[Slightly off-topic] Open-source and the reciprocal economy

Hi all,

This is a follow-up to a separate discussion I started some time ago - "Wealth without money". I said that I would write again once I had a more specific proposal. While the proposal below isn't necessarily final, it is at least a little more refined.

One of the main hopes here is "to strengthen the integration of the open-source movement and the reciprocal economy". I've drafted a semi-formal proposal which can be read at [docs.google.com] . I quote from this here.

Quote

This is a proposal for a semi-commercial engineering organisation - i.e. partly commercial and partly non-commercial. A broader aim is that it will provide a stronger integration of the open-source movement on the one hand and anyone interested in a reciprocal (or ‘non-commercial’) economy on the other.

In this proposal the focus is on engineering - and in this regard we draw much of our inspiration from the free and open-source software movement. However, we hope to work with people from all areas and walks of life, and devise a model which might prove useful for others to follow or learn from.

Quote

Why bother?

From the perspective of open-source developers

A lot of open-source developers (whether software developers, hardware engineers, etc.) are taking a risk when they invest in a project. They are giving something to the world - but no one is necessarily covering their back while they’re doing so (is someone in the open-source movement simultaneously ensuring that these developers have a roof over their heads or food in their drawers, for example?). Some developers manage to integrate their work in to some sort of business model and might make a reasonable living from it; others don’t. This can lead to a lot of cynicism, frustration, and disillusionment.

Quote

How would projects be organised and coordinated?
Open-source developers are very good at taking their own initiative, and its best to leave this to their discretion. How precisely they go about their work is their own business. The more relevant question here is how do they live and sustain themselves while they’re doing this?

Related documents (proposed 'Shared values', etc.) can be found in the parent folder: [docs.google.com] .
That's a Google docs folder which can be edited by anyone.

If you're interested please let me know. Please be polite with your criticism. (I readily acknowledge that this is a speculative proposal.)

David

P.S. The document repository is on Google docs at the moment, but I'd prefer to switch to an open-source solution such as Owncloud in the long-run.

---

---

Semi-commercial engineering | Reprap diary

I am as baffled as I was before what any of this means. It seems to use the term "non-commercial" to mean Open Source, but they are not the same.

What exactly would this "semi-commercial" organisation do?

This is a proposal for a semi-commercial engineering organisation - i.e. partly commercial and partly non-commercial. A broader aim is that it will provide a stronger integration of the open-source movement on the one hand and anyone interested in a reciprocal (or ‘non-commercial’) economy on the other.

Bobc, I do not read it that way, it apperars to be a wider context, but that is just a quess untill we understand more.

---

Random Precision

I have seen the reprap community having many small shops as potentially a bit inefficient, and makes people potential worry about their own future sales, and perhaps has oppertunity cost as each shop has its own set of stuff.(instead one bigger set of stuff) (and even if they dont people might anticipate that in them) Your solution sounds a bit like starting a sort of over-arching cooperative.

Firstly such a cooperative simply needs ways to make money. Of course the shops existing are already business models. I have thought about it, basically that idea is to sell vitamins next to printables, or also including printeds so you can easily create kits from your designs.

Of course it doesnt have to stick to one model, for instance storefronts that join may remain open. Courses on 3d printing, subscriptions to hackerspaces(replabs) are other models.

Though the above is the prerequisite for the existance/utility of the cooperative, really more important is that the organization is resistant to being perverted, and that its operation does not create conflict in the community. That includes putting people on/off the payroll, the ammount of pay(and people work on it in different way), and people with shops that decided not to join the cooperative. If there is any sort of marketing or 'main models' of things that is another potential source of conflict.

bobc Wrote:
> What exactly would this "semi-commercial"
> organisation do?

The work would be similar in content to that of other engineering organisations I suppose - but the idea isn't to dictate to people what to work on.

On a wider level - if there is interest - maybe we could set up a 'non-commercial' analogue to LinkedIn - where such organisations could 'find the right people'.

bobc Wrote:
> I am as baffled as I was before what any of this
> means. It seems to use the term "non-commercial"
> to mean Open Source, but they are not the same.

I am aware of this. At the same time, I think I am justified in believing that a lot of people who are involved in the open-source software/hardware community don't share the ethos of of purely-commercial organisations.

I am also skeptical that open-source software and hardware developers are going to be able to either
1. compete with commercial and professional engineers on the one hand, or
2. reach their full potential on the other
if their programming and hardware design remains something they do in their 'spare time'. And if people are to work on something wholeheartedly, or full time, they need to simultaneously look after their worldly needs.

Hope that's a little clearer.

---

---

Semi-commercial engineering | Reprap diary

dslc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bobc Wrote:
> > What exactly would this "semi-commercial"
> > organisation do?
>
> The work would be similar in content to that of
> other engineering organisations I suppose - but
> the idea isn't to dictate to people what to work
> on.

Perhaps my question wasn't clear. It was not really about the output, but what the organisation itself does. I.e. does it employ people? does it sell things? does it rely on charity?

What I have got so far is:
1) an organisation hires people to do work on whatever open source projects they feel like

That sounds great! I would sign up. But I may have got that wrong already. I can't see where the organisation gets the money to pay me, so I guess there is more to it.

> I am also skeptical that open-source software and
> hardware developers are going to be able to
> either
> 1. compete with commercial and professional
> engineers on the one hand, or

I don't think that Open Source is intended to compete with commercial engineers, in many cases they are the same thing.

> 2. reach their full potential on the other
> if their programming and hardware design remains
> something they do in their 'spare time'. And if
> people are to work on something wholeheartedly, or
> full time, they need to simultaneously look after
> their worldly needs.
>
> Hope that's a little clearer.

Hmm, not really. Perhaps you could outline how the money flows from source to the developer.

Hi Bob. Hi Jasper - and John. Lots of assignments in college = very little time for Reprap or discussion -> hence the delay.

Bob wrote:
>> That sounds great! I would sign up. But I may have got that wrong already. I can't see where the organisation gets the money to pay me, so I guess there is more to it.

I don't necessarily have the answer to this question. Maybe by posting "bounties" - in the style of Indiegogo / kickstarter campaigns? Maybe in the same way that conventional businesses get their money? (E.g. Is there anything morally objectionable in charging people who don't share their ethos - while working for others without direct remuneration - or on non-commercial terms?)

Bob wrote:
>> Perhaps you could outline how the money flows from source to the developer.

As intimated above, I don't necessarily have the answer here. Maybe interested parties could put their heads together and figure these things out collectively?

Jasper1984 wrote:
>> Though the above is the prerequisite for the existance/utility of the cooperative, really more important is that the organization is resistant to being perverted, and that its operation does not create conflict in the community

Agreed. At the very least, I think that people involved should agree to some basic values. Otherwise you'll end up with people who are just desperate for money.

I don't have much to add to your other points right now - but thanks for your input.

---

---

Semi-commercial engineering | Reprap diary

it sound to me that you kinda make this organisation look like how some university's run,
as in people are there to experiment, and what comes out of that can be given/sold/learned to company's/other people.
the main reason is more to progress than to gain profit.

but to me that's like how i see open hardware/software

Quote
dslc
if their programming and hardware design remains something they do in their 'spare time'. And if people are to work on something wholeheartedly, or full time, they need to simultaneously look after their worldly needs.

Based on the research I've seen, open source developers are primarily motivated by pride and community esteem. Money is a weak secondary motivation. They just want to solve a challenging problem.

Also, open source is, by definition, a development philosophy which requires giving away most of the rights to your work...which means you can't charge for those rights...which means you're not making profit your number one goal...which means whatever way you do make money has to be phenomenally popular or you have to accept a lower level of revenue.

It's not impossible to get paid enough for open source work to survive and prosper, but it does seem to be harder than non-open-source work. Like any entrepreneurship venture, the hardest data point is that the majority fail.

You might be able to set up something like Y Combinator where you take people who haven't learned how to do great things yet, but have the motivation and potential, then nurture them and invest a little in whatever they come up with. That way the activity can be self-sustaining; assuming you choose well.

Quote

Based on the research I've seen, open source developers are primarily motivated by pride and community esteem. Money is a weak secondary motivation. They just want to solve a challenging problem.

Does this research also elaborate on how many give up on their challenging problems due to worldly needs?

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Hi possenier. I suppose universities should run like that, but in some respects they don't. And some of the lecturers in my college would probably disagree with your perception of what universities are for. Some of them definitely wouldn't 'open-source' their notes, for example.

makeme: Your points all seem reasonable. While acknowledging that money is indeed a "secondary motivation" for a lot of open-source developers, however, you need to consider the context [cf. Maslow's hierarchy of needs]. Money is bound to be a concern if they are one of the few people "sticking their neck out", so to speak. Also, trying to discern people's private motivations for doing things is bound to be a subtle issue. (Do people always even examine themselves their reason for doing things?)

Anyway, I've set up a forum at [indigo.uk.to] (temporary address) for anyone interested. The relevance of open-source isn't emphasized there, but hopefully people can see the link. On the other hand, maybe my initial 'hunch' that open-source aficionados and developers would be interested in this might have been off-the-mark a little - more akin to wishful thinking. (I honestly don't know.)

In any case, thanks for the feedback. I'm trying to find people interested in this locally (Dublin, Ireland) also - and can keep people informed if they're interested.

D