P2P Foundation

Researching, documenting and promoting peer to peer practices


    Admin

    P2P Foundation Sites/Publications

    Worth Reading

    Introductory Essay
    Extensive Essay

    Sponsors

    Interviews

    Video

    - New P2P Video at Pixelace, Helsinki, March 2009

    Podcasts

    - Interview at Open Views by Sundar Raman, 9th March 2007
    - Interview with Richard Poynder

    Resources

    Delicious P2P tags
    P2P Blog Aggregator
    P2P Encyclopedia
    P2P Foundation Wiki
    P2P Meme Map
    P2P Movements
    P2P Podcasts
    P2P Tools
    P2P Topical Index
    P2P Webcasts
    givegetnation

    Visit our archive

  • Books


    Free Software, Free Society

    Community

    Join the P2P Community on Frappr frappr link to our community

    Want to advertise? Click here.

  • Subscribe



  • Donate

    If you value the insight and content of this site, gift us with a contribution.

  • Communities and Networks Connection
  • Recent Comments:

    • rachel: well its true that kens work is great, and some of these critics are downright...
    • Michel Bauwens: This contribution from Jeff Vail, sent by email, is not directly...
    • Michel Bauwens: Commentary by Eric Hunting, via email: Apple has, ironically, always...
    • Michel Bauwens: Feel free to post it as a comment, and we can upgrade it to an article,...
    • laws and liberty: Lol, I wouldn’t have said that personally, but this is a very...

  • Authors

  • Smári McCarthy on some issues with Open Hardware Licenses

    photo of Michel Bauwens

    Michel Bauwens
    10th March 2008


    Do we need Open Hardware Licenses for Open Source Physical Objects, and under what conditions?

    Smári McCarthy:

    The problem with Open Source licenses on physical objects is that even though they might do the trick in a legal context, it isn’t what they’re designed to do, so the wording is all wrong. It’s like selling vodka as a disinfectant. It’ll do the job marvelously, but a lot of people will remain skeptic.

    Conversely I think doing an “Open Hardware License” would be missing the point to a certain degree - the boundaries between hardware and software are bound to grow increasingly fuzzy as we draw closer to digital fabrication (let alone molecular assembly), and even if we lump those two together we’d be neglecting all the other kinds of “intellectual property”, such as ideas, etc.

    I consider patents to be harmful by design. Their original purpose, to spur innovation, worked to a certain degree but it certainly doesn’t scale (much like the republic) - as soon as you have a certain number of innovators, they find their options limited by the number of existing patents, and the patent system becomes counterproductive. Bounty based systems may be better for certain purposes, but this is an issue I haven’t seen anybody nail properly yet.

    Which brings me to my point: What we need isn’t just a new license, it’s a new terminology for dealing with “objects”, both physical and imaginary, something that encompasses both snugly, fits in with modern legalese and does the job patents were originally intended for without artificially stifling innovation or stepping on anybody’s toes.

    Once we have that kind of framework, a license that applies in general terms to all these things will probably follow somewhat naturally, and that has the potential to handle software, hardware, biomass or whatever humans need to possess.

    [It should be noted that I strongly oppose the concept of property, wishing rather to regard things as possessions, the difference being the level of authority I assume - I do not need to exert unswerving authority over every moment of, for example, my apartment's existence as long as I have the ability to use it, in perfect condition, whenever I need it. Any exertion of authority beyond that is a crime unto any society where scarcity is a fact.]

    Most innovation done in the world today is being done By the developed world For the developing world, and this is clearly the wrong way to do things. Enabling people running a collective warehouse of digitized objects to demand money from one another for use of their intellectual possessions would only widen the gap between the developing and developed, instead of reversing the innovation cycles and putting the power in the hands of those who need it, which is essentially my end goal.

    In the end I came up with two methods of addressing this. On the one hand ask for donations rather than demanding money. The other method was applying a PPP-valency matrix to pricing schemes. Let me coin the term: A PPP-valency matrix is a NxN matrix, V, of the ratios between regional PPP’s (with tr(V) = N, and prod(V) = 2N, by design.).. the concept is to take the “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” mantra and apply it to the actual economy, so the amount of money you get from objects is relative to the ability of people to pay for them. The problem with this method is it’s extremely hard to implement in a way that doesn’t beg for abuse, and after doing a few paper napkin Monte Carlo simulations (yes, I’m a geek), I’ve seen that there’s an inherant feedback loop in this thing that could cause instability in the long run. It can be fixed, but I’m not sure how.”

    2 Responses to “Smári McCarthy on some issues with Open Hardware Licenses”

    1. Smári´s blag :: Mesh Wifi and Open Hardware Says:

      [...] As I said previously in an article that appeared on the Peer-2-Peer Foundation’s blog: The problem with Open Source licenses on physical objects is that even though they might do the trick in a legal context, it isn’t what they’re designed to do, so the wording is all wrong. It’s like selling vodka as a disinfectant. It’ll do the job marvelously, but a lot of people will remain skeptic. [...]

    2. OpnShrts-EP0002-080524-And We’re Back « OpenShorts Podcast Says:

      [...] Smári McCarthy on some issues with Open Hardware Licenses [...]

    Leave a Reply

    XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>