Re: [ox-en] Mapping the GNU GPL into the Physical Realm

A further point of distinction is the thermodynamic behaviour of the 
physical world - each time there is a conversion of form/content entropy 
is created which is not the case in the virtual form ..recompiling 
source code carries no great overhead apart from time (..and a little 
energy).

Perhaps more care needs to be given to the design of 
re-useable/reconfigurable physical objects - with due regard to 
thermodynamic losses?

Ian



On 06/09/11 08:55, Lehor Meius wrote:
> This is very interesting. However I see a difference between physical 
> and virtual objects:
>
> When a virtual Object is created from virtual Sources, the amount of 
> virtual Sources remains the same.
> The possibility to create another Object is exactly the same.
>
> However, when we create a physical Object from Physical Sources, the 
> amount of physical Sources decreases
> for they are locked up in a physical Object. At some point we would 
> need more work in order to create an
> Object - to find additional Sources. Basically, as new Objects are 
> created, access becomes more difficult
> for new Users.
>
> The only remedy I see against this is when creation of a physical 
> Object does not give ownership rights,
> but instead gives *usership* rights. This means, once the Object in no 
> longer used (for example the beer
> bottle after the beer has been consumed), the user has the duty to 
> return it to the Source pool. Basically,
> all created physical Objects have to be returned to the Sources once 
> they are no longer used.
>
>
> Lehor
>
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 17:54:37 -0600, Patrick Anderson wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I've been trying to understand how the GNU GPL might apply to the
>> material world and am happily surprised with the results.
>>
>>
>> In the virtual world of software:
>> 1.) An Object is the result of {compiling} some type of Sources.
>> 2.) Sources are the inputs such as {source-code, makefiles,
>> shell-scripts, installer scripts, etc.} required to change a future
>> instance of that Object type.
>>
>>
>> In the physical world of hardware:
>> 1.) An Object is the result of {work* across time} to some type of 
>> Sources.
>> 2.) Sources are the inputs such as {land and water and seeds and
>> animals and tools} required to change a future instance of that Object
>> type.
>> *  Note: some Objects are occasionally created by the 'work' of nature
>> with no human intervention.
>>
>>
>>
>> So we can say physical Objects have physical Sources.
>>
>> For example, the Sources of a bottle of beer include land, water,
>> barley, hops, yeast, heated water, containers, glass (for the bottle),
>> kiln (to melt the glass), etc. - and even recursively all the sources
>> required to initially create the tools that created the tools, etc...
>>
>>
>> The GNU GPL instructs us to help every user incrementally gain at-cost
>> access the Sources of all the Objects they use.
>>
>> I think I've found a way to do this!
>>
>> The trick is to start a business that can treat some % of Profit
>> (Price above Cost) as an INVESTMENT FROM THE PAYER.
>>
>> Treating Profit as Payer Investment causes each user to slowly gain
>> co-ownership in the *growth* of that organization.
>>
>> Imagine you buy a $5 hamburger from such a place, but it only cost the
>> current owners $3 to deliver that surplus (the owners would only be
>> selling surplus, since the *primary* reason for their investments
>> would be to receive at-cost objects such as hamburgers).
>>
>> The cashier would give you a receipt showing you now have (within a
>> future vesting window) $2 invested in more land, water rights, calves,
>> and also toward paying wages, etc.
>>
>> As you continue to gain ownership (and as you also continue to pay
>> recurring costs on what you already own), you will eventually go to
>> the new restaurant your overpayments help to create, and you will show
>> your ownership credentials to prove you already own a prepared
>> hamburger as a result of your ownership in the entire tree of it's
>> production.
>>
>> When the investors will accept the objects themselves (say beer) as
>> compensation for the risk they took, there is no sale because the end
>> user already paid all the costs of production, and owns the objects as
>> a side-effect of those commitments.
>>
>> And since there is no sale, Profit doesn't even have a chance to enter
>> the picture.
>> And without a sale there is no attack-point for external governments -
>> and so no sales tax.
>>
>>
>> http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_rent is a subset or simplified
>> version of this.
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Patrick Anderson
>> http://ImputedProduction.BlogSpot.com
>>
>>
>> We can also eliminate wages by committing to swap of skills within a
>> "closed-loop, user-owned production aggregate" *before* production
>> begins.  I call it pre-barter.
>> _________________________________
>> Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
>> Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
>> Contact: [email protected]
>
> _________________________________
> Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
> Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
> Contact: [email protected]
>
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: [email protected]