Proposed OSE specifications aim to guarantee truly open physical peer production

What do we need to have “economically-significant, replicable, open source physical production efforts”, i.e. true Distributive Production?

Proposed by Marcin Jakubowsky and the Open Source Ecology project:

We like to be clear about the meaning of open, or open source,’ as used in this work for items of physical production. By open source, we mean documented to the point where one may replicate a given item, without even consulting with the developers. To us, this embodies the most complete form of documentation possible, where sufficient detail is provided to enable independent replication. This is open source embodied in OSE Specifications.

Other features of OSE Specifications are:

1. Freely downloadable documentation

2. DfD, lifetime design

3. Simplicity and low cost are of prime importance

4. Replaceable components

5. Modular Design

6. Scaleability

7. Localization

* 1. Level 1 – product fabrication or production is local
* 2. Level 2 – material sourcing is local

8. Product evolution – phases and versions are pursued

9. Concrete Flexible Fabrication mechanism exists for others to purchase the product at reasonable cost

10. Open franchising – replicable enterprise design is available, and training exists for entrepreneurs

Thus, these features are meant to promote liberatory technology – open, replicable, essential, optimal, and ecological goods and services for humankind living in harmony with natural life support systems.”

4 Comments Proposed OSE specifications aim to guarantee truly open physical peer production

  1. Pingback: Factor E Farm Weblog » Blog Archive » Open Engineering: Better Than Sliced Bread

  2. AvatarMichel Bauwens

    From Franz Nahrada:

    Dear Michel, dear all!

    this (the p2p-people page) is a great idea and “thank you for the flowers”
    for including me allthough I could not yet congtribute much to our wiki.
    Yet I feel its allready an invaluable tool for me, the richest collection
    of free modes available anywhere in the net and on the planet. And I feel
    proud to be a member of this group which does exactly what I thought
    Oekonux would be good for.

    I am still in the rehabilitation center and I met quite a lot of
    interesting people here, the advantage is that all these people had heart
    attacks or surgeries and they now take their time and listen. So I was
    fortunate to have some good talks, among them with a representative of a
    foundation for global cooperation in Bulgaria. I just want to urge us to
    take a quick mental note of the cooperative sector with its incredible
    possibilities. We can show them new ways!

    But what I want to report here is rather the one talk with the owner of a
    very ordinary medical tech business with 20 employees or so, selling stuff
    to doctors and hospitals. I told him about models for open source business
    and he was really taken away by the idea – so I suggested him to do an
    instant research on the web, especially for medicine and health care and
    the way such business models could work for him.

    In the course of this talk I had to come up with quick proofs and
    compelling examples and facts, which was not easy at all, there was no
    medical hardware stuff in sight, so I showed him the pages of twibright /
    ronja that I also had demonstrated to Marcin as the first example of a
    complete high tech open source hardware business cycle. The advantage is
    that they put not only the design online, but really are keen to describe
    the whole manufacturing process from bottom up, They provide part lists,
    sources, not leaving anything out (including transparently the donors). I
    showed him the new roles and opportunities, especially in distribution and
    support, that he could take over in a hypothetical Open Hardware business

    Its exactly this need that I want to highlight now: how can we proove the
    concept when talking to people from all walks of life that can make
    business decisions? There is so much crap online like theoscarproject, and
    we need to help each other recognize the quality of endavours, maybe even
    provide some guidelines and keypoints that we expect from an open project
    or free modes. Also we must separate the theoretical speculation from the
    working examples.

    One of the major points is complete documentation, and i imagine that we
    introduce a rating process in the not too distant future to make it easier
    for us to evangelize p2p production by living examples. Maybe this should
    already be taken into consideration when we think about design issues now. has become a complete failure in this respect after nice

    I think this group and especially Marcins invaluable work could be a much
    better starting point to get to serious business, but that also means that
    there is a lot required from us.

    Maybe – if you agree in the general direction – we also should start
    thinking about a proposal to business associations, the cooperative
    sector, progressive governments and others to support this immense work
    ahead of us. This can by no means be done one the base of hobbyism any
    more, even if some Oekonux people hold this as a holy grale.

    What do you think?

  3. Pingback: An appeal by Franz Nahrada: Quality evalaution of physical peer production efforts » P2P Foundation

Leave A Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.