Lessig: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{TOCright}} | |||
=Lessig, Defining the Commons= | |||
''Rough approach at a definition of a commons'': ''a resource, permission to which is granted neutrally and which is known to be granted neutrally. Commons are sustained through both norms and architecture (sometimes built from a base of private, exclusive resources), and exhibit transparency, modularity, portability, innovativeness, and openness.'' | ''Rough approach at a definition of a commons'': ''a resource, permission to which is granted neutrally and which is known to be granted neutrally. Commons are sustained through both norms and architecture (sometimes built from a base of private, exclusive resources), and exhibit transparency, modularity, portability, innovativeness, and openness.'' | ||
==Notice what this definition of the commons does not mention== | |||
* common ownership | * common ownership | ||
* rules for using the resource | * rules for using the resource | ||
* symmetric control | * symmetric control | ||
==Permission rights must be ''granted neutrally'', and must be ''known to be granted neutrally''== | |||
* permission, if necessary, is granted neutrally | * permission, if necessary, is granted neutrally | ||
* commons requires open accessibility | * commons requires open accessibility | ||
* it's not just that people don't need permission âÃì it's that they ''know'' that they don't need permission, and is the fact that they know they never will that inspires innovation in a commons | * it's not just that people don't need permission âÃì it's that they ''know'' that they don't need permission, and is the fact that they know they never will that inspires innovation in a commons | ||
==Withholding== | |||
*No ''individual dictator'' can withhold a common resource from others (leaves open the possibility of a group withholding the resource from others)''' | |||
* no exclusive right to choose whether the resource is made available to others | * no exclusive right to choose whether the resource is made available to others | ||
* direction of the permission: it's that everyone has a right to use the resource, it's ''not'' that no one has a right to stop someone from using a resource. | * direction of the permission: it's that everyone has a right to use the resource, it's ''not'' that no one has a right to stop someone from using a resource. | ||
* for their own survival, commons projects usually lean towards democratic control | * for their own survival, commons projects usually lean towards democratic control | ||
==Commons can have ''limited communities''== | |||
* commons can be limited to a relevant community | * commons can be limited to a relevant community | ||
==Commons regulated through ''norms'' and ''architecture''== | |||
* rivalrous commons can be sustained through norms | * rivalrous commons can be sustained through norms | ||
* commons can be ''formed'' through both norms and technical architecture | * commons can be ''formed'' through both norms and technical architecture | ||
* implicit: commons requires a shared background knowledge | * implicit: commons requires a shared background knowledge | ||
==Commons can ''exist on top of'' ''exclusive resources'' (phone lines, GNU licenses, etc.)== | |||
* commons can exist upon a layer of control | * commons can exist upon a layer of control | ||
* open and closed systems by necessity exist together | * open and closed systems by necessity exist together | ||
* licenses can be used to keep things in the commons | * licenses can be used to keep things in the commons | ||
==Commons require ''transparency'', ''modularity'', and ''portability'' to be truly common''== | |||
* commons seems to require transparency, modularity, and portability | * commons seems to require transparency, modularity, and portability | ||
==Commons resources are often ''more valuable when held in common''== | |||
* two reasons we have traditionally put resources into common ownership: (1) the resource can be monopolized and used against the public, and (2) the properties are most valuable when held in common. | * two reasons we have traditionally put resources into common ownership: (1) the resource can be monopolized and used against the public, and (2) the properties are most valuable when held in common. | ||
* it is sometimes more efficient to hold a property in common than exclusively | * it is sometimes more efficient to hold a property in common than exclusively | ||
* Sometimes we want to put a resource in common ownership because the resource becomes more valuable when more people use it. | * Sometimes we want to put a resource in common ownership because the resource becomes more valuable when more people use it. | ||
==You must be able to ''innovate upon'' common resources''== | |||
* commons resources can be tinkered with | * commons resources can be tinkered with | ||
* innovation commons allows building upon past resources | * innovation commons allows building upon past resources | ||
==Commons resources ''cannot be (easily) manipulated'' against competing resources== | |||
* commons resources cannot be used strategically | * commons resources cannot be used strategically | ||
* putting a resource in the commons checks its power: the resource cannot be used strategically to undermine other resources | * putting a resource in the commons checks its power: the resource cannot be used strategically to undermine other resources | ||
==Common resources can feature two kinds of ''openness''== | |||
*(1) ability to take a resource without permission | |||
*(2) ability to contribute back to resource without authorization | |||
=Navigation= | |||
[[Defining the Commons]]<br> | Back to [[Defining the Commons]]<br> | ||
[[Main Page]] | Back to [[Industrial Cooperation Project]]<br> | ||
Back to [[Main Page]] | |||
Latest revision as of 18:11, 19 May 2010
Lessig, Defining the Commons
Rough approach at a definition of a commons: a resource, permission to which is granted neutrally and which is known to be granted neutrally. Commons are sustained through both norms and architecture (sometimes built from a base of private, exclusive resources), and exhibit transparency, modularity, portability, innovativeness, and openness.
Notice what this definition of the commons does not mention
- common ownership
- rules for using the resource
- symmetric control
Permission rights must be granted neutrally, and must be known to be granted neutrally
- permission, if necessary, is granted neutrally
- commons requires open accessibility
- it's not just that people don't need permission âÃì it's that they know that they don't need permission, and is the fact that they know they never will that inspires innovation in a commons
Withholding
- No individual dictator can withhold a common resource from others (leaves open the possibility of a group withholding the resource from others)
- no exclusive right to choose whether the resource is made available to others
- direction of the permission: it's that everyone has a right to use the resource, it's not that no one has a right to stop someone from using a resource.
- for their own survival, commons projects usually lean towards democratic control
Commons can have limited communities
- commons can be limited to a relevant community
Commons regulated through norms and architecture
- rivalrous commons can be sustained through norms
- commons can be formed through both norms and technical architecture
- implicit: commons requires a shared background knowledge
Commons can exist on top of exclusive resources (phone lines, GNU licenses, etc.)
- commons can exist upon a layer of control
- open and closed systems by necessity exist together
- licenses can be used to keep things in the commons
Commons require transparency, modularity, and portability to be truly common
- commons seems to require transparency, modularity, and portability
Commons resources are often more valuable when held in common
- two reasons we have traditionally put resources into common ownership: (1) the resource can be monopolized and used against the public, and (2) the properties are most valuable when held in common.
- it is sometimes more efficient to hold a property in common than exclusively
- Sometimes we want to put a resource in common ownership because the resource becomes more valuable when more people use it.
You must be able to innovate upon common resources
- commons resources can be tinkered with
- innovation commons allows building upon past resources
Commons resources cannot be (easily) manipulated against competing resources
- commons resources cannot be used strategically
- putting a resource in the commons checks its power: the resource cannot be used strategically to undermine other resources
Common resources can feature two kinds of openness
- (1) ability to take a resource without permission
- (2) ability to contribute back to resource without authorization
Back to Defining the Commons
Back to Industrial Cooperation Project
Back to Main Page