Message 05204 | [Homepage] | [Navigation] | |
---|---|---|---|
Thread: oxenT04643 Message: 103/166 L23 | [In index] | ||
[First in Thread] | [Last in Thread] | [Date Next] | [Date Prev] |
[Next in Thread] | [Prev in Thread] | [Next Thread] | [Prev Thread] |
Hi Michel, You wrote:
I am not sure I understand correctly your question. What do you mean by "a corporate commons"? My English is rather poor. According to what I understood from the dictionary: "corporate" may have two opposite meanings: one refers to something related to corporations, and thus to private/excluding property; the other refers more generally to the collective quality of something, and thus does not involves necessarily private/excluding property. I suppose you are using the first meaning, otherwise it would be a sort of redundancy.what do you make of this: that most peer production in software evolves to a corporate commons?
But "Commons" are the contrary of private property. The products in the Commons are at everybody's disposal. Corporate products are *normally* not, the exception being free/open software produced by programmers paid by corporations. As that reality develops, do you mean by "corporate commons" a sort of "commons" which would be at disposal only for "corporations"? But does that exist?
By itself, the fact that corporations have more and more recourse to open/free software, and even produce an increasing share of it only evidences that important aspect of the germ-form theory, that the new germ-form must be useful to the old/dominant forms in order to develop. But I think you know and agree with that vision.
Could you be more explicit? Raoul _________________________________ Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/ Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/ Contact: projekt oekonux.de
Thread: oxenT04643 Message: 103/166 L23 | [In index] | ||
---|---|---|---|
Message 05204 | [Homepage] | [Navigation] |