[p2p-research] [p2p energy economy] Re: Open Source Manufacturing

[Patrick Anderson]

On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 10:06 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:

> My definition of "open production system" overlaps with "renewable
> production system", i.e. if it's not designed to renew itself then it's not
> designed to be "open"

I can see your study of energy-flows coming through in this viewpoint.
 The claim is "high level" enough to be digested, but is not obvious.

How about this variation: Open systems can 'exist' or 'live' or
'survive' without external dependencies.

Or even: Open to Live.  Or (more negatively): Open or Die.


> There are of course many meaning of "open" and I think the word itself is
> subjective.
>
> That's why I believe we ought to look beyond "open" and "closed" and
> consider the optimum model for sustainability and evolution, which would
> have a mix of open and closed (or not so open) aspects.
>
> It's a complex issue indeed which is why it requires a complex answer, not
> black or white like closed vs open.
>

I agree here too.

Marc, you say the bigger Free Software projects are not 'open' because
of the financial support - and from that the external control over the
product.

This is partially correct, and I want to discuss where the line is
drawn, or in other words, how such projects are 'open' in some ways,
while being 'closed' in other ways.  As you say, it is a complex
question/answer.


The difference appears to me to be a mix of naming (Trademark) and
timing (contract against future labor).


I think of the "sources" of a software project as the primary "Means
of Production" for that product.  It's true they require physical
devices (a PC) to create, store and display them, but the low price of
this barrier-to-entry causes it to be of little importance for
singular-ownership.

Therefore, software development, even of giant-funded projects like
Firefox and the Linux kernel are partially 'open' to anyone who can
afford to purchase or rent a PC and sign-up for a network connection
(ISP costs), or can afford to purchase a CD of the *CURRENT* sources
through snail-mail.


Now, it is true that future production specifically entitled
"Firefox(TM) or Linux(TM) or VirtualBox(TM), etc." is temporarily
closed during that development period, and the direction of that
development under the control of the group owning that Trademark.

But that is only true *UNTIL* they make another release.  At that
point, the Means of Production (the sources) are again available to
anyone receiving the Product (object code).

This is the basis and reasoning for 'forking' a project.

There is more to say here about the hardware and energy required to
'host' any new fork, but I've already talked too much about that in
the past...


Patrick