Re: free vs. common (was: Re: [ox-en] A name for a peer-production-based society?)

On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 8:30 AM, Diego Saravia<[email protected]> wrote:
> [Converted from multipart/alternative]
>
> [1 text/plain]
> 2009/9/5 Stefan Meretz <stefan-/[email protected]>
>
>> On 2009-09-02 03:21, Diego Saravia wrote:
>> > free software or knowledge has nothing to do with "commons"
>> >
>> > free soft are free goods, not common goods
>> >
>> > the problem of using common goods is complety different to the
>> > problem of freeing knowledge
>>
>> What is the difference?
>>
>> Ciao,
>> Stefan
>
>
>
>
> free resources are not scarse
>
> you can duplicate software endlessly (if not copyright)
>
> you cannot duplicate fish in a pond forever
>

Both are constrained by the physical sources required for hosting.

Neither software nor fish can exist unless hosted on a physical medium.

You might say software is silicon-based while fish are carbon-based.

In both cases here are real limits to the number of copies because of
the physical constraints of:

1. space: you can only store so many.
2. time: creating each copy takes more than 0 seconds
3. mass: each copy must reside on a mineral substrate.
4. energy: ultimately mostly the sun


The only real difference is in the speed at which the duplication can occur.

It is quite possible to allow fish to duplicate themselves
(self-unfold) to trillions of copies.

It is just as realistic to consider trillions of CDs or DVDs full of software.

In both cases there is no limit in potential, but there is a very
definite ceiling on the number of copies you can finally instantiate
into the physical world.
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: [email protected]