FAQ 2015 - Revision history

Aidan Williamson at 02:42, 12 April 2015

2015-04-12T02:42:26Z

Marcin at 17:49, 11 April 2015

2015-04-11T17:49:01Z

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ([[FAQ]] has more content, but needs serious cleanup.)
 =How does the work of OSE relate to pressing world issues?=
 The central question that the [[GVCS]] intends to answer is how to transcend artificial scarcity. In a world where resources are abundant but their distribution is poor, much if not most of human politics revolves around resources. OSE's core mission is to lower the barriers to the stewardship, use, and production of resources. We feel that this can have a profound impact on reducing armed conflict, poverty, and distribution of wealth.

Marcin at 16:21, 4 April 2015

2015-04-04T16:21:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:21, 4 April 2015
Line 14:		Line 14:
	=What is artificial scarcity?=		=What is artificial scarcity?=

	=~~'''~~Q: What is OSE's position on the [[Peer Production License]] (PPL)?~~'''~~=		=Q: What is OSE's position on the [[Peer Production License]] (PPL)?=

	'''A:''' February 18, 2015. Philosophically, OSE doesn’t agree with PPL allowing companies paying so they do not have to share. This is not consistent with creating a culture of open collaboration and sharing, as indended in open source licenses. Practically, the PPL terms appear to have unclear distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ users. We agree with the general critique presented by http://blog.runtux.com/2014/05/28/242/. Our own comments on non-commercial licenses are here – [[Why_OSE_Doesn%27t_Use_Non-Commercial_Licenses]].		'''A:''' February 18, 2015. Philosophically, OSE doesn’t agree with PPL allowing companies paying so they do not have to share. This is not consistent with creating a culture of open collaboration and sharing, as indended in open source licenses. Practically, the PPL terms appear to have unclear distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ users. We agree with the general critique presented by http://blog.runtux.com/2014/05/28/242/. Our own comments on non-commercial licenses are here – [[Why_OSE_Doesn%27t_Use_Non-Commercial_Licenses]].

	It is not clear from the wording of the license whether commercial use is allowed by 'bad' users by paying a fee. However - if companies could pay a fee to use content - and if ‘appropriation for the anti-commons capitalist economy’ is the issue that the license aims to address, having corporations buy themselves out of sharing does not address such appropriation. In fact, allowing corporations to buy themselves out of being good citizens can promote such defection - and enclosure of new developments which would otherwise remain open. If the companies are required to follow an open, viral license – they cannot appropriate open technology – without sharing derivatives. We want to encourage collaboration – not defection. Further, OSE's case for open source is based on the efficiency advantage of open source. We feel that anything short of open collaboration is a compromise of the principles developed in the original open source definition, and we are acting accordingly. Our route in practice is Extreme Production, not protected consortia.		It is not clear from the wording of the license whether commercial use is allowed by 'bad' users by paying a fee. However - if companies could pay a fee to use content - and if ‘appropriation for the anti-commons capitalist economy’ is the issue that the license aims to address, having corporations buy themselves out of sharing does not address such appropriation. In fact, allowing corporations to buy themselves out of being good citizens can promote such defection - and enclosure of new developments which would otherwise remain open. If the companies are required to follow an open, viral license – they cannot appropriate open technology – without sharing derivatives. We want to encourage collaboration – not defection. Further, OSE's case for open source is based on the efficiency advantage of open source. We feel that anything short of open collaboration is a compromise of the principles developed in the original open source definition, and we are acting accordingly. Our route in practice is Extreme Production, not protected consortia.

Marcin at 16:17, 4 April 2015

2015-04-04T16:17:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:17, 4 April 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	([[FAQ]] has more content, but needs serious cleanup.)		([[FAQ]] has more content, but needs serious cleanup.)
			=How does the work of OSE relate to pressing world issues?=
			The central question that the [[GVCS]] intends to answer is how to transcend artificial scarcity. In a world where resources are abundant but their distribution is poor, much if not most of human politics revolves around resources. OSE's core mission is to lower the barriers to the stewardship, use, and production of resources. We feel that this can have a profound impact on reducing armed conflict, poverty, and distribution of wealth.

	=='''Q: What is OSE's position on the [[Peer Production License]] (PPL)?'''==		=Why does OSE consider distribution of wealth as one of the critical issues to solve?=
			Taday, 85 of the world's richest people own as much wealth as 3.5 billion of the world's poorest. This issues involves tremendous amounts of unnecessary suffering and lost opportunity, and is related to resource conflicts and loss of freedom.

			=How do you define freedom?=
			Freedom is the ability of individuals to pursue happiness - via opportunities to attain autonomy, mastery, and purpose. These 3 values are a central source of human motivation - according to [[Self Determination Theory]].

			=Why are you working on the [[CEB Press]]?=
			Housing is the single highest cost of living today. Reducing this cost or liberating people from the burden of this cost can free up much time for other pursuits. The Liberator, our CEB Press - is a machine that can produce compressed earth blocks at ane energy cost of 2 cents per brick, where the building material is free.

			=What is artificial scarcity?=

			='''Q: What is OSE's position on the [[Peer Production License]] (PPL)?'''=

	'''A:''' February 18, 2015. Philosophically, OSE doesn’t agree with PPL allowing companies paying so they do not have to share. This is not consistent with creating a culture of open collaboration and sharing, as indended in open source licenses. Practically, the PPL terms appear to have unclear distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ users. We agree with the general critique presented by http://blog.runtux.com/2014/05/28/242/. Our own comments on non-commercial licenses are here – [[Why_OSE_Doesn%27t_Use_Non-Commercial_Licenses]].		'''A:''' February 18, 2015. Philosophically, OSE doesn’t agree with PPL allowing companies paying so they do not have to share. This is not consistent with creating a culture of open collaboration and sharing, as indended in open source licenses. Practically, the PPL terms appear to have unclear distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ users. We agree with the general critique presented by http://blog.runtux.com/2014/05/28/242/. Our own comments on non-commercial licenses are here – [[Why_OSE_Doesn%27t_Use_Non-Commercial_Licenses]].

	It is not clear from the wording of the license whether commercial use is allowed by 'bad' users by paying a fee. However - if companies could pay a fee to use content - and if ‘appropriation for the anti-commons capitalist economy’ is the issue that the license aims to address, having corporations buy themselves out of sharing does not address such appropriation. In fact, allowing corporations to buy themselves out of being good citizens can promote such defection - and enclosure of new developments which would otherwise remain open. If the companies are required to follow an open, viral license – they cannot appropriate open technology – without sharing derivatives. We want to encourage collaboration – not defection. Further, OSE's case for open source is based on the efficiency advantage of open source. We feel that anything short of open collaboration is a compromise of the principles developed in the original open source definition, and we are acting accordingly. Our route in practice is Extreme Production, not protected consortia.		It is not clear from the wording of the license whether commercial use is allowed by 'bad' users by paying a fee. However - if companies could pay a fee to use content - and if ‘appropriation for the anti-commons capitalist economy’ is the issue that the license aims to address, having corporations buy themselves out of sharing does not address such appropriation. In fact, allowing corporations to buy themselves out of being good citizens can promote such defection - and enclosure of new developments which would otherwise remain open. If the companies are required to follow an open, viral license – they cannot appropriate open technology – without sharing derivatives. We want to encourage collaboration – not defection. Further, OSE's case for open source is based on the efficiency advantage of open source. We feel that anything short of open collaboration is a compromise of the principles developed in the original open source definition, and we are acting accordingly. Our route in practice is Extreme Production, not protected consortia.

Marcin at 16:40, 24 February 2015

2015-02-24T16:40:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:40, 24 February 2015
Line 3:		Line 3:
	=='''Q: What is OSE's position on the [[Peer Production License]] (PPL)?'''==		=='''Q: What is OSE's position on the [[Peer Production License]] (PPL)?'''==

	'''A:''' February 18, 2015. Philosophically, OSE doesn’t agree with PPL allowing companies paying so they do not have to share. This is not consistent with creating a culture of open collaboration and sharing, as indended in open source licenses. Practically, the PPL terms appear to have unclear distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ users. We agree with the general critique presented by http://blog.runtux.com/2014/05/28/242/. Our own comments on non-commercial licenses are here – [[Why_OSE_Doesn%27t_Use_Non-Commercial_Licenses]]. If ‘appropriation for the anti-commons capitalist economy’ is the issue that the license aims to address, having corporations buy themselves out of sharing does not address such appropriation. In fact, allowing corporations to buy themselves out of being good citizens can promote such defection. If the companies are required to follow an open, viral license – they cannot appropriate open technology – without sharing derivatives. We want to encourage collaboration – not defection. Further, OSE's case for open source is based on the efficiency advantage of open source. We feel that anything short of open collaboration is a compromise of the principles developed in the original open source definition, and we are acting accordingly. Our route in practice is Extreme Production, not protected consortia.		'''A:''' February 18, 2015. Philosophically, OSE doesn’t agree with PPL allowing companies paying so they do not have to share. This is not consistent with creating a culture of open collaboration and sharing, as indended in open source licenses. Practically, the PPL terms appear to have unclear distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ users. We agree with the general critique presented by http://blog.runtux.com/2014/05/28/242/. Our own comments on non-commercial licenses are here – [[Why_OSE_Doesn%27t_Use_Non-Commercial_Licenses]].

			It is not clear from the wording of the license whether commercial use is allowed by 'bad' users by paying a fee. However - if companies could pay a fee to use content - and if ‘appropriation for the anti-commons capitalist economy’ is the issue that the license aims to address, having corporations buy themselves out of sharing does not address such appropriation. In fact, allowing corporations to buy themselves out of being good citizens can promote such defection - and enclosure of new developments which would otherwise remain open. If the companies are required to follow an open, viral license – they cannot appropriate open technology – without sharing derivatives. We want to encourage collaboration – not defection. Further, OSE's case for open source is based on the efficiency advantage of open source. We feel that anything short of open collaboration is a compromise of the principles developed in the original open source definition, and we are acting accordingly. Our route in practice is Extreme Production, not protected consortia.

Marcin: /* Q: What is OSE's position on the Peer Production License (PPL)? */

2015-02-20T22:44:14Z

Q: What is OSE's position on the Peer Production License (PPL)?

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:44, 20 February 2015
Line 3:		Line 3:
	=='''Q: What is OSE's position on the [[Peer Production License]] (PPL)?'''==		=='''Q: What is OSE's position on the [[Peer Production License]] (PPL)?'''==

	'''A:''' February 18, 2015. Philosophically, OSE doesn’t agree with PPL allowing companies paying so they do not have to share. This is not consistent with creating a culture of open collaboration and sharing, as indended in open source licenses. Practically, the PPL terms appear to have unclear distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ users. We agree with the general critique presented by http://blog.runtux.com/2014/05/28/242/. Our own comments on non-commercial licenses are here – [[Why_OSE_Doesn%27t_Use_Non-Commercial_Licenses]]. If ‘appropriation for the anti-commons capitalist economy’ is the issue that the license aims to address, having corporations buy themselves out of sharing does not address such appropriation. In fact, allowing corporations to buy themselves out of being good citizens can promote such defection. If the companies are required to follow an open, viral license – they cannot appropriate open technology – without sharing derivatives. We want to encourage collaboration – not defection. Further, OSE's case for open source is based on the efficiency advantage of open source. We feel that anything short of open collaboration is a compromise, and we are acting accordingly. Our route in practice is Extreme Production, not protected consortia.		'''A:''' February 18, 2015. Philosophically, OSE doesn’t agree with PPL allowing companies paying so they do not have to share. This is not consistent with creating a culture of open collaboration and sharing, as indended in open source licenses. Practically, the PPL terms appear to have unclear distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ users. We agree with the general critique presented by http://blog.runtux.com/2014/05/28/242/. Our own comments on non-commercial licenses are here – [[Why_OSE_Doesn%27t_Use_Non-Commercial_Licenses]]. If ‘appropriation for the anti-commons capitalist economy’ is the issue that the license aims to address, having corporations buy themselves out of sharing does not address such appropriation. In fact, allowing corporations to buy themselves out of being good citizens can promote such defection. If the companies are required to follow an open, viral license – they cannot appropriate open technology – without sharing derivatives. We want to encourage collaboration – not defection. Further, OSE's case for open source is based on the efficiency advantage of open source. We feel that anything short of open collaboration is a compromise of the principles developed in the original open source definition, and we are acting accordingly. Our route in practice is Extreme Production, not protected consortia.

Marcin: /* Q: What is OSE's position on the Peer Production License (PPL)? */

2015-02-20T22:43:14Z

Q: What is OSE's position on the Peer Production License (PPL)?

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:43, 20 February 2015
Line 3:		Line 3:
	=='''Q: What is OSE's position on the [[Peer Production License]] (PPL)?'''==		=='''Q: What is OSE's position on the [[Peer Production License]] (PPL)?'''==

	'''A:''' February 18, 2015. Philosophically, OSE doesn’t agree with PPL allowing companies paying so they do not have to share. This is not consistent with creating a culture of open collaboration and sharing, as indended in open source licenses. Practically, the PPL terms appear to have unclear distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ users. We agree with the general critique presented by http://blog.runtux.com/2014/05/28/242/. Our own comments on non-commercial licenses are here – [[Why_OSE_Doesn%27t_Use_Non-Commercial_Licenses]]. If ‘appropriation for the anti-commons capitalist economy’ is the issue that the license aims to address, having corporations buy themselves out of sharing does not address such appropriation. In fact, allowing corporations to buy themselves out of being good citizens can promote such defection. If the companies are required to follow an open, viral license – they cannot appropriate open technology – without sharing derivatives. We want to encourage collaboration – not defection.		'''A:''' February 18, 2015. Philosophically, OSE doesn’t agree with PPL allowing companies paying so they do not have to share. This is not consistent with creating a culture of open collaboration and sharing, as indended in open source licenses. Practically, the PPL terms appear to have unclear distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ users. We agree with the general critique presented by http://blog.runtux.com/2014/05/28/242/. Our own comments on non-commercial licenses are here – [[Why_OSE_Doesn%27t_Use_Non-Commercial_Licenses]]. If ‘appropriation for the anti-commons capitalist economy’ is the issue that the license aims to address, having corporations buy themselves out of sharing does not address such appropriation. In fact, allowing corporations to buy themselves out of being good citizens can promote such defection. If the companies are required to follow an open, viral license – they cannot appropriate open technology – without sharing derivatives. We want to encourage collaboration – not defection. Further, OSE's case for open source is based on the efficiency advantage of open source. We feel that anything short of open collaboration is a compromise, and we are acting accordingly. Our route in practice is Extreme Production, not protected consortia.

Marcin: /* Q: What is OSE's position on the Peer Production License (PPL)? */

2015-02-20T22:40:16Z

Q: What is OSE's position on the Peer Production License (PPL)?

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:40, 20 February 2015
Line 3:		Line 3:
	=='''Q: What is OSE's position on the [[Peer Production License]] (PPL)?'''==		=='''Q: What is OSE's position on the [[Peer Production License]] (PPL)?'''==

	'''A:''' February 18, 2015. Philosophically, OSE doesn’t agree with PPL allowing companies paying so they do not have to share. This is not consistent with creating a culture of open collaboration and sharing, as indended in open source licenses. Practically, the PPL terms appear to have unclear distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ users. We agree with the general critique presented by http://blog.runtux.com/2014/05/28/242/. Our own comments on non-commercial licenses are here – ~~http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/~~Why_OSE_Doesn%~~27t_Support_Non~~-Commercial_Licenses. If ‘appropriation for the anti-commons capitalist economy’ is the issue that the license aims to address, having corporations buy themselves out of sharing does not address such appropriation. In fact, allowing corporations to buy themselves out of being good citizens can promote such defection. If the companies are required to follow an open, viral license – they cannot appropriate open technology – without sharing derivatives. We want to encourage collaboration – not defection.		'''A:''' February 18, 2015. Philosophically, OSE doesn’t agree with PPL allowing companies paying so they do not have to share. This is not consistent with creating a culture of open collaboration and sharing, as indended in open source licenses. Practically, the PPL terms appear to have unclear distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ users. We agree with the general critique presented by http://blog.runtux.com/2014/05/28/242/. Our own comments on non-commercial licenses are here – [[Why_OSE_Doesn%27t_Use_Non-Commercial_Licenses]]. If ‘appropriation for the anti-commons capitalist economy’ is the issue that the license aims to address, having corporations buy themselves out of sharing does not address such appropriation. In fact, allowing corporations to buy themselves out of being good citizens can promote such defection. If the companies are required to follow an open, viral license – they cannot appropriate open technology – without sharing derivatives. We want to encourage collaboration – not defection.

Marcin: /* Q: What is OSE's position on the Peer Production License? */

2015-02-20T22:39:51Z

Q: What is OSE's position on the Peer Production License?

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:39, 20 February 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	([[FAQ]] has more content, but needs serious cleanup.)		([[FAQ]] has more content, but needs serious cleanup.)

	=='''Q: What is OSE's position on the [[Peer Production License]]?'''==		=='''Q: What is OSE's position on the [[Peer Production License]] (PPL)?'''==

	'''A:''' February 18, 2015. Philosophically, OSE doesn’t agree with ~~Reciprocity Licenses~~ allowing companies paying so they do not have to share. This is not consistent with creating a culture of open collaboration and sharing, as ~~embodied~~ in open source licenses. Practically, the ~~reciprocity license~~ terms appear to have unclear distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ users. We agree with the general critique presented by http://blog.runtux.com/2014/05/28/242/. Our own comments on non-commercial ~~clauses~~ are here – http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Why_OSE_Doesn%~~27t_Support_the_Use_of_Creative_Commons_Non~~-Commercial_Licenses. If ‘appropriation for the anti-commons capitalist economy’ is the issue that the license aims to address, having corporations buy themselves out of sharing does not address such appropriation. In fact, allowing corporations to buy themselves out of being good citizens can promote such defection. If the companies are required to follow an open, viral license – they cannot appropriate open technology – without sharing derivatives. We want to encourage collaboration – not defection.		'''A:''' February 18, 2015. Philosophically, OSE doesn’t agree with PPL allowing companies paying so they do not have to share. This is not consistent with creating a culture of open collaboration and sharing, as indended in open source licenses. Practically, the PPL terms appear to have unclear distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ users. We agree with the general critique presented by http://blog.runtux.com/2014/05/28/242/. Our own comments on non-commercial licenses are here – http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Why_OSE_Doesn%27t_Support_Non-Commercial_Licenses. If ‘appropriation for the anti-commons capitalist economy’ is the issue that the license aims to address, having corporations buy themselves out of sharing does not address such appropriation. In fact, allowing corporations to buy themselves out of being good citizens can promote such defection. If the companies are required to follow an open, viral license – they cannot appropriate open technology – without sharing derivatives. We want to encourage collaboration – not defection.

Marcin at 22:38, 20 February 2015

2015-02-20T22:38:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:38, 20 February 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
			([[FAQ]] has more content, but needs serious cleanup.)

	=='''Q: What is OSE's position on the [[Peer Production License]]?'''==		=='''Q: What is OSE's position on the [[Peer Production License]]?'''==

	'''A:''' February 18, 2015. Philosophically, OSE doesn’t agree with Reciprocity Licenses allowing companies paying so they do not have to share. This is not consistent with creating a culture of open collaboration and sharing, as embodied in open source licenses. Practically, the reciprocity license terms appear to have unclear distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ users. We agree with the general critique presented by http://blog.runtux.com/2014/05/28/242/. Our own comments on non-commercial clauses are here – http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Why_OSE_Doesn%27t_Support_the_Use_of_Creative_Commons_Non-Commercial_Licenses. If ‘appropriation for the anti-commons capitalist economy’ is the issue that the license aims to address, having corporations buy themselves out of sharing does not address such appropriation. In fact, allowing corporations to buy themselves out of being good citizens can promote such defection. If the companies are required to follow an open, viral license – they cannot appropriate open technology – without sharing derivatives. We want to encourage collaboration – not defection.		'''A:''' February 18, 2015. Philosophically, OSE doesn’t agree with Reciprocity Licenses allowing companies paying so they do not have to share. This is not consistent with creating a culture of open collaboration and sharing, as embodied in open source licenses. Practically, the reciprocity license terms appear to have unclear distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ users. We agree with the general critique presented by http://blog.runtux.com/2014/05/28/242/. Our own comments on non-commercial clauses are here – http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Why_OSE_Doesn%27t_Support_the_Use_of_Creative_Commons_Non-Commercial_Licenses. If ‘appropriation for the anti-commons capitalist economy’ is the issue that the license aims to address, having corporations buy themselves out of sharing does not address such appropriation. In fact, allowing corporations to buy themselves out of being good citizens can promote such defection. If the companies are required to follow an open, viral license – they cannot appropriate open technology – without sharing derivatives. We want to encourage collaboration – not defection.