Re: [ox-en] Material peer production (Part 4: What Difference Does It Make?)
- From: "Patrick Anderson" <agnucius gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:52:56 -0600
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 4:04 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 gmail.com> wrote:
I go back to my distinction between self-aggregation as unproblematic in the
'immaterial sphere', but more problematic in the cost-recovery requiring
material sphere.
I agree cost-recovery is a primary issue.
But there are real costs associated with any and all production.
Writing software requires at least a physical computer and physical
electricity, and probably an internet connection. These costs are
real and recurring.
Free Software developers have always had the option of charging
customers a price for access to that which they create. They can even
charge more than cost and collect profit without breaking the license
agreement.
Whichever license they choose, it is only a Free Software license if
it allows commercialization (charging a price for) of that work.
Richard Stallman himself used to charge for updates of the first
software to use the GNU GPL: the GNU Emacs text editor.
If Peer Production requires participation be "free as in beer", then
Free Software development is not a P2P activity because it allows
cost-recovery to be solved through direct billing of those requesting
that product.
So if requiring payment for participation (for cost-recovery and even
for profit) is not allowed in P2P, then Free Software is not P2P.
Sincerely,
Patrick
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de