[p2p-research] [Open Manufacturing] Re: Preventing Exclusion in Open Manfuacturing
Michel Bauwens
michelsub2004 at gmail.com
Fri Sep 4 11:25:44 CEST 2009
Hi Austin,
thanks for those details, though I'm surprised about your point of Linus
'owning' the licence?
I have a crowdfunding tag in delicious, you may want to check the allocation
procedures of these existing services, see
http://del.icio.us/mbauwens/Crowdfunding
For further answer, best is to segment your questions by clear topic I think
and to separately re-introduce them both on Ning and our p2p research list,
where did you find the open and closed reference of mine, in order to recall
what I precisely said?
Michel
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Austin <brentley at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for those links Michel....i think I understand opencore a little
> bit better. if i am correct, open core is basically a kind of shareware in
> which the part that's free is also open and viewable. the part that you pay
> for is proprietary and closed. this allows to inventors to segment by
> feature rather than user base.
>
> i think you're right about GPL and dual licensing. I'm just not sure that
> Linux is an example of that. From my understanding, only Linus Torvalds
> would be able to make that decision (since he still owns the license).
> Apparently, he considered it, but it never materialized:
> http://kerneltrap.org/node/8369. MySQL is perhaps a better example of a
> community (probably under GPL) that directly solicits corporate assistance
> via DL.
>
> by the way, only a couple of people have responded to my questions about:
>
> 1. governance...how do you allocate money to different projects if the
> community receives crowdfunding dollars?
> 2. access...in the absence of dual licensing (which seems to be a
> nonstarter at this point), how do you remove the invisible barrier between
> the OS community and proprietary community while still preserving incentives
> for the former to contribute and the latter to commercialize.
>
> this second bit more or less follows from your *open AND closed > open or
> closed (*by the way, do you have cases or articles that support that? i
> totally agree..*)*
>
> do you know of any way to generate additional feedback in this area? this
> is the last piece of the puzzle for me. i think after 3 months of endless
> questions, i may have used up some of the good will of the group (haha).
>
> -Austin
>
>
> Michel Bauwens wrote:
>
> hi austin,
>
> I formulated 3 laws to explain this dynamic:
>
> - open beats closed
>
> - open closed beats closed closed
>
> - open with closed beats open alone
>
> so, in short, no individual company can compete with an open ecology, but
> no open ecology without allied corporates seem to do very well either,
>
> so I think we're plausibly stuck with hybrid models at this stage, because
> both parties do something well and better in some aspects
>
> I don't see open communities do the last mile well at all, they don't care
> about the market/consumer ...
>
> it is my understanding that even with GPL, most companies use open core and
> dual license modalities, am I wrong?
>
> (http://p2pfoundation.net/Dual_Licensing ;
> http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Core)
>
> The following is interesting (see below), because it shows how the 'shark'
> dna of private companies can even use open source to purposesively try to
> obtain a monopoly
>
> Michel
>
> The Commercial Open Source Business Model<http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/the-commercial-open-source-business-model/2009/09/04>
> [image: photo of Michel Bauwens] Michel Bauwens
> 4th September 2009
>
> Commercial open source is controlled by exactly one stakeholder with the
> purpose of commercially exploiting it … The Intellectual Property Rights
> Imperative of Single-Vendor Commercial Open Source: *Always act in such a
> way that you, and only you, possess the right to provide the open source
> project under a license of your choice. *
>
> Here’s an interesting article on “single-vendor commercial open source,”:
>
> * *The Commercial Open Source Business Model<http://dirkriehle.com/publications/2009/the-commercial-open-source-business-model/>,
> Dirk Riehle*
>
> *ABSTRACT:*
>
> *“Commercial open source software projects are open source software
> projects that are owned by a single firm that derives a direct and
> significant revenue stream from the software. Commercial open source at
> first glance represents an economic paradox: How can a firm earn money if it
> is making its product available for free as open source? This paper presents
> the core properties of commercial open source business models and discusses
> how they work. Using a commercial open source approach, firms can get to
> market faster with a superior product at lower cost than possible for
> traditional competitors. The paper shows how these benefits accrue from an
> engaged and self-supporting user community. Lacking any prior comprehensive
> reference, this paper is based on an analysis of public statements by
> practitioners of commercial open source. It forges the various anecdotes
> into a coherent description of revenue generation strategies and relevant
> business functions.”*
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Austin <brentley at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If Linux is the model....I think their GPL patent prohibits companies from
>> making derivative works proprietary. They can sell, but they must give all
>> changes back to the community under the same GPL scheme.
>>
>> Some companies would be okay with that, but others might want to keep
>> their changes private. If the borrowed piece of technology constitutes only
>> 1% of the overall design, the rest of the design (all 99% of it) has to be
>> shared, no matter what.
>>
>> it would be interesting to see if a P2P community could produce
>> derivatives faster than the entire universe of for-profit companies. if the
>> P2P guys created a technology and placed it under the public domain....many
>> firms would want to use that free technology, improve it, and patent the
>> non-public parts. But if the P2P commuity is faster and more dynamic, they
>> might be able to stay ahead of the curve, constantly producing more designs
>> and prototypes and derivatives faster than the proprietary world can develop
>> and patent their own improvements. End result.....don't compete with the
>> P2P guys for IP.....compete on price instead. the designs are out
>> there.....as a firm, your job is to be the best company at taking those free
>> designs and mass producing them at a profit.
>>
>> -abb
>>
>> Michel Bauwens wrote:
>>
>> How is that different from 8 though?
>>
>> <8. *Peer production proper*: communities create the value, using a
>> Commons, with assistance from corporations who attempt to create derivative
>> streams of value. Linux is the paradigmatic example.>
>>
>> you mean that in 8, 'partial' would be okay, but there would a special
>> category for 'full' public domain?
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Austin <brentley at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Michel,
>>>
>>> Just a question for you...
>>>
>>> in the list of production models, is there one for:
>>>
>>> community creates for themselves and for the world. everything remains
>>> in the public domain....corporations use this, add proprietary improvements,
>>> and create for the consumers. it seems like this model might fall in
>>> between 8 and 9.
>>>
>>> -austin
>>>
>>> Michel Bauwens wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Austin,
>>>
>>> you may want to discuss your research with marc, a social capital funding
>>> expert, now attending SoCap
>>>
>>> this may be of interest, I've recapped my vision of the new production
>>> ecologies that will complement, if not increasingly replace, proprietary
>>> multinationals:
>>>
>>> Co-creation and the new industrial paradigm of peer production
>>>
>>> <What is the reality behind so called best practice co creation concepts?
>>> Are these lipservice to co-creative approaches. Are you really in the
>>> drivers seat or are just being made to believe that you have influence on
>>> the outcome. What are the building blocks of co-creation? Which conditions
>>> are required. Are organisations really prepared to allow influence and
>>> control of customers in their organisation and therefore become a co
>>> creative organisation? >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To understand the reality of illusion behind projects claiming to
>>> practice co-creation or co-design, one must look at the polarities of power
>>> and control that determine the context in which the co-creative processes
>>> take place, with on the one hand the communities of external collaborators,
>>> and on the other side, the corporate entities.
>>>
>>> But before tackling this issue in particular, it may be useful to see the
>>> emerging new paradigm of production that is arising out of the new
>>> participative processes.
>>>
>>> The new institutional reality could be described as follows:
>>>
>>> - At the core are the enabling collaborative
>>> socio-technological platforms, that allow knowledge workers, software
>>> developers and open design communities to collaborate on joint projects.
>>> Interesting questions already arise here: who is the driving force behind
>>> the creation & development of such platforms? They can be initiated by
>>> developing communities, managed and maintained by a new type of non-profit
>>> institution (like the FLOSS Foundations), or they can be corporate platforms
>>> that have been opened up to external participants
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Around the corporate platform is the open design community
>>> and the knowledge/software/design commons ruled by a set of licenses which
>>> determine the particular nature of the property. Is it a true commons
>>> license like the GPL, a sharing license like the Creative Commons where the
>>> stress is on the individual sovereignity in determining the level of sharing
>>> that is allowed; or is it a corporate license, giving very limited rights,
>>> or with outright digital sharecropping, i.e. the expropriation of the
>>> totality of the creative output reserved for usage by the organizing
>>> corporation?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Around the commons are the entrepreneurial coalitions that
>>> benefit and sustain the design commons, create added value on top of it, and
>>> sell this as products or services to the market. Important questions raised
>>> here are: how is the coalition itself organized? Do all parties have equal
>>> say, as in the Linux Foundation, or does one big party dominate, like with
>>> the Eclipse Foundation and IBM. How does the business ecology relate to the
>>> community. Is is nothing but a corporate commons?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - In addition, there is a funding infrastructure, the stream of
>>> returns from the monetized market sphere, to the commons, its community, and
>>> the infrastructure of cooperation? Do businesses support the community
>>> directly, through the foundations? Is the government or a set of public
>>> authorities involved.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Finally, there is the role of public authorities and
>>> governments in orchestrating the public-private-common triad in order to
>>> benefit from the local effects of the new networked coopetition between
>>> entrepreneurial coalitions and their linked communities.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When we look at this set interlocking triad (community – foundation –
>>> business) or quaternary structure (if public authorities are involved), we
>>> can now distinguish at least 3 main models
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - In commons centered peer production, like Linux, the
>>> community is at the core, and a real commons operate, with the community
>>> strong enough to sustain its own infrastructure, and cooperating with market
>>> players
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - In a sharing environment, where individuals share their
>>> creative endeavour, it is the corporate third party platform which monetizes
>>> the attention space, and may control the platform to a significant degree;
>>> the community does not control its own platform, but is not without power of
>>> influence, since quick and massive mobilizations are always possible.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - In a crowdsourced environment, participant producers are even
>>> more isolated from each other, and the corporation integrates them in the
>>> value chain which they control. Since individuals are here competing for
>>> market value themselves, solidarity is more difficult to obtain, given
>>> corporate platform owners more influence
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A good illustration of the various possibilities is Lego. Lego still
>>> operates as a classical producer of toys, selling to consumer; in Lego
>>> Factory, it has its crowdsourced environment, where co-designers can take a
>>> cut of the kits they succeed in selling; the new Lego World virtual
>>> environment is a sharing environment; finally, Lugnet is true
>>> commons-oriented peer production, happening outside the control of the
>>> company altogether.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Here are ten different co-creation modalities, depending on the polarity
>>> of control between peer producers and the corporate entities:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. *Consumers*: you make, they consume. The classic model.
>>>
>>> 2. *Self-service*: you make, they go get it themselves. This is where
>>> consumers start becoming prosumers, but the parameters of the cooperation
>>> are totally set by the producing corporation. It’s really not much more than
>>> a strategy of externalization of costs. Think of ATM’s and gas stations. We
>>> could call it simple externalization.
>>>
>>> 3. *Do-it-yourself*: you design, they make it themselves. One step
>>> further, pioneered by the likes of Ikea, where the consumers, re-assembles
>>> the product himself. Complex externalization of business processes.
>>>
>>> 4. *Company-based Crowdsourcing<http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Crowdsourcing>.
>>> *The company organizes a value chain which lets the wider public produce
>>> the value, but under the control of the company.
>>>
>>> 5. *Co-design*: you set the parameters, but you design it together
>>>
>>> For examples, see here http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Co-Design
>>>
>>> 6. *Co-creativity*: you both create cooperatively. In this stage, the
>>> corporation does not even set the parameters, the prosumer is an equal
>>> partner in the development of new products. Perhaps the industrial model of
>>> the adventure sports material makers would fit here.
>>>
>>> For examples, see here http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Co-Creation
>>>
>>> 7. *Sharing communities create the value, Web 2.0 proprietary platforms,
>>> attempt to monetize participation*.
>>>
>>> 8. *Peer production proper*: communities create the value, using a
>>> Commons, with assistance from corporations who attempt to create derivative
>>> streams of value. Linux is the paradigmatic example.
>>>
>>> 9. *Peer production with cooperative production*: peer producers create
>>> their own vehicles for monetization. The OS Alliance<http://www.p2pfoundation.net/OS_Alliance>is an example of this
>>>
>>> 10. *Peer production communities or sharing communities place themselves
>>> explicitely outside of the monetary economy*.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Austin <brentley at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello Everyone,
>>>>
>>>> I've CC'd a few more people for this particular issue....
>>>>
>>>> Despite my initial love affair with royalties and dual licensing, I have
>>>> come to the conclusion that it simply won't work. It's technically feasible,
>>>> but realistically improbable for legal, financial, and philosophical
>>>> reasons. Many of you said as much from the start, but I had to explore the
>>>> issue from every angle possible.
>>>>
>>>> So I've explored different ways to start-up and sustain the project.
>>>> Crowdfunding (from outside individuals and companies) and personal funding
>>>> (by Peer-to-Peer contributors). Either/Both show promise.
>>>>
>>>> Crowdfunding is an interesting option, but how does one community (with
>>>> many different projects, factions, and interests) allocate every new dollar
>>>> that comes in from public donations? Would it simply be split up
>>>> proportionately (i.e. the project with the most active members receives the
>>>> largest chunk)? Who provides oversight….and who has the power to insert or
>>>> remove this overseer? P2P funding doesn't have that problem since
>>>> individuals donate their own money to their own projects and oversight is
>>>> more localized…but if you can add in outside donations via crowdfunding, you
>>>> have access to more money).
>>>>
>>>> On a different note….
>>>> The benefits of P2P production are not worth disputing. But I also
>>>> believe there are advantages from having larger for-profit firms as well. If
>>>> they see a benefit in these public designs and want to commercialize certain
>>>> products, the adoption of such solutions in the market might happen even
>>>> faster. For every person who would be willing to search online for an
>>>> assembly kit or smaller-scale P2P-created item, there are probably 1000 more
>>>> who would prefer to go to Wal-Mart and buy an easy to find, ready-made
>>>> version complete with a warranty. There would be marketing campaigns to
>>>> support these commercial items, thus, removing the searching costs (and
>>>> boosting the awareness) of end products.
>>>>
>>>> • If Profit Firm, Inc did indeed commercialize P2P product X, would they
>>>> have to give improvements back? If so, what is the incentive for Profit
>>>> Firm, Inc to get involved? Ostensibly it would have to compete on price and
>>>> speed, but is that enough to attract a large group of players?
>>>> • If Profit Firm Inc does not have to share its improvements (and can
>>>> compete on product differentiation), what is the incentive for P2P producers
>>>> to even create product X in the first place? Altruism and prosocial
>>>> motivations might attract some people, but would that be enough?
>>>>
>>>> Is there a way to make access free while preserving the incentives for
>>>> both parties: (P2P remains active, inventing and manufacturing…Profit Firms
>>>> remain active, improving, commercializing, and taking ideas to the masses)?
>>>>
>>>> -Austin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
>>> Research: http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html - Think thank:
>>> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>>>
>>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net -
>>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>>>
>>> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>
>>> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
>>> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Research:
>> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html - Think thank:
>> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>>
>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>>
>> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>
>> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
>> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Research:
> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html - Think thank:
> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>
> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>
> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>
>
>
>
>
--
Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Research:
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html - Think thank:
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090904/6c9727b7/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the p2presearch
mailing list