[p2p-research] [Abundance] Re: The End of Work or the Renaissance of Slavery?

[marc fawzi]

<<
There is virtually no need for an "at cost" provision. I'm not saying it
shouldn't be in there, but I'm just saying that it is rather
irrelevant. The code will be provided for virtually nothing 99.99
percent of the time to 99.99 percent of the people. It would be as
irrelevant as a price floor of one dollar for houses.
>>

I would add that the code in itself is worth as much as air.

With that said, I think this is very relevant to a model I'm evolving
for trading in "man hours" and "cpu hours" for open content (e.g. open
software) and open content production (e.g. open software
development.)

There are two things in software (as open content) and software
development (as open content production) that need to be traded
without throttling by artificial "price" which is what Patrick is
getting at, IMO.

In the model I'm evolving (please see discussion tab of wiki page for
P2P Energy Economy), those two things are the "man hour" cost in human
energy (for producing the software) and the "cpu hour" cost in
computational energy (for running and replicating the software)

[start of somewhat irrelevant section]

The "cpu hour" cost for running the software or
replicating/downloading it is relatively very low. In case of
replicating/downloading via P2P the bandwidth is some fixed sunk cost,
e.g. $40/mo, which, for the sake of simplicity, does not factor into
the replication/downloading cost. This way, anyone using my machine
for x cpu hours to download some software will let me use theirs too
for x cpu hours at any time in the future and for whatever
cpu-consuming purpose, e.g. running some web service. That's much
better than the bandwidth-exchange model in BitTorrent which will be
used too but does not factor in the 'cpu hour' exchange which is of
more interest since 'cpu hours' are usable at any time and for any
purpose (so they work more like a currency)

[end of somewhat irrelevant section]

If developer spends a total of 2,000 man hours building the software
and recoups those 200 man hours, in virtual "man hour" tokens, from
the users (assuming the users are other developers) he can then have
2,000 man hours (of other developers' time) to apply to his software,
to enhance it. If he doesn't recoup the 2,000 man hours he spent his
productivity is not likely to grow (or if it does then it's at the
cost of something else unless he is funded and the funding grows as he
makes progress, which is how it works in the commercial and free
software business), i.e. he'll have the same  2,000 man hours to put
in, so his productivity stays constant. But if he does recoup the
2,000 man hours as "man hour tokens" then he can trade the tokens in
return for 2,000 man hours of other developers' time (again, assuming
the users or participant in such economy are also developers) and puts
in another 2,000 man hours of his time, so now he has 4,000 man hours
invested in the project, which he can recoup (in "man hour" tokens)
and then trade for other developers' time while again putting 2,000
man hours of his own time, so now he has 6,000 man hours invested in
the project, which he can recoup (in "man hour" tokens) and trade for
other developers' time while again putting 2,000 man hours of his own
time, so now he has 8,000 man hours invested in the project, and so
on...

In other words, by recouping my man hours in "man hour" tokens" and
trading them for other developers' time, I can continuously grow my
software project, faster than just giving it away for free, without
major corporate donors.

I have figured out how to create the "man hour" and "cpu hour" tokens
such that they are linked to (or are the result of) higher
productivity not just created with a magic wand. More specifically,
they are created based on the increase in the flow of man hours and
cpu hours from peers with surplus to peers with deficit. This way,
they represent spent human and computer energy so money becomes equal
to work, or an enabler of production, not an enabler of scarcity or
ownership, which are two sides of the same exact coin based on the way
I see it.

When it comes to "billing" for open software (as downloaded content or
as P2P-based SaaS) "cpu hour" billing is easy because it relates to
use of a cpu which is measurable based on cpu spec. When it comes to
billing for open software development, "man hour" biling requires
consensus between the developer and their peers (other users of the
economy, who are also developers) on how many "man hours" a given task
should take, ideally speaking and on average.  Obviously, anyone not
using the P2P trading app can go and download the software from some
external torrent, to circumvent having to pay the ridiculously low
cost in 'cpu hours' and 'man hours' (which is divided by the number of
_all_ users in the economy)

:-)


On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Edward Miller <EmbraceUnity at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You are correct that without an "at cost" provision there is no legal
> requirement for providing the source code. The caveat to that is that
> absolutely no company would release code under the BSD license that
> they intended to keep secret, and once that code is available, it is
> permanently available. At minimum it would get cached by archive.org
> or google or someone. More likely it would be mirrored and torrented
> by interested third parties, and a community would spontaneously form.
>
> You are getting tripped up with the legalistic aspect of it. There is
> virtually no need for an "at cost" provision. I'm not saying it
> shouldn't be in there, but I'm just saying that it is rather
> irrelevant. The code will be provided for virtually nothing 99.99
> percent of the time to 99.99 percent of the people. It would be as
> irrelevant as a price floor of one dollar for houses.
>
> On a slightly related note, I think the  minimum wage would become
> obsolete with a Basic Income. The basic income would already give
> people a reason to value their labor highly, and furthermore
> voluntarily working for pennies when you are assured a basic standard
> of living is perfectly acceptable. The biggest benefit of a minimum
> wage now is that it promotes automation by increasing the value of
> human capital. That function becomes irrelevant later on.
>
> Just like how this "at cost" provision is basically irrelevant. Catch
> my drift?
>
> Forget this whole profit margin thing... you are thinking about it
> wrong. Just because a consumer-owned enterprise has no profit margin
> added to the price of its products, that doesn't mean that enterprise
> has any reason to attain the extraordinary levels of efficiency and
> economies of scale that mega-corporations do. It sounds nice and
> simple to just eliminate the profit and bring down prices, but it just
> isn't that easy.
>
> On Feb 16, 8:52 pm, Patrick Anderson <agnuc... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Edward Miller <EmbraceUn... at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> If the GNU GPL did not require the source code be provided at cost,
>> >> how would it be any different from a binary-only 'Freeware' license?
>>
>> > I don't know the intricacies of the BSD license, but you led me to
>> > believe that it has no such provision.
>>
>> That is correct; you may distribute BSD licensed binaries without
>> offering the source-code.  This causes such software to be 'open', but
>> not what I would call "locked open".
>>
>> > Yet, it is still an open source license.
>>
>> Yes, and also qualifies as Free Software (according to the FSF.org),
>> but does not 'perpetuate' freedom the way GNU GPL software does.
>>
>> > As long as the original creator puts the code up on the
>> > internet and has relatively liberal terms, a community can quickly
>> > form around it. Even if the original creator goes out of business or
>> > whatever, the code will still be out there floating around the net for
>> > people to use, regardless of any "at cost" provision.
>> > Yet, since the
>> > BSD license is so tolerant that it allows people to turn it into a
>> > proprietary license, derivative works can be kept secret.
>>
>> Just a nitpick: it's not that someone can change the license of that
>> original code, it's that the BSD license allows 'mixing' with non-BSD
>> licensed code.
>>
>> > Works derived from GPL-licensed code must also be licensed under the
>> > GPL with the same liberal terms and the same mandate to share-alike.
>>
>> Yes, I agree that is part of how the GNU GPL works, and you are
>> correct that it is a very important part of the license, but I must
>> defend my stance that another facet of the license is the requirement
>> that every end user receive "at cost" access to the virtual Sources of
>> Production (the source code).
>>
>> Richard Stallman (RMS) talks about User Freedom.
>>
>> He wants to insure every users is able to [fromhttp://GNU.org/philosophy/free-sw.html]:
>>
>>     *  The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
>>     * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your
>> needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for
>> this.
>>     * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
>> (freedom 2).
>>     * The freedom to improve the program, and release your
>> improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that
>> the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is
>> a precondition for this.
>>
>> If the GNU GPL required all derivatives use the same license, yet did
>> not require Source access, then the only thing it would protect is the
>> ability to run(0) and redistribute(1) binaries; it would not allow
>> end-users to study(2), or improve(3) the program.
>>
>> Now, this may seem unimportant - since very few end-users have the
>> skill to 'operate' those Sources (to program).
>>
>> But if we look closely, and think clearly we will see that when every
>> user (consumer) has "at cost" access to the Sources (Means) of
>> Production - even without skills, they can then hire ANY worker to
>> fulfill those goals instead of being at the mercy of those that would
>> withhold access for the purposes of profit.
>>
>> Since wages are a cost, we see that the GNU GPL already eliminates
>> profit in that realm, since the consumer can always "go around" those
>> who would otherwise withhold access to the Sources for the purpose of
>> charging a price above cost.
>>
>> Does this make sense?  Please let me know if it does not.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Patrick
> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Abundance" group.
> To post to this group, send email to postscarcity at googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to postscarcity+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/postscarcity?hl=en
> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>
>