View source for Lessig

{{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.''

==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 âÃÃ¬ 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

=Navigation=

Back to [[Defining the Commons]]<br>
Back to [[Industrial Cooperation Project]]<br>
Back to [[Main Page]]