to authors of non-executable text when the GNU GPL requires it for authors of executable text.

2. The idea of "the standard" version of a manual is just as valid for software because of Trademark. It is illegal to modify the Linux kernel and then distribute it as though it were "the standard" version using the name Linux. This argument has no basis.

3. The statment ''we permit changes in the text of a manual that covers its technical topic.'' is vacuous as well, since the GNU GPL obviously also allows modifications. A complete non-argument.

4. Provision for "invariant sections" for the purpose of piggybacking "political positions" is coercion. Why not allow software developers to require political messages be displayed? The reason is that it removes a user's freedom. The GNU GFDL is a terrible idea, and does not preserve User Freedom. I still don't understand how or why RMS decided to create it.

Here are some more explanations

''Why You Shouldn't Use the GNU FDL'' -- http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html

''This document is being put together to attempt to address some concerns that members of the Debian legal team have about the GNU Free Documentation License. This document attempts to present the reasoning behind the conclusion that the GNU FDL is not regarded as a license that can easily satisfy the Debian Free Software Guidelines.'' -- http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License#Criticism_of_the_GFDL

== CC-BY-SA ==
The 'by' part of CC-BY-SA requires attribution be attached to all copies. There is no need for this ego inflator. Furthermore, it is sometimes very difficult, and maybe even impossible to determine who the author was. At other times the text (whether considered design or not) may have many authors - in the case of Wikipedia the number could be in the thousands per document. This is an irresolvable tragedy that could have been avoided by sticking with a truly free license such as one of the GNU GPLs.

-- [[User:AGNUcius|AGNUcius]] 11:07, 8 March 2008 (PST)
----

Media-wiki talk:Copyright

2008-03-06T17:48:02Z

AGNUcius: Both of these licenses are incompatible with the GNU GPL.

Both of these licenses are incompatible with the GNU GPL.

Could we include the GNU GPL as one more of the licenses - as a tri-license, or just use the GNU GPL alone?

User talk:SamRose

2008-03-06T05:23:37Z

AGNUcius: BRLCAD.org

Hey Sam,

Saw your research links and wondered if the following would be useful for your goals:

http://BRLCAD.org >>The BRL-CAD package is a powerful Constructive Solid Geometry (CSG) solid modeling system with over 20 years development and production use by the U.S. military. BRL-CAD includes an interactive geometry editor, parallel ray-tracing support for rendering and geometric analysis, path-tracing for realistic image synthesis, network distributed framebuffer support, image-processing and signal-processing tools.

Friendly Organizations

2008-03-05T23:31:54Z

AGNUcius:

#True Fans - http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fans.php
#AIDG Business Incubation - http://www.aidg.org/incubation.htm
#Jeff Vail MeFab - http://www.jeffvail.net/2007/04/mefab-open-architecture-project.html
#Personal Sovereignty Foundation - http://EcoComics.org/personal%20sovereignty%20foundation.html
#Ripple peer money system - http://ripple.sourceforge.net/
#Euclides Mance - Brazil peer economy movement - http://www.solidarius.com.br/mance/index.php?lng=en
#Futurism - http://thevenusproject.com/resource_eco.htm
#Chris Anderson on {http://www.netvision.de/uk/dispatching/?event_id=5bb1b5e95afabb2e62d2b148ded47706&portal_id=369401748e8249f142a700d8098a3473 post scarcity economics]
#CEB books, click on Earth in left hand column - http://80.237.211.43/basin/publications/index.asp?A=1
#Project management - http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000076&topic_id=1&topic=Ask%20E%2eT%2e
#Design for Disassembly - http://www.co-design.co.uk/design.htm
*P2P Economy for business - http://p2peconomy.com/
*Open Circuit Design - http://opencircuitdesign.com/
*Boundary Layer Turbines - http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Devices/TeslaTurbine/index.html
*Global directory of envoronmental technologies - http://www.eco-web.com/
*J.T. Lyle Center for Regenerative Studies - http://www.powerfromthesun.net/jtlylecenter.htm
*Lakota secede from the Union - http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/12/lakota-withdraw.html
*The Story of Stuff - http://www.storyofstuff.com/
*Relocalization Network - http://www.relocalize.net/groups
*Panchagavya and desagavya - http://www.hindu.com/seta/2006/05/18/stories/2006051801921800.htm
*Jeff Budderer blog on us - http://blog.onevillage.tv/wp/?p=483
*Village Forum - http://villageforum.com/
*Hot off the press (Oct. '07) on physical production - http://www.peerconomy.org/wiki/Main_Page by [http://siefkes.net/ Christian Siefkes, Ph.D.]
*Organic Hydroponic Lettuce Production - http://www.organitech.com/index.php?goto=bep
*RMI on Factor 10 cost reduction- http://10xe.com/subpages/tunnel.html
*Wired mag on emergency shelter: http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/multimedia/2007/10/gallery_instant_housing?slide=8&slideView=8
*Smari McCarthy, Iceland Fab Lab leader - http://smari.yaxic.org/blag/2007/10/16/an-offer-you-cant-refuse/
*o.design - http://www4.autistici.org/o.design/modules/news/
*Geiger Research Institute of Sustainable Building - http://grisb.org/
*Ken Boak's oil and wood power - http://www.geocities.com/kenboak/wastewatts.html
*Freedom Force - http://www.freedom-force.org/
*Zeitgeist the movie - http://zeitgeistmovie.com/sources.htm
*Huge technology library, much 3rd world - http://www.fastonline.org/CD3WD_40/CD3WD/INDEX.HTM
*P2P Foundation blog on the open economy - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/what-kind-of-economy-are-we-moving-to-1-overview-of-attention-economy-concepts/2007/10/03
*Open Source Green Vehicle - http://www.osgv.org/contact-ssm-osgv/
*Open Product Design from Christian Fiebig, Germany - http://opensourceproductdesign.org/
*Open Source development theory - http://www.guptaoption.com/5.open_source_development.php
*www.permaculture.com
*[http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/26/technology/village_saving_planet.biz2/index.htm Gaviotas revisited]
*[http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ugAivXAusus Flash steam Babington oil buner] on Youtube
*[http://freeconferencecalls.com Free conference calls]
*http://omni.mcn.org/electriliteb/ - Electric Vehicle, to be developed in the open source
*[http://www.ilsr.org/pubs/pubsalist.html Institute for Local Self Reliance]
*[http://ng.cba.mit.edu/dist/PV.mp4 Fab Lab promo commercial]
*Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility - http://www.cpsr.org/about
*Constitution.org on invisible contracts - http://www.constitution.org/mercier/incon.htm
*Anxiety Culture - http://www.anxietyculture.com/contents.htm
*Critical Path primer - http://www.anxietyculture.com/criticalpath.htm
*Mindfully.org- http://www.mindfully.org/About-Mindfully_org.htm
*On distraction - http://www.anxietyculture.com/distract.htm
*Proven psychotronic weapons - http://www.mindjustice.org/symptoms.htm
*Gupta Option - http://guptaoption.com/3.future_islam.php
*The Farm - http://www.thefarm.org/lifestyle/index.html
*http://www.twinoaks.org/
*http://www.farmcatalog.com/1%60books/voices.aspx
*http://www.nyhistory.com/central/oneida.htm
*China is not doing so well, either: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/ID18Ad01.html + http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-climate_change_debate/article_2407.jsp
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Term_Capital_Management
*Berkeley Center for Open Innovation - http://openinnovation.haas.berkeley.edu/Home_COI.html
*Tamera - http://tamera.org/index.php?id=121
*Sunvention - http://www.sunvention.com/html/todo1_english.html
*[http://vermeulen.ca/product-hacking.html Product hacking]
*Open Architecture Network - http://www.openarchitecturenetwork.org/
*Vigyan Ashram - new education - http://vigyanashram.com/ - vapabal@gmail.com, www.fablabinnova.blogspot.com
*Fab Lab Forum 4 - http://cba.mit.edu/events/07.08.fab/
*[http://fablab.no/ Norway FabLab]
*Anil Gupta - http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/~anilg/
*National Innovation Foundation, India - http://nifindia.org/
*Fab@Home - http://www.fabathome.org/wiki/index.php?title=Fab%40Home:Overview
*The Multimachine - http://opensourcemachine.org/
*State-in-a-Box governance - http://vinay.howtolivewiki.com/blog/hexayurt/my-state-in-a-box-identity-services-architecture-paper-is-now-online-290
*Hacks in all areas- http://www.hackaday.com/2006/11/07/siamese-electric-motors/
*Adam Kumpf @ MIT - http://web.mit.edu/kumpf/www/index.html + [http://web.mit.edu/kumpf/www/kumpf-links.html Inventing Sites]
*Will O'Brien - http://biobug.org/articles/
*FabFolk - http://www.fabfolk.com/
*Mobile Fab Lab - http://mobilefablab.blogspot.com/
*Green Trust - http://www.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/babington/default.htm
*Babington burner - http://www.aipengineering.com/babington/Babington_Oil_Burner_HOWTO.html

Talk:Friendly Organizations

2008-03-05T17:06:22Z

AGNUcius: "Personal Sovereignty '''Foundation'''" is mislabeled as "Personal Sovereignty '''Society'''"

I don't understand why this page is locked, but the entry for "Personal Sovereignty '''Foundation'''" is mislabeled as "Personal Sovereignty '''Society'''". Please repair. -- [[User:AGNUcius|AGNUcius]] 09:06, 5 March 2008 (PST)

User Owner Project

2008-03-04T03:06:23Z

AGNUcius: Begin answers

See [[Talk:User_Owner_Project]] for a more verbose study.

==The Theory:==
'''The underlying theory in a nutshell for User Owner'''
* The Users (aka Consumers) are the real property owners of the business assets.
* The outputs of production (products) are divided among these owners based on their percentage of ownership.
* New Users grow the business and become partial owners whenever they pay [[Price Above Cost]].

== Existing Problems==
'''Existing problems in the real world that relate to this theory, a brief description.'''
* Will Workers become the slaves of these Consumers?
** All Workers are also Consumers. By protecting the Worker's Consumption, we need not protect his employment - for it is only for Consumption that he trades labor at all.

==Proposed Application==
'''Proposed way to apply the theory to those existing problems, the context or pre-requisites for this solution (solution in this case is application of the theory)'''
* A "Terms of Operation" or "Contract" such as the [[Fractional Ownership Trade Agreement]].

==Related Work==
'''Related existing work that verifies feasability with context summary of links to those references'''

==Related Support==
'''Related existing data or facts that support theory'''
* ''Consumer's co-operative societies'', by Charles Gide. http://fax.libs.uga.edu/HD3271xG453
* User Freedom concepts by Richard Stallman http://GNU.org

==Constraints and Barriers==
'''Existing constraints and barriers to deploying user owner'''
* Explaining why Ownership of the [[Physical Sources]] of production must '''NOT''' be determined by the skills needed to operate them, but should be held by those willing to pay for the Outputs/Objects/Products.

==Arguments Against==
''Related existing work that argues against User owner (or summary and link to a place where this already exists)''
* Probably any of the enormous amount of work (such as Marxist) suggesting Workers must be the Owners.

==Proof Against==
'''facts and data that support arguments against'''

==Relationship to OSE===
'''A brief summary about how this is related to Open Source Ecology (Relevance to OSE) core values'''

==Partner Sites==
'''Links to partner site references'''
* http://EcoComics.org

==Active Businesses==
'''Seperate headings for descriptions of all active businesses, which will be supported by OSE infrastructure. We will provide you with resources you need, and help in growing this into an actual pilot project, help in connecting with other people, etc. We will help you grow this into a tangible real world project, the same way that we are growing open designs into real world products right now. When ventures are made, partnered open source software, open knowledge resources, and open design projects will receive a share of revenue'''

[[Category:Zero Hour]]
[[Category:Business Model]]

Index Page

2008-03-01T21:35:55Z

AGNUcius: add Special:Allpages to consider automating this, and how to delete the current spam pages?

Other pages found here:

#[http://openfarmtech.org/index.php?title=Category:Zero_Hour Zero Hour]
#[http://openfarmtech.org/index.php?title=Category:Talks Talks]
#[[Financial Transparency]]
#[[Point To Peer]]
#[[OSE Specifications]]
#[[OSPDC]]
#[[Solar Concentrators]]
#[[Turbine Fabrication]]
#[[House Plans]]
#[[Network Leaders]]
#[[Inquiry Contacts]]
#[[Contacts]]
#[[Key Links]]
#[[BFI Challenge]]
#[[Funding]]
#[[Babington Burner]]
#[[Metal Casting]]
#[[Friendly Organizations]]
#[[Organizational Strategy]]
#[[Wiki Notes]]
#[[Hugapaloosa]]

----
Redirecting this page to [[Special:Allpages]] could automate the update of this page.

Is there an easy "admin interface" to delete the large number of spam pages currently in the DB? Otherwise, I am willing to delete them "by hand". -- [[User:AGNUcius|AGNUcius]] 13:35, 1 March 2008 (PST)

Fractional Ownership Trade Agreement

2008-02-29T18:16:33Z

AGNUcius: rough draft. please advise

Tenative proposal for a "Contract" or some kind of "Terms of Operation" for a business, organization, or even applied between just two property owners:

== DEFINITIONS:==

* The term 'Physical Sources' denotes Capital or Land such as living organisms, tools, real estate.
* The term 'Object' denotes a tangible or ephemeral product, output or purpose of a Source such as the harvest from a farm, a ride in a car, the shade of a tree.
* Ther term 'Type' denotes the class or variety of some thing with infinite potential such as the genetics of an organism, a computer program, video or audio data, the design of a tool.
* The term 'Instance' denotes a single copy of any Type of thing such as a living organism, a CD containing a computer program or video/audio data, a physical tool.
* The term 'Recipient' denotes an entity which receives a good or service.

== TERMS ==
As owner, you may use this Object Instance for any purpose.
If you trade, sell, give, lease, rent or otherwise make this Object available to a Receipient you must:
1. Accompany that Object Instance with a paper or digital copy of this agreement.
2. Invest the difference between selling price and production costs in more Physical Sources.
3. The investment made in #2 shall vest to the Recipient as fractional ownership after ??? (time or condition)?

----
Some resouces to determine how "Common Law" usually effects these arrangements:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Ownership ''In business, fractional ownership is a percentage share of an expensive asset. Shares are sold to individual owners. A fractional owner enjoys priorities and privileges, such as reduced rates, priority access on holidays and income sharing. Typically, a company manages the asset on behalf of the owners, who pay monthly/annual fees for the management plus variable (e.g. per-hour, per-day) use fees. For rapidly-depreciating assets, the management company may sell the asset and distribute the proceeds back to the owners, who can then claim a capital loss and optionally purchase a fraction of a new asset.''

http://1st-of-Pryor.com/co-ownership%20contract.htm ''This agreement is provided to our pilot friends at no cost and for no consideration. You are welcome to utilize it for whatever purpose you choose. Please modify this agreement to suit your particular situation. However, the First Pryority Bank of Pryor cannot and will not provide any assurance that the agreement is suitable for your situation and we will not provide any warranty or guaranty as to it accuracy, or legal validity. You are electing to use the agreement by assuming any risk as to its legal correctness, validity, or consequences.''

http://AndySirkin.com ''Vacation home co-ownership (sometimes also known as fractional ownership)''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrent_estate
''A concurrent estate or co-tenancy is a concept in property law, particularly derived from the common law of real property, which describes the various ways in which property can be owned by more than one person at a given time. The parties who own property jointly are referred to as co-tenants or joint tenants. Most common-law jurisdictions recognize three kinds of concurrent estate: tenancy in common, joint tenancy with right of survivorship, and tenancy by the entirety. Many jurisdictions simply refer to a joint tenancy with right of survivorship as a joint tenancy, but a few U.S. States treat the phrase joint tenancy as synonymous with a tenancy in common.''

Co-tenants, irrespective of the type of tenancy, share certain rights relative to each other and to the property, except to the extent they have modified these rights through an agreement among themselves:

1. Each tenant has an unrestricted right of access to the property. Where one co-tenant wrongfully excludes another from making use of the property, the excluded co-tenant can bring a cause of action for ouster,', and may receive the fair rental value of the property for the time that he was dispossessed.
2. Each tenant has a right to an accounting of profits made from the property. If the property generates income such as rent, each tenant is entitled to a pro-rata share of that income.
3. Each tenant has a right of contribution for the costs of owning the property. Co-tenants can be forced to contribute to the payment of expenses such as property taxes and mortgages on the entire property.

Co-tenants do not have any obligation to contribute to any costs of repairing or improving the property. If one co-tenant adds a feature that enhances the value of the property, that co-tenant has no right to demand that any others share the cost of adding that feature - even if other co-tenants reap greater profits from the property because of it. However, at partition, a co-tenant is entitled to recover the value added by his or her improvements of the property. Conversely, if the co-tenant's "improvements" decrease the value of the property, the co-tenant is responsible for those decreases as well.

Furthermore, each co-tenant can independently encumber the co-tenant's own share in the property by taking out a mortgage on that share (although this may effectively convert a joint tenancy to a tenancy in common, as described below); other co-tenants have no obligation to help pay a mortgage that only runs to another tenant's share of the property, and the mortgagee can only foreclose on that mortgagor's share. Bank loans secured by mortgages on individual shares of co-owned property is one of the most rapidly expanding areas in the mortgage lending industry.

Finally, co-tenants owe one another a duty of fair dealing. Because of this, any co-tenant who acquires a mortgage claim against the property must give his co-tenants a reasonable opportunity to purchase proportionate shares in that claim.

[edit] Tenancy in common

Tenancy in common is the default form of concurrent estate, in which each owner, referred to as a tenant in common, is regarded by the law as each owning separate and distinct shares which may differ in size. This form of ownership is common where the co-owners are not married or have contributed different amounts to the acquisition of the property. Also, if joint owners had attempted to use another form of joint ownership such as a joint tenancy with right of survivorship or a tenancy by the entirety, and the effort was for some reason invalid, the joint owners would then be tenants in common. If conclusive evidence is not available of the desire to create a tenancy with rights of survivorship or a tenancy by the entirety, courts will determine that a tenancy in common has in fact been created.

Tenants in common have no right of survivorship, meaning that if one owner dies, that owner's interest in the property will pass by inheritance to that owner's devisees or heirs, either by will, or by intestate succession.

[edit] Destruction of a tenancy in common

Where any party to a tenancy in common wishes to destroy the joint interest, he or she can do so through a partition of the property - a division of the land into distinctly owned plots if such division is legally permitted based upon zoning and other local land use restrictions or, where such division is not permitted, a forced sale of the property followed by a division of proceeds.

If the parties are unable to agree to a partition, any or all of them may seek the ruling of a court to determine how the land should be divided up, physically divide it between the joint owners (partition in kind), leaving each with ownership of a portion of the property representing their share. Courts may also order a partition by sale in which the property is sold and the proceeds are distributed to the owners. Where local law does not permit physical division, the court must order a partition by sale.

Each co-owner is entitled to partition as a matter of right, meaning that the court will order a partition at the request of any of the co-owners. The only exception to this general rule is where the co-owners have agreed, either expressly or impliedly, to waive the right of partition. The right may be waived either permanently, for a specific period of time, or under certain conditions.
''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeshare

Talk:User Owner Project

2008-02-29T04:09:21Z

AGNUcius:

There is a special economic case that occurs when the Owner of some Physical Sources (the material Means of Production) are also the Users of the Object[ive]s (output, product, purpose) of that production.

== Case 1: Single-User, Single-Owner ==
INDIVIDUAL Owner of Physical Sources (say an apple tree and 'supporting' sources such as land, water rights, tools) is the ONLY User of the Object[ive]s (apples, shade, wood):
* This base case is meant to show why Object Users should be Source Owners.
* The Owner of the Physical Sources (tree, etc.) is also the Owner of the Object[ive]s (apples, etc.) even before production is complete.
* The Owner has full control over the Object[ive]s because he is also the Owner of the Physical Sources. If the Owner doesn't want dangerous chemicals sprayed, there are no questions asked.
* Abundance for others is not a problem, as the Owner seeks use-value (consumption), not exchange-value (profit).
* The Owner may choose to do any or all of the work.
* The Owner may pay a Worker to install, maintain, operate the Physical Sources, but the Owner cannot pay more than Costs (wages are a cost) except as an investment toward future production (say buying another tree or more land or more water rights or more tools, etc.).
* Unemployment is not a problem, the Owner wants all chores automated away.
* Ownership of Physical Sources is (imperfect) insurance that future Object[ive]s will be met.

== Case 2: Multi-User, Multi-Owner==
COLLECTIVE Owners Physical Sources are SOME of the Users of the Object[ives]:
* This most important case covers the difficulties of Co-Ownership.
* All points of Case 1 apply.
* The Owners may charge Non-Owning Users a price above cost. This may cause the Owners to seek scarcity of others (destroy all competitors) because reducing competition increases profit. This is balanced by treating profit as an investment from the User who paid it.
* Non-Owning Users do not have control. This is balanced by treating profit as an investment from the User who paid it.
**'''Question''': What is the significance of 'treating profit as investment from User who paid it'?
***'''Answer''': This causes every User to gain Co-Ownership in Physical Sources (he now owns a tiny % in some new trees being planted for him and other non-owning users that are paying price above cost). The ability for current Owners to collect profit against this User in the future (after his investment starts producing) is then reduced because that User will own as many "at-cost" Objects (apples) as his % of Physical Sources (tiny slice of the apple orchard) produces. This may seem insignificant, but it adds up, and 'balances' the system. By understanding profit to be a User's investment, we see his 'investments' (profit) tapers toward zero as he gains Ownership in Physical Sources because that Source Ownership also automatically gives him Object Ownership, and those Objects are a replacement (competition) for some of what the current Owners were selling. As this settles, competition approaches perfection and no Objects (apples) even need be sold because the Consumers that need them already Own them even before they are produced because of their sufficient Ownership in the Sources of those Objects. Whew!
* Owner votes are weighted by their % of ownership in each indivisible Physical Source.
* Minor groups who lose a vote may split/fork/divide from the majority. If 80% of the Owners want the orchard sprayed, the remaining 20% can opt-out by partitioning off a section of the farm from those chemicals.
**'''Question''': Is it not desirable to set up a ''principled'' approach to simplify ''governance'' by injecting some criterion, such as 'only ecological use of land is allowed?' If any disputes arise, they are arbitrated by a Council of Elders, which is an oversight body with no interest in the 'capital'.
* Solutions to voting, granularity and divisibility can be very complicated, and this needs further discussion, but is not specific to Object Users being Source Owners.

== Case 3: Multi-User, Single-Owner ==
INDIVIDUAL Owner of Physical Sources is ONE of the Users of the Object[ives]:
* This less important case occurs when the startup (booting) Costs are small enough for any single owner, or can otherwise be organized as Case 2.
* All points of Case 2 apply.
* Documenting this case is important for observing the transition between 'public' and 'personal' ownership.
* The Owner may claim any wage for management or labor he performs while claiming profit (price above cost) is zero. Profit and Wages are not fully separated because there are no other Owners to complain about the Wages being too high.

== Case 4: Single-User, Multi-Owner ==
* This is an unlikely case of unknown applicability.

----
== Other Ideas ==
When this is running we will no longer need to "prop-up" wages because workers will push them higher through their ability to "hold out" when their consumption is protected when they have ownership in the sources of their own needs.

Investment from Object Users (price above cost or 'profit') is high in the early stages of development, but approaches zero as each citizen (consumer) gains their own percentage of real ownership in the Physical Sources of production.

One way to approach this is through a legally binding Social Contract that Owners could apply a to collective Physical Sources so profit would always be interpreted as User Investment whenever the products were given, rented, shared, sold or traded.

This inter-owner Trade Agreement should allow maximum divisibility so any user may opt-out or 'fork' their portion to treat it differently without needing the approval of all other owners. For instance, let's say you have gained ownership in beef cattle because you paid PriceAboveCost for hamburgers. You may vote (weighted by your % of ownership) on how ALL those animals are treated as a group, but if you have some special goals that few other owners would agree on, you can also *DIVIDE* out a realistic portion from the whole if your ownership is large enough to meet the minimum granularity. So if you want your animals to be fed grass instead of grain, the granularity would be at ''one animal'', since it is impossible to feed part of an animal one diet, and the other portion another... In another case, if you are only concerned about how the meat is packaged, then the granularity is much finer, and you should be able to meet those goals - though it would be your responsibility to organize that division and to pay any extra costs (such as wages) required to do any extra work.

Any group of co-owners will disagree on policy over shared property.

Some types of 'contiguous' things, such as roads, sewer, water, electricity, gas lines, etc. need more logistic restrictions in their divisibility.

Profit is an inverse measure of competition and a direct measure of monopoly. Profit is the portion of Price, Rent, Tax or Interest that goes beyond real costs. That profit becomes usury unless it is treated as an investment from the consumer who paid it.

Profit should be interpreted as a plea for development because it measures consumer dependence. Usury gained against consumers disrespects their natural desire to grow, so hampers true progress.

Profit collected as a reward for the owners is secondarily troublesome because it inverts the goals of that corporation from abundance and freedom toward scarcity and power.

If your are alone on the island and 20 more people suddenly arrive, how are 'we' going to decide how to collectively manage the available Physical Sources?

Collective ownership as a body - in-corp-oration is the original and only valid purpose of government.

Citizens and consumers are the same, and should be the owners for maximum performance, freedom and peace.

Whether you call it a church, a city, a club, commons, community, company, coop, corporation, county, cult... managing collective property is difficult.

Business and government are separated now only because we understanding that most businesses, especially the larger ones are somehow not fully aligned with the goals of the rest of society. It is the mistreatment of profit that inverts our original goals of peace and abundance.

Owners may accidentally squander their inheritance. 1st-world nations are covered with barren and even poisonous plants and mostly worthless animals - no chickens in the yards and the bees are dying.

Originating Owners hold no special status; each consumer who pays more than cost becomes an investor in Physical Sources to insure their ownership of future Objects.

http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:User_Owned

Talk:User Owner Project

2008-02-29T04:04:00Z

AGNUcius: Answer "What is the significance of 'treating profit as investment from User who paid it'?"

There is a special economic case that occurs when the Owner of some Physical Sources (the material Means of Production) are also the Users of the Object[ive]s (output, product, purpose) of that production.

== Case 1: Single-User, Single-Owner ==
INDIVIDUAL Owner of Physical Sources (say an apple tree and 'supporting' sources such as land, water rights, tools) is the ONLY User of the Object[ive]s (apples, shade, wood):
* This base case is meant to show why Object Users should be Source Owners.
* The Owner of the Physical Sources (tree, etc.) is also the Owner of the Object[ive]s (apples, etc.) even before production is complete.
* The Owner has full control over the Object[ive]s because he is also the Owner of the Physical Sources. If the Owner doesn't want dangerous chemicals sprayed, there are no questions asked.
* Abundance for others is not a problem, as the Owner seeks use-value (consumption), not exchange-value (profit).
* The Owner may choose to do any or all of the work.
* The Owner may pay a Worker to install, maintain, operate the Physical Sources, but the Owner cannot pay more than Costs (wages are a cost) except as an investment toward future production (say buying another tree or more land or more water rights or more tools, etc.).
* Unemployment is not a problem, the Owner wants all chores automated away.
* Ownership of Physical Sources is (imperfect) insurance that future Object[ive]s will be met.

== Case 2: Multi-User, Multi-Owner==
COLLECTIVE Owners Physical Sources are SOME of the Users of the Object[ives]:
* This most important case covers the difficulties of Co-Ownership.
* All points of Case 1 apply.
* The Owners may charge Non-Owning Users a price above cost. This may cause the Owners to seek scarcity of others (destroy all competitors) because reducing competition increases profit. This is balanced by treating profit as an investment from the User who paid it.
* Non-Owning Users do not have control. This is balanced by treating profit as an investment from the User who paid it.
**'''Question''': What is the significance of 'treating profit as investment from User who paid it'?
***'''Answer''': This causes every User to gain Co-Ownership in Physical Sources (he now owns a tiny % in some new trees being planted for these non-owning users). The ability for current Owners to collect profit against this User in the future (after his investment starts producing) is then reduced because that User will own as many "at-cost" Objects (apples) as his % of Physical Sources (tiny slice of the apple orchard) produces. This may seem insignificant, but it adds up, and 'balances' the system. By understanding profit to be a User's investment, we see his 'investments' (profit) tapers toward zero as he gains Ownership in Physical Sources because that Source Ownership automatically gives him Object Ownership, and those Objects are a replacement (competition) for some of what the current Owners were selling. As this settles, competition approaches perfection and no Objects (apples) even need be sold because the Consumers that need them already Own them even before they are produced because of their sufficient Ownership in the Sources of those Objects. Whew!
* Owner votes are weighted by their % of ownership in each indivisible Physical Source.
* Minor groups who lose a vote may split/fork/divide from the majority. If 80% of the Owners want the orchard sprayed, the remaining 20% can opt-out by partitioning off a section of the farm from those chemicals.
**'''Question''': Is it not desirable to set up a ''principled'' approach to simplify ''governance'' by injecting some criterion, such as 'only ecological use of land is allowed?' If any disputes arise, they are arbitrated by a Council of Elders, which is an oversight body with no interest in the 'capital'.
* Solutions to voting, granularity and divisibility can be very complicated, and this needs further discussion, but is not specific to Object Users being Source Owners.

== Case 3: Multi-User, Single-Owner ==
INDIVIDUAL Owner of Physical Sources is ONE of the Users of the Object[ives]:
* This less important case occurs when the startup (booting) Costs are small enough for any single owner, or can otherwise be organized as Case 2.
* All points of Case 2 apply.
* Documenting this case is important for observing the transition between 'public' and 'personal' ownership.
* The Owner may claim any wage for management or labor he performs while claiming profit (price above cost) is zero. Profit and Wages are not fully separated because there are no other Owners to complain about the Wages being too high.

== Case 4: Single-User, Multi-Owner ==
* This is an unlikely case of unknown applicability.

----
== Other Ideas ==
When this is running we will no longer need to "prop-up" wages because workers will push them higher through their ability to "hold out" when their consumption is protected when they have ownership in the sources of their own needs.

Investment from Object Users (price above cost or 'profit') is high in the early stages of development, but approaches zero as each citizen (consumer) gains their own percentage of real ownership in the Physical Sources of production.

One way to approach this is through a legally binding Social Contract that Owners could apply a to collective Physical Sources so profit would always be interpreted as User Investment whenever the products were given, rented, shared, sold or traded.

This inter-owner Trade Agreement should allow maximum divisibility so any user may opt-out or 'fork' their portion to treat it differently without needing the approval of all other owners. For instance, let's say you have gained ownership in beef cattle because you paid PriceAboveCost for hamburgers. You may vote (weighted by your % of ownership) on how ALL those animals are treated as a group, but if you have some special goals that few other owners would agree on, you can also *DIVIDE* out a realistic portion from the whole if your ownership is large enough to meet the minimum granularity. So if you want your animals to be fed grass instead of grain, the granularity would be at ''one animal'', since it is impossible to feed part of an animal one diet, and the other portion another... In another case, if you are only concerned about how the meat is packaged, then the granularity is much finer, and you should be able to meet those goals - though it would be your responsibility to organize that division and to pay any extra costs (such as wages) required to do any extra work.

Any group of co-owners will disagree on policy over shared property.

Some types of 'contiguous' things, such as roads, sewer, water, electricity, gas lines, etc. need more logistic restrictions in their divisibility.

Profit is an inverse measure of competition and a direct measure of monopoly. Profit is the portion of Price, Rent, Tax or Interest that goes beyond real costs. That profit becomes usury unless it is treated as an investment from the consumer who paid it.

Profit should be interpreted as a plea for development because it measures consumer dependence. Usury gained against consumers disrespects their natural desire to grow, so hampers true progress.

Profit collected as a reward for the owners is secondarily troublesome because it inverts the goals of that corporation from abundance and freedom toward scarcity and power.

If your are alone on the island and 20 more people suddenly arrive, how are 'we' going to decide how to collectively manage the available Physical Sources?

Collective ownership as a body - in-corp-oration is the original and only valid purpose of government.

Citizens and consumers are the same, and should be the owners for maximum performance, freedom and peace.

Whether you call it a church, a city, a club, commons, community, company, coop, corporation, county, cult... managing collective property is difficult.

Business and government are separated now only because we understanding that most businesses, especially the larger ones are somehow not fully aligned with the goals of the rest of society. It is the mistreatment of profit that inverts our original goals of peace and abundance.

Owners may accidentally squander their inheritance. 1st-world nations are covered with barren and even poisonous plants and mostly worthless animals - no chickens in the yards and the bees are dying.

Originating Owners hold no special status; each consumer who pays more than cost becomes an investor in Physical Sources to insure their ownership of future Objects.

http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:User_Owned

User Owner

2008-02-28T23:44:09Z

AGNUcius: #REDIRECT: User Owner Project

#REDIRECT: [[User Owner Project]]

Point To Peer

2008-02-28T23:42:16Z

AGNUcius: Remove attribution. User Owner is a truth to be uncovered, not an invention to be created.

=The Theory=

We propose that the development of a peer-to-peer internet and communications infrastructure, delivered essentially '''at cost''', is feasible today. It is merely a question of organization to get it implemented. Regulatory and structural barriers are likely to crumble via wide, popular support.

=Existing Problems=

Today, the internet and communication backbones are controlled by centralized interests. This does not favor a long-lasting democratic environment for human communication.

=Proposed Way to Apply the Theory=

The core of a peer-based internet system proposal is to provide an at-cost infrastructure for internet communications. Such an infrastructure may be implemented most easily via a network of wireless towers. User nodes store content in a distributed fashion.

Key technical issues are:

#Development of communication and storage protocol based on peer-to-peer strategies
##Storage on peer computer nodes
#Building of wireless emitter/receiver nodes
#Building towers
#Powering wireless nodes

Key social issues:

#Organize a large support base of future user owners simply by concerted effort and by sustaining focus
#Attempts to stop this by the centralized power system can succeed only if people support the centralized power system, with its higher costs for internet and communications systems. This is unlikely to happen by simple dollar and cents arguments.
#Breakthrough application of [[User Owner]] concept.

=Related existing work that verifies feasibility=

*Paul is working on a protocol for decentralized communication.
*Marcin is working on solar energy production, circuit fabrication, aluminum production.
*Sam can align a wide support base for getting the proposal funded directly by stakeholders.
*Natural law: all empires crumble after some time
*[http://freenetproject.org/whatis.html Freenet]

==Development Team==

*Marcin Jakubowski
*Sam Rose
*Paul

'''Join the team! Email samuel.rose at gmail.com'''

=Related existing data or facts that support theory=

* The [[User Owner]] concept
*Various un-money, free internet, free communications, and related efforts
**Examples - please fill in here:

=Existing constraints and barriers to deployment=

*Costly off-grid energy systems
*Regulatory issues in communication infrastructures
*Land base for setting up towers
*Peer to peer communication protocol
*Peer to peer data storage
*Cost of erecting towers
*Opposition from centralized interests

=Related existing work that argues against=

We are not aware of any support against an at-cost communication system, outside of standard industrial/government inertia.

=Facts and data that support arguments against=

Centralized control of information efforts include lawsuits of the Motion Pictures Association, Recording Artists Association

=Relevance to OSE core values=

Decentralized and effective provision of needs is essential to OSE's philosophy.

=Links to partner sites=
'''
list them here'''

=All active businesses supported by OSE=

These do not exist yet. Why, then, is this topic here?

----
----
=Implementation=

#Development of communication and storage protocol is a tractable problem
#Capitalization may be obtained readily by involving a large number of internet users, paying perhaps $25/year or whatever the at-cost price may be
##1 node every 10 miles, or every 100 sq miles (ex: 30,000 nodes for 3M sq miles of the USA
##Assume 10M initial subscribers- $2.5 billion in startup revenue available
##Each node has $100k allotment available

=Strategy=

Cost reduction for a project of this magnitude is feasible. $100k/node provides for feasibility using off-shelf technology. However, we want to go for open source components to assure maximum value. I propose we use $1-10M to develop open source, at-cost production facilities for hardware:
*wireless nodes - via CNC routers
*mobile, onsite aluminum production for towers from on-site clay
*open source protocol and code
*open source solar concentrator or OS PV production (ribbon PV is an immediate candidate)
*storage battery production - sealed lead acid
*power electronics - inverter and power conditioning for tower

=Project Status=

*Zero Hour began at 5 PM, Wednesday, February 26, 2008
*Initial business plan to be drafted by March 26, 2008
**Due diligence required: dedicated email list, publicity via networks
**Dedicated webspace; opensourceecology.org volunteered at present
*Refined business plan to be drafted by April 26, 2008
**Due diligence required:
***Economic feasibility of mobile aluminum smelting unit
***Economic analysis of node hardware fabrication
***Economic analysis of solar energy production
***Economic analysis of energy storage production
*Final business plan to be drafted by May 26, 2008
*Technical development period: June - December 1, 2008
*Fundraising, PR, begun December 1
*Deployment begun January 1, 2009

=Feedback=

We welcome your feedback on any points of this project. -The Management

Point To Peer

2008-02-28T23:40:34Z

AGNUcius: Remove confusing attribution. User Owner is not yet fully discovered or described.

=The Theory=

We propose that the development of a peer-to-peer internet and communications infrastructure, delivered essentially '''at cost''', is feasible today. It is merely a question of organization to get it implemented. Regulatory and structural barriers are likely to crumble via wide, popular support.

=Existing Problems=

Today, the internet and communication backbones are controlled by centralized interests. This does not favor a long-lasting democratic environment for human communication.

=Proposed Way to Apply the Theory=

The core of a peer-based internet system proposal is to provide an at-cost infrastructure for internet communications. Such an infrastructure may be implemented most easily via a network of wireless towers. User nodes store content in a distributed fashion.

Key technical issues are:

#Development of communication and storage protocol based on peer-to-peer strategies
##Storage on peer computer nodes
#Building of wireless emitter/receiver nodes
#Building towers
#Powering wireless nodes

Key social issues:

#Organize a large support base of future user owners simply by concerted effort and by sustaining focus
#Attempts to stop this by the centralized power system can succeed only if people support the centralized power system, with its higher costs for internet and communications systems. This is unlikely to happen by simple dollar and cents arguments.
#Breakthrough application of User-Owner concept of Patrick Anderson

=Related existing work that verifies feasibility=

*Paul is working on a protocol for decentralized communication.
*Marcin is working on solar energy production, circuit fabrication, aluminum production.
*Sam can align a wide support base for getting the proposal funded directly by stakeholders.
*Natural law: all empires crumble after some time
*[http://freenetproject.org/whatis.html Freenet]

==Development Team==

*Marcin Jakubowski
*Sam Rose
*Paul

'''Join the team! Email samuel.rose at gmail.com'''

=Related existing data or facts that support theory=

* The [[User Owner]] concept
*Various un-money, free internet, free communications, and related efforts
**Examples - please fill in here:

=Existing constraints and barriers to deployment=

*Costly off-grid energy systems
*Regulatory issues in communication infrastructures
*Land base for setting up towers
*Peer to peer communication protocol
*Peer to peer data storage
*Cost of erecting towers
*Opposition from centralized interests

=Related existing work that argues against=

We are not aware of any support against an at-cost communication system, outside of standard industrial/government inertia.

=Facts and data that support arguments against=

Centralized control of information efforts include lawsuits of the Motion Pictures Association, Recording Artists Association

=Relevance to OSE core values=

Decentralized and effective provision of needs is essential to OSE's philosophy.

=Links to partner sites=
'''
list them here'''

=All active businesses supported by OSE=

These do not exist yet. Why, then, is this topic here?

----
----
=Implementation=

#Development of communication and storage protocol is a tractable problem
#Capitalization may be obtained readily by involving a large number of internet users, paying perhaps $25/year or whatever the at-cost price may be
##1 node every 10 miles, or every 100 sq miles (ex: 30,000 nodes for 3M sq miles of the USA
##Assume 10M initial subscribers- $2.5 billion in startup revenue available
##Each node has $100k allotment available

=Strategy=

Cost reduction for a project of this magnitude is feasible. $100k/node provides for feasibility using off-shelf technology. However, we want to go for open source components to assure maximum value. I propose we use $1-10M to develop open source, at-cost production facilities for hardware:
*wireless nodes - via CNC routers
*mobile, onsite aluminum production for towers from on-site clay
*open source protocol and code
*open source solar concentrator or OS PV production (ribbon PV is an immediate candidate)
*storage battery production - sealed lead acid
*power electronics - inverter and power conditioning for tower

=Project Status=

*Zero Hour began at 5 PM, Wednesday, February 26, 2008
*Initial business plan to be drafted by March 26, 2008
**Due diligence required: dedicated email list, publicity via networks
**Dedicated webspace; opensourceecology.org volunteered at present
*Refined business plan to be drafted by April 26, 2008
**Due diligence required:
***Economic feasibility of mobile aluminum smelting unit
***Economic analysis of node hardware fabrication
***Economic analysis of solar energy production
***Economic analysis of energy storage production
*Final business plan to be drafted by May 26, 2008
*Technical development period: June - December 1, 2008
*Fundraising, PR, begun December 1
*Deployment begun January 1, 2009

=Feedback=

We welcome your feedback on any points of this project. -The Management

Talk:User Owner Project

2008-02-28T20:47:40Z

AGNUcius: Profit are seaparated from Wages as ownership is multiplexed

There is a special economic case that occurs when the Owner of some Physical Sources (the material Means of Production) are also the Users of the Object[ive]s (output, product, purpose) of that production.

== Case 1: Single-User, Single-Owner ==
INDIVIDUAL Owner of Physical Sources (say an apple tree and 'supporting' sources such as land, water rights, tools) is the ONLY User of the Object[ive]s (apples, shade, wood):
* This base case is meant to show why Object Users should be Source Owners.
* The Owner of the Physical Sources (tree, etc.) is also the Owner of the Object[ive]s (apples, etc.) even before production is complete.
* The Owner has full control over the Object[ive]s because he is also the Owner of the Physical Sources. If the Owner doesn't want dangerous chemicals sprayed, there are no questions asked.
* Abundance for others is not a problem, as the Owner seeks use-value (consumption), not exchange-value (profit).
* The Owner may choose to do any or all of the work.
* The Owner may pay a Worker to install, maintain, operate the Physical Sources, but the Owner cannot pay more than Costs (wages are a cost) except as an investment toward future production (say buying another tree or more land or more water rights or more tools, etc.).
* Unemployment is not a problem, the Owner wants all chores automated away.
* Ownership of Physical Sources is (imperfect) insurance that future Object[ive]s will be met.

== Case 2: Multi-User, Multi-Owner==
COLLECTIVE Owners Physical Sources are SOME of the Users of the Object[ives]:
* This most important case covers the difficulties of Co-Ownership.
* All points of Case 1 apply.
* The Owners may charge Non-Owning Users a price above cost. This may cause the Owners to seek scarcity of others (destroy all competitors) because reducing competition increases profit. This is balanced by treating profit as an investment from the User who paid it.
* Non-Owning Users do not have control. This is balanced by treating profit as an investment from the User who paid it.
* Owner votes are weighted by their % of ownership in each indivisible Physical Source.
* Minor groups who lose a vote may split/fork/divide from the majority. If 80% of the Owners want the orchard sprayed, the remaining 20% can opt-out by partitioning off a section of the farm from those chemicals.
* Solutions to voting, granularity and divisibility can be very complicated, and this needs further discussion, but is not specific to Object Users being Source Owners.

== Case 3: Multi-User, Single-Owner ==
INDIVIDUAL Owner of Physical Sources is ONE of the Users of the Object[ives]:
* This less important case occurs when the startup (booting) Costs are small enough for any single owner, or can otherwise be organized as Case 2.
* All points of Case 2 apply.
* Documenting this case is important for observing the transition between 'public' and 'personal' ownership.
* The Owner may claim any wage for management or labor he performs while claiming profit (price above cost) is zero. Profit and Wages are not fully separated because there are no other Owners to complain about the Wages being too high.

== Case 4: Single-User, Multi-Owner ==
* This is an unlikely case of unknown applicability.

----
== Other Ideas ==
When this is running we will no longer need to "prop-up" wages because workers will push them higher through their ability to "hold out" when their consumption is protected when they have ownership in the sources of their own needs.

Investment from Object Users (price above cost or 'profit') is high in the early stages of development, but approaches zero as each citizen (consumer) gains their own percentage of real ownership in the Physical Sources of production.

One way to approach this is through a legally binding Social Contract that Owners could apply a to collective Physical Sources so profit would always be interpreted as User Investment whenever the products were given, rented, shared, sold or traded.

This inter-owner Trade Agreement should allow maximum divisibility so any user may opt-out or 'fork' their portion to treat it differently without needing the approval of all other owners. For instance, let's say you have gained ownership in beef cattle because you paid PriceAboveCost for hamburgers. You may vote (weighted by your % of ownership) on how ALL those animals are treated as a group, but if you have some special goals that few other owners would agree on, you can also *DIVIDE* out a realistic portion from the whole if your ownership is large enough to meet the minimum granularity. So if you want your animals to be fed grass instead of grain, the granularity would be at ''one animal'', since it is impossible to feed part of an animal one diet, and the other portion another... In another case, if you are only concerned about how the meat is packaged, then the granularity is much finer, and you should be able to meet those goals - though it would be your responsibility to organize that division and to pay any extra costs (such as wages) required to do any extra work.

Any group of co-owners will disagree on policy over shared property.

Some types of 'contiguous' things, such as roads, sewer, water, electricity, gas lines, etc. need more logistic restrictions in their divisibility.

Profit is an inverse measure of competition and a direct measure of monopoly. Profit is the portion of Price, Rent, Tax or Interest that goes beyond real costs. That profit becomes usury unless it is treated as an investment from the consumer who paid it.

Profit should be interpreted as a plea for development because it measures consumer dependence. Usury gained against consumers disrespects their natural desire to grow, so hampers true progress.

Profit collected as a reward for the owners is secondarily troublesome because it inverts the goals of that corporation from abundance and freedom toward scarcity and power.

If your are alone on the island and 20 more people suddenly arrive, how are 'we' going to decide how to collectively manage the available Physical Sources?

Collective ownership as a body - in-corp-oration is the original and only valid purpose of government.

Citizens and consumers are the same, and should be the owners for maximum performance, freedom and peace.

Whether you call it a church, a city, a club, commons, community, company, coop, corporation, county, cult... managing collective property is difficult.

Business and government are separated now only because we understanding that most businesses, especially the larger ones are somehow not fully aligned with the goals of the rest of society. It is the mistreatment of profit that inverts our original goals of peace and abundance.

Owners may accidentally squander their inheritance. 1st-world nations are covered with barren and even poisonous plants and mostly worthless animals - no chickens in the yards and the bees are dying.

Originating Owners hold no special status; each consumer who pays more than cost becomes an investor in Physical Sources to insure their ownership of future Objects.

http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:User_Owned

Talk:User Owner Project

2008-02-28T20:44:11Z

AGNUcius: Initial rewrite from various sources. Cherry pick from here to fill-in the article.

There is a special economic case that occurs when the Owner of some Physical Sources (the material Means of Production) are also the Users of the Object[ive]s (output, product, purpose) of that production.

== Case 1: Single-User, Single-Owner ==
INDIVIDUAL Owner of Physical Sources (say an apple tree and 'supporting' sources such as land, water rights, tools) is the ONLY User of the Object[ive]s (apples, shade, wood):
* This base case is meant to show why Object Users should be Source Owners.
* The Owner of the Physical Sources (tree, etc.) is also the Owner of the Object[ive]s (apples, etc.) even before production is complete.
* The Owner has full control over the Object[ive]s because he is also the Owner of the Physical Sources. If the Owner doesn't want dangerous chemicals sprayed, there are no questions asked.
* Abundance for others is not a problem, as the Owner seeks use-value (consumption), not exchange-value (profit).
* The Owner may choose to do any or all of the work.
* The Owner may pay a Worker to install, maintain, operate the Physical Sources, but the Owner cannot pay more than Costs (wages are a cost) except as an investment toward future production (say buying another tree or more land or more water rights or more tools, etc.).
* Unemployment is not a problem, the Owner wants all chores automated away.
* Ownership of Physical Sources is (imperfect) insurance that future Object[ive]s will be met.

== Case 2: Multi-User, Multi-Owner==
COLLECTIVE Owners Physical Sources are SOME of the Users of the Object[ives]:
* This most important case covers the difficulties of Co-Ownership.
* All points of Case 1 apply.
* The Owners may charge Non-Owning Users a price above cost. This may cause the Owners to seek scarcity of others (destroy all competitors) because reducing competition increases profit. This is balanced by treating profit as an investment from the User who paid it.
* Non-Owning Users do not have control. This is balanced by treating profit as an investment from the User who paid it.
* Owner votes are weighted by their % of ownership in each indivisible Physical Source.
* Minor groups who lose a vote may split/fork/divide from the majority. If 80% of the Owners want the orchard sprayed, the remaining 20% can opt-out by partitioning off a section of the farm from those chemicals.
* Solutions to voting, granularity and divisibility can be very complicated, and this needs further discussion, but is not specific to Object Users being Source Owners.

== Case 3: Multi-User, Single-Owner ==
INDIVIDUAL Owner of Physical Sources is ONE of the Users of the Object[ives]:
* This less important case occurs when the startup (booting) Costs are small enough for any single owner, or can otherwise be organized as Case 2.
* All points of Case 2 apply.
* Documenting this case is important for observing the transition between 'public' and 'personal' ownership.
* The Owner may claim any wage for management or labor he performs while claiming profit (price above cost) is zero.

== Case 4: Single-User, Multi-Owner ==
* This is an unlikely case of unknown applicability.

----
== Other Ideas ==
When this is running we will no longer need to "prop-up" wages because workers will push them higher through their ability to "hold out" when their consumption is protected when they have ownership in the sources of their own needs.

Investment from Object Users (price above cost or 'profit') is high in the early stages of development, but approaches zero as each citizen (consumer) gains their own percentage of real ownership in the Physical Sources of production.

One way to approach this is through a legally binding Social Contract that Owners could apply a to collective Physical Sources so profit would always be interpreted as User Investment whenever the products were given, rented, shared, sold or traded.

This inter-owner Trade Agreement should allow maximum divisibility so any user may opt-out or 'fork' their portion to treat it differently without needing the approval of all other owners. For instance, let's say you have gained ownership in beef cattle because you paid PriceAboveCost for hamburgers. You may vote (weighted by your % of ownership) on how ALL those animals are treated as a group, but if you have some special goals that few other owners would agree on, you can also *DIVIDE* out a realistic portion from the whole if your ownership is large enough to meet the minimum granularity. So if you want your animals to be fed grass instead of grain, the granularity would be at ''one animal'', since it is impossible to feed part of an animal one diet, and the other portion another... In another case, if you are only concerned about how the meat is packaged, then the granularity is much finer, and you should be able to meet those goals - though it would be your responsibility to organize that division and to pay any extra costs (such as wages) required to do any extra work.

Any group of co-owners will disagree on policy over shared property.

Some types of 'contiguous' things, such as roads, sewer, water, electricity, gas lines, etc. need more logistic restrictions in their divisibility.

Profit is an inverse measure of competition and a direct measure of monopoly. Profit is the portion of Price, Rent, Tax or Interest that goes beyond real costs. That profit becomes usury unless it is treated as an investment from the consumer who paid it.

Profit should be interpreted as a plea for development because it measures consumer dependence. Usury gained against consumers disrespects their natural desire to grow, so hampers true progress.

Profit collected as a reward for the owners is secondarily troublesome because it inverts the goals of that corporation from abundance and freedom toward scarcity and power.

If your are alone on the island and 20 more people suddenly arrive, how are 'we' going to decide how to collectively manage the available Physical Sources?

Collective ownership as a body - in-corp-oration is the original and only valid purpose of government.

Citizens and consumers are the same, and should be the owners for maximum performance, freedom and peace.

Whether you call it a church, a city, a club, commons, community, company, coop, corporation, county, cult... managing collective property is difficult.

Business and government are separated now only because we understanding that most businesses, especially the larger ones are somehow not fully aligned with the goals of the rest of society. It is the mistreatment of profit that inverts our original goals of peace and abundance.

Owners may accidentally squander their inheritance. 1st-world nations are covered with barren and even poisonous plants and mostly worthless animals - no chickens in the yards and the bees are dying.

Originating Owners hold no special status; each consumer who pays more than cost becomes an investor in Physical Sources to insure their ownership of future Objects.

http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:User_Owned

Talk:Point To Peer

2008-02-27T23:42:42Z

AGNUcius: fon.com

Just found this earlier today, and thought it might apply:

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~nrs32/pubs/hotnets6.pdf ''Nishanth Sastry, Karen Sollins, Jon Crowcroft: "Architecting Citywide Ubiquitous Wi-Fi Access". The Sixth Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets-VI).

Of course http://fon.com is also very relevant.

Talk:Point To Peer

2008-02-27T23:40:20Z

AGNUcius: "Architecting Citywide Ubiquitous Wi-Fi Access" paper

User:AGNUcius

2008-02-27T23:34:40Z

AGNUcius: Self sufficient 'ish'.com

Profit is an inverse measure of progress.

== Research ==

Here are ideas I think may apply to OSE, but am not yet sure where to 'park' them. Copy or move them where you see fit.

http://GreenInventor.org StrawJet Housing Construction

http://Selfsufficientish.com ''Self sufficient 'ish'.com - The urban guide to almost self sufficiency.

User:AGNUcius

2008-02-27T23:32:26Z

AGNUcius: StrawJet Housing Construction

Media-wiki talk:General disclaimer

2008-02-26T01:50:20Z

AGNUcius: Public Domain and Copyleft are mutually exclusive

Marcin,

To place a work in the Public Domain means you have relinquished Copyright.

But (perplexingly) Copyright must acutally be retained in order to apply a Copyleft License.

A Public Domain work can be 'captured' or 'enclosed' by other Copyright holders in that they can build upon that work (making changes) and then release it as a [[Proprietary]] product - withholding the virtual sources (design) from the end users. The BSD licenses, Apache, Artistic and others are similar in allowing such enclosure. Microsoft and Apple have used alot of Public Domain and *BSD code in this way.

The primary purpose of the GNU GPL (the most mature and popular of all Copyleft licenses) is to defend against such unsocial behaviour, but as with any Copyright license, it can only be applied by a Copyright holder that does not relenquish Copyright.

Your friend,
Patrick Anderson -- [[User:AGNUcius|AGNUcius]] 17:50, 25 February 2008 (PST)

Material Inputs

2008-02-25T18:05:38Z

AGNUcius: #REDIRECT Physical Sources

#REDIRECT [[Physical Sources]]

Physical Sources

2008-02-25T18:03:33Z

AGNUcius: Physical Sources are the rivalrous, material aspects of reality such as space, time, mass and energy required to host (store and express) any design.

Physical Sources are the rivalrous, material aspects of reality such as space, time, mass and energy required to host (store and express) any design.

Physical Sources are the tangible Means of Production such as Land, Water, SUN, Tractor, roto-tiller, drill press, etc.

Physical Sources are sometimes 'Instances' of Virtual Sources. For example, the design of an Earth Block Compressor is a Virtual Source, but the land, buildings, tools, steel, plastic, grease, energy, space needed to construct each working copy are the Physical Sources.

Talk:OSE Specifications

2008-02-25T17:55:48Z

AGNUcius: Will any part of OSE ever be about Opening the Material Inputs?

I would think "Open Source Ecology" would be about having the Sources of Ecology Open.

Not just the 'virtual' Sources such as genetics (DNA) or plans and knowledge about how to raise organisms, what about the [[Physical Sources]]?

Will any part of OSE ever be about Opening the [[Material Inputs]]?

Do we care about insuring access to instances of the designs that have been on the planet for millions of years, or about access to instances of the new designs that are created and opened here?

What if I travel to the OpenFarmTech land in Missouri? Can I rent land or tools? Can I become a part owner? How will such a facility grow?

We need investors. If those investors are future consumers, they will expect product instead of profit.

Sincerely, -- [[User:AGNUcius|AGNUcius]] 09:55, 25 February 2008 (PST)