[p2p-research] Non digital commons a lot more complicated than Free Software

[Samuel Rose]

> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 4:21 AM, M. Fioretti <mfioretti at nexaima.net> wrote:
>>
>> John Wilbanks of Creative Commons explains some of the reasons for
>> this (which was also a theme of the ICC in Berlin) at
>>
>>
>> http://stop.zona-m.net/2010/11/non-digital-commons-a-lot-more-complicated-than-free-software/
>>
>> (copying Glynn Moody because this was also a theme of the workshop in
>> Berlin that he and Pat Mooney coordinated)
>>
>> --
>> Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how
>> software is used *around* you:            http://digifreedom.net/node/84
>>
>> _______________________________________________

Thanks Marco,

I agree with everything in your blog post you've linked to about the
nature of the problem.

I'd also add that there is a condition that I am perceiving in some of
the groups and networks active in Open Source Hardware circles that is
impeding the uptake of some processes and technologies that could
create a pathway out of the problem(s) described in your blog post.

The condition that I perceive is that, while there are emerging
technologies like Tangible Bit and SKDB that allow virtual
representations of packages of technology to be maintained and tested,
which could make collaborative checks and balances easier to employ in
communities. But, the evolution of these systems is such that they are
*limited* to a particular "platform" or set of tools. If they were
instead an open standard that could be used in *many* tools (which is
possible now) then people could develop work practices using these
package systems, potentially *without* the need to change away from
the existing documentation, project management, and other tools they
currently use.

So, myself and my colleagues are looking at a way to use Tangible Bit
and/or SKDB as an open standard instead of as a collection of software
(or making a competing system that works this way). Asking people to
"drop what you are using, and adopt my software" as the barrier of
entry in order to participate, is going to limit the uptake of
anything at least for a significant amount of people. It's easier for
people to adopt a standard that works in their already existing
processes.

The other opportunity here is to make a way to use this meta-data
about hardware as a way of comparing various projects and seeing where
there are opportunities to merge, connect, etc. This is easy to do
with Arduino-based hardware for instance, because there is a standard
that can be mapped back to (plus presumably testing etc of the core
Arduino components within the existing community as discussed in
Marco's article).