[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
I'll explain more:
I don't really think we can look at any f/loss software project and think
of
it as a "doubly free" vs. "singly free" because anyone could very well be
employed to work on the f/loss project. That person could then decide to
align there work with the free software project, to contribute work back,
to
contribute bug testing, unit testing, code improvement, and patches, etc as
part of their normal "paid" workflow, when they are being paid to work with
the f/loss software.
This actually happens in quite a few f/loss projects.
So, from an actual systems perspective, things are messier than they are
from an economic theory perspective, perhaps. There is a rarely a "pure"
double-free f/loss project, if you are accounting for where all of the
labor
came from (whether it was paid for, vs. whether it was all volunteer)
The workflow of contributing this way (contribution while being paid to
work) in reality is having the effect of more enterprise-type software
infrastructure capabilities becoming available to more people (like me) who
do not have the funds to otherwise purchase that infrastructure and/or
capabilities.
One thing to note is that clients who pay me would not actually need to pay
me to get core functionality, and actually get work done. They are paying
me
to extend software beyond core functionality, plus they are paying me to
help them think about how to successfully use software to solve their
unique
local problems.
Still, I do realize that the deeper, meta issue is 'why do I need to be
paid
at all?' and how I find myself in the position of:
- owning property that I must pay taxes on
- owning a vehicle that requires fuel, lubricants, ongoing maintanence
- limited production in my own property-space, requiring me to seek out
funding to continue to pay taxes, and maintain systems that require money
So, there is a whole line of argument and thinking about how a system
forces
me to participate in that money seeking.
Since there is no escape from that "system", it seems to me that the ideas
discussed by folks like Adam Arvidsson
http://www.ntu.ac.uk/p2pworkshop2007/programme/56389gp.html are the most
likely to succeed: incorporating ethics into economies.
I'm not seeing this discussed too much here on oekonux, which is
interesting
to me. if the notion of an "ethical economy" is rejected among some of the
people who contribute to this list, it would be enlightening for me to know
why (or to understand what they arguments against it are).
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:38 PM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose gmail.com>
wrote:
Well, you are almost right. except that the product is also a commons (in
that changes are given back to the greater open source commons) and I am
actually hsoting repositories where people can download apps that I am
working on, all of which are based on GPL'ed software
If this doesn't make sense, please let me know and I'll try to explain a
detailed scenario
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Michel Bauwens <
michelsub2004 gmail.com>wrote:
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
Hi Sam,
the difference between what Paul and you are saying:
- Paul is talking about peer production or 'doubly-free software', where
the
production is free and the product is a commons
- you are talking about freelance labour in a capitalist economy (though
it
could be done for a non-capitalist sector), producing singly-free
software
...
of course, I'm not implying that what you are doing is not proper or not
ethical, and your work strengthens the reproduction of singly-free
software.
but if you would not do this work, you would starve,
or maybe i'm wrong, and you are inserted in an alternative economic
logic?
Michel
[2 text/html]
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de