|Customers creating GovCoCom||Subscribe/create/host|
|Register and Consult||Develop and Donate|
|A "leadership crisis"? A "failed system"? Here is an alternative - A stock market regulation aligned with the following six points to benefit customers, which are "peer owners" over parts of the sellers, which are companies in that market.|
|T r a n s l a t i o n s|
“ComCom” (a Common Company or a ComComized unit) is a co-ownership company, where each of its owners is either a peer (co-owner/Associate) or an ordinary owner and where the type of any comcom is one of these 3 later defined: Scomcom(Static-ComCom), Icomcom(Indi-ComCom) or Dcomcom (Dynamic-ComCom) - Here are the 6 points explaining what is a ComCom:
- 1 Tradability: Based on a contract, the ability to trade the share like shareholders having equal number shares, as each of the holders is able to sell the share while the price reflects the value of the whole unit, able doing it at any time, but doing it only in a restrained transference and price, as the sell could be payed in lets, in ces, in national currency or in direct exchange for good/s and/or service/s, where
- the transference is a restrained transference: where the seller first try selling the share to the group, and on the group's refusal, except in the case of Icomcom, to others, and where the entrance of the new member is matching to the criteria established by the group and
- the price is a restrained price: where the value of the peers' coin, being the value of the package of shares held each peer, can be changed only in the range between the current value +- "Individual's Exit Power" times half the current value divided by the number of the peers,
- where "Individual's Exit Power" is a constant, which is unchangeable in the comcom's lifetime, of which default equals 1.
- 2 Recursive nature of the contract: Why? So that this agreement would be stronger than any player in the unit or any player entering it, making it a bad pill to swallow for the big ones. Buyers of any of its shares must agree with all the points establishing any ComComized unit, where these points are unchangeable and prior to any other agreement about the unit.
- 3 Coherent Layering: Layering Why? This allows to get organized in small units (in which the peers are able to know each others) as the units own bigger ones, for increasing the power of individuals in their units, even when letting the individuals move between the smaller units while still maintaining the unity of the bigger ones. Note the asymmetry favoring the comcoms over non comcom. Coherent How? mapped into a "trees" in which child is as owner of the parent as the child's assets. Coherent Why? For maintaining equality thorough all the layers of ownership - example given: such that when me and you are peer owners of unit "A" and me and her are peer owners in unit "B", then the units "A" and "B" cannot be peer owners in any other comcom Each peer owner is either a person or a ComComized unit and has exactly equal number of shares as any other peer owner of the same unit,
- where each ordinary owner of Scomcom is either a person or a legal body other than comcom and
- where, per each unit and directly or indirectly, holding more than one position is forbidden.
- 4 The d: The d, standing for the Decentralization property of the unit, reflects the ratio held by the peers. Why? When the comcom is Scomcom and its d is smaller than one, for making partnership with non comcoms but without been able to be takeover or to be squeezed for reducing the d, by such partners. Added together, all the peers own the whole unit or only a portion of it, as the ratio of the peers' portion is d (and hence d*100 is the percentage),
- where the rest of the unit (if any) is owned by all its ordinary (non-peer) owners and
- where the ratio d of any Scomcomized unit is defined only once in the creation of the unit;
- hence d * i = c * n (d times i equals c times n), where
- d (as in Decentralization ) is the ratio of the portion held by all the peer owners
- i is the number of Issued shares
- c is the Counter of peers (amount of all peers) and
- n is the number of shares per each peer owner.
- 5 Peers' autonomy: Why? When d is smaller than one, for not been squeezed for increasing the number of the peer while reducing their share in the unit. The number of peers holding it and regardless the value of d must be agreed among the peers independently.
- 6 Flexibility of the d: Why?. In the Icomcomized or Dcomcomized units, the number of its memebrs is as the number of all its shares and the number of shares per each peer owner is always less than, or equal to, one and is defined by the peers autonomously,
- where each ordinary owner can only be a comcom of which peer owners are members in the held unit and which is
- either of the same type of the held unit
- or is a Scomcom of which d equals one,
- where any member can always switch back to become a peer owner in the held unit and
- where selling shares of an Icomcom can only be to its members as a collective, as its representation is defined by their autonomy and so that only as collective they can sell the share to a new becoming member in it.
- where each ordinary owner can only be a comcom of which peer owners are members in the held unit and which is
See some more images here
An Important note:
The Following is an old and historical documentation on the issue and should be considered obsolete in any contradiction in relation with the above.
(Defined by the formula $t*d=v*c$, see point 5):
(The translation of this page to French and German are now in process.)
See also The Personal Agreement Of Ownership Establishing Comcom , our Faq and ComCom's arguments and when you wish Contact and have more
Here are the 6 points together defining each ComCom ( being a Common Company):
- Point 1: It is a commercial company having 2 divisions of shares, namely: the Common and the Private;
- Point 2: The ratio of shares in its Common division out of its whole is its Decentralizing property (the $d$), which is defined such that the value of all the Common division equals $t*d$,
- where $t$ is the total market value of all the company,
- where $d$ is nonzero smaller or equal one ($0 < d <= 1$),
- and where $d$ may be set only once in the lifetime of the common company, either in its formation or when it becomes common one from being private one i.e. when $d$ is reset from zero.
- That is to say: $d$ is static, it can't be changed if the company is a common one (but if the company is a private one as its d already equals zero, then this company may become a common one by only once changing its d to a nonzero).
- When $d$ is zero or d is reset more than once, then the company is a Private and not a Common one.
- Hence the d alone defines any company as either Private or Common one and is static in all the lifetime of a common company;
- Point 3: Each of its shareholders is either a Common shareholder or a Private shareholder, respectively to the division of shares the one holds.
- Hence a shareholder can never be a Private and a Common shareholder.
- Both: the Private and the Common shareholders have their rights respectively to their shares and in both considerations:
- the one of liquidation and the one of any voting,
- so that the distinction between Common or private shareholders is not to be confused with that of the preferred or the common shareholders appearing in classification of Stocks, such that the Common shareholders in such classification are both: the Private and the Common shareholders in ComCom and regardless of any of the "preferred ones";
- Point 4: Each of its common shareholders has equal number of shares and is either a person or a Common Company.
- Hence a private company can never be a common shareholder in a Common company, but the other way around is possible. This establishes the asymmetric property of the Common companies versus the Private ones in general, for protecting the motion of the notion of decentralizing in the market as a whole;
- Point 5: Its total projected value (the t), being the value of all the shares in the company, is always calculated such that $t * d = v * c$, where
- $$ t * d$ is the value of the common division of the company, which is equal to the value of all the Common Shareholders in the company;
- Only when this equation is evaluated true, then the distribution of shares in the company may be considered as such which reflects the t as the projected value of the company, hence all the 4 following equations must also evaluate true:
- $t * d = v * c$
- $t = i * s$
- $i * d = n * c$
- $v = n * s$
- and where
- $i$is the number of ALL issued shares of the company;
- $t$is the Total projected value of the company, which is the value of ALL its shares;
- $s$is the price of one Share in the company, it is an offer for sell, which affects directly the projected t and hence all other reflected values in the company;
- $d$, as $0 > d >= 1$, is the proration of shares in the Common division of the company, which defines the ratio of the Decentralizing property of the company, where this ratio is static when the company is a Common one;
- $c$is the number of ALL Common shareholders in the company;
- $v$is the projected value held by EACH Common shareholder;
- $n$is the number of shares held by EACH Common shareholder;
- and Point 6: It is established by an agreement, prior to any other agreement between any of its shareholders, including any other potential such shareholders,
- where the agreement between the shareholders must include these 6 points defining ComCom and must disallow the signed upon it to sell any share of the ComCom to any one which does not agree to the agreement
- and where each of the shareholders agree
- that the number of shares owned by EACH Common Shareholder always equals $n$,
- where $n=(i*d)/c$;
- that with each entry of a new common shareholder:
- first $n$ is recalculated and set equal to $i*d/(c+1)$ and then $c$ is recalculated and set equal to $c+1$ ;
- and that with each exit of a current common shareholder:
- first $n$ is recalculated and set equal to $i*d/(c-1)$ and then $c$ is recalculated and set equal to $c-1$ .
- that the number of shares owned by EACH Common Shareholder always equals $n$,
Hence always the number of shares owned by each of the Common Shareholders is $n=(i*d)/c$ , which together as one share pack cost $v=s*n$, where the total projected value of the ComCom is $s*i=t=(v*c)/d$.
- We call a share pack
- the collection of $n$ shares together costing $v$ and being held by each common shareholder.
- we use C-holder
- as a shorthand for Common holder being a shorthand for Common shareholder
- and we use P-holder
- as a shorthand for Private holder being a shorthand for Private shareholder.
|in the event of:||and in relation to $n$ being the number of shares held by each c-holder|
|One new c-holder enters and exactly before $c+=1$:||$n$ is recalculated and set equal to $n*(c/(c+1))$|
|One c-holder exits and exactly before $c-=1$:||$n$ is recalculated and set equal to $n*(c/(c-1))$|
|Conclusions:||1) $c/(c+1)$ or $c/(c-1)$, which is used as a multiplier for $n$, is the proportion of each change in $n$. As bigger is $c$, the multiplier fast curves toward $1$ (where if the $multiplier=1$ then $n$ is unchanged), hence $s$, $t$ or $v$ should be realized when $c$ is up from a specific threshold.
2) For keeping $v$ be unchanged, $(c+1)/c$ must be the proportion of increase in $s$ with each entry of a new c-holder and $c/(c-1)$ must be the proportion of decrease in $s$ with each exit of an existing c-holder.
3) The higher is the threshold the smaller are these changes and $v$ is stabilized.
4) The steadiness of $v$ reflects the current structure of the company1 if its C-holders are part of its business activity as the C-holders are its clients, employees and/or contractors. And accordingly, when $v$ is unchanged, then $t+=v/d$, $s*=(c+1)/c$ and $v*=1=(c/(c+1))*((c+1)/c)$, with each entry of new c-holder.
5) The steadiness of $v$ is convenient in planing the business for both; the ComCom and those with whom it maintains its relationship, but additionally/alternatively it should be adjusted or adapted to the current and actual business activity of the C-holders as well as of the other market forces. And so, for calculating the projected price being planned to be offered to new C-holders, we can use $a$ as a multiplier for each of the values affecting the steadiness, as the default without such adaption is where $a=1$, hereby $t+=a*v/d$ , $s*=a*(c+1)/c$ and $v*=a$.
6) It is important to add that if $v$ is too big, we could reduce it by letting dividend to the shareholders.
The ComCom's virtual business plan:
Here are some tables illustrating a virtual business plan yet without knowing its resources, business activity or market2, but still aiming in many rounds adding new P-holders and C-holders in its transformation to become a ComCom from being an existing normal or private company We assume $a=1$ being the default case, where $a$ is an Adjustment multiplier value for calculating $s$.
|$t+=a*v/d$or$t*=a*(c+1)/c$||is the expected increase of $t$ in rounds with each entry of new c-holder|
|$s*=a*(c+1)/c$||is the expected increase of share's price in rounds with each entry of new c-holder|
|$v*=a$||is the expected increase of $n$ share's price or $v$ in rounds with each entry of new c-holder|
|$$0.5$||3$v+=start_v*dif_d/start_d$ is the expected increase of $v$ between rounds|
|variable where $a=1$||eg. of its value||its description|
|$i$||$10000000$ or 10M||number of all Issued shares|
|$s$||$$0.01$||price for each Share|
|$c$||?||number of c-holders in the ComCom|
|$v=s*n$||?||Value of one pack or of $n$ shares being all the shares held by each c-holder|
|$d=n*c/i$||?||ratio out of the ComCom (its Decentralization property) of the common portion held only by all c-holders, where $s*i=t=v*c/d$ and $v/s=n=i*d/c$|
|ratio as a bounce taken in each round from the private and added to the common destined portions|
|$dif_c$||$10$||size of each round defining the increase of $c$ between rounds|
|only when $start_d<=d$, shares are offered to c-holders|
|$start_v$||$$10$||$start_v=v$ when $start_d=d$|
|$start_c=(start_d/dif_d )*dif_c$||$200$||$start_c=c$ when $start_d=d$|
|$start_t=start_v*start_c/start_d$||$$100000$||$start_t=t$ when $start_d=d$|
|only when $private_d<=d$, $private_d$ is the whole ratio destined to other p-holder/s|
|$dif_p=(private_d)/((max_d-start_d)/dif_d)$||$0.02/480$||where $dif_p*i=416$ is the number of shares destined per round to other p-holder/s|
|when $max_d= d$, then phase_1 ends and phase_2 starts, hereby from phase_2 and farther on and upon agreement approved by its shareholders the company becomes ComCom|
|$r$||?||a counter of rounds, where $start_d/dif_d =min_r=20<=r<=500=max_r=max_d/dif_d$|
Here you can see how such Common Companies (ComCom) may be integrated, considering the functions of the common shareholders in those companies,
- this way can be constructed in many layers for producing a complex bottom-top net of ComComs:
Have fun, because now by ComComzing you can: Decentralizing Human Systems is now in your hand, also in the commercial world.
Here are some Frequently Asked Questions related to the concept of ComCom:
Here you can find some more questions already asked in the ComComzing project
8) Does the stock market and privatization, being the main factors establishing the globalization as we know it today, contribute in their design to worsening the distribution of wealth, and if so how?
10) After the end the communist regime the Privatization in Czech Republic was made by offering equal shares to all the citizens, but then some of which citizens could and did buy the right of the others and so the distribution just gut be much worsen, how ComComizing could differ or could prevent such a case from happening?
- 1) Why ComComizing (making COMmon COMpanies) is a good thing for the economy (e.g. of USA) and/or as business model?
When considering only the pattern of any company having its clients to which it is to provide service/product for a financial return, any ComCom can generate an advantage over any private company, where both, regardless their d, are similar, by letting the preferred clients of the ComCom be also its Common Shareholders, since such Common-Shareholders-clients are likely to become more loyal, more bringing friends and more active (at least in informing their preferences to the company).
ComComizing is a good thing for the economy because, while each ComCom still leaves a fixed room for the old class of its owners (such as private companies, investors and entrepreneurial founders) it guarantees a higher quality of distribution of wealth, by offering ownership for a new massive class being its Common Shareholders, each of which owns an equal number of shares and all of which shares are unable to be owned otherwise, hence are protected from unequal ownership. This new class may include its customers and employees aside with or along with its power producers (even when are so unbound as contractors). Such power producers are artists, developers and/or researchers. Hence, by elevating this new class of owners and by having the class be protected from takeover by unequal ownership of some private hands, ComComizing strengthens the middle class being the most essential for any long run health of the economy.
- Here is an example illustrating the bottom-top structure of some such ComCom, where the Common Shareholders in all these ComCom belong to the new class of owners. This structure can be imitated to many others, where all such structures are based upon the primeval pattern of company having its clients to which it is to provide service/product for a financial return and where the Common Shareholders of the last ComCom (ComCom-E in the eg.) are Common-Shareholders-clients and the Private Shareholders of the first ComCom (ComCom-A in the eg.) are all the shareholders of a normal private company before it is to become a ComCom:
- ComCom-A, providing some consulting for internet platforms, is such of which private shareholders are some investors and entrepreneurial founders and of which common shareholders are researchers.
- ComCom-B, providing some internet platforms, is such of which private shareholders is ComCom-A and of which common shareholders are programmers.
- ComCom-C providing some internet platform dedicated for unique content is such of which private shareholders is ComCom-B and of which common shareholders are artist.
- ComCom-D providing some internet platform acting as a gallery is such of which private shareholders is ComCom-C and of which common shareholders are public relations (PR) contractors.
- ComCom-E providing some internet platform selling unique content is such of which private shareholders is ComCom-D and of which common shareholders are buyer of the content provided by the artist.
As you can see ComComizing, as any other companies modules, allows structuring also through the ownership itself. This adds to the known modules some other factors and it is for this structuring that ComComizing can be used for communities like the open-source, free-software, creative-common or generally content related or web 2.0 business. So first let's look into the ownership types involved in any ComCom.
ComCom is an independent unity gathering (just like in a family) both types of ownership, the collective and individual ones, each demands responsibility from the owner for some benefits rewarded, where the collective ownership requires and encourages the sharing, whereas the individual ownership the competition. Both aspects together, the sharing and the competition, are essential for any sustained success and hence both types of ownership must take place, if we are to accept that for the benefit of the whole (company, economy or society) the individuals must also think bigger than just for themselves.
You may find the collective ownership a bit contradicting to your concept of (individual) ownership, if you would expect your ownership be not dependent on the others with whom you share. Thereby , in any ComCom the Private Shareholders have their number (as opposed to the value) of shares exclusively depended on themselves and independently than any entry or exit of other such Shareholder, unlike the Common Chareholders, for whom the number of shares is changed considering each entry or exit of other such Common Shareholder, where this dependency together with the amount of change in the number of shares is exponentially reduced with having more such Common Shareholders in the ComCom.
- 2) What is the hardest thing to overcome before reaching a massive ComComizing ?
The fact that many people, as they have to meet the failures in the system in which they act, are still afraid to become owners, and still find it easier to blame others than taking for themselves responsibility, which is (in their minds) reserved for the owners. Another disadvantage for investors in ComComizing is their inability to takeover a ComCom for handing it over to the richer ones, ie. less of the common exit strategies.
- 3) One of the most urgent issues waiting to be solved by any current/next US president is the mortgage crisis in the USA and particularly all which is involve with the case of Fanny May and Freddy Mac. These two giants owing or being the owners of at least half of the mortgage market, even now after their complete collapse and after the shift from (so called) implicit to (so made) explicit guaranty provided by the federal powers until finally taking over them in a price of more than doubling the American national debt, are to remain in the spotlight, so in this light:
- How exactly ComComizing can be used to solve the mortgage crisis ?
(For more about this problem rooted in the economy of US and being established since the great depressions in 1938 under the name of "the new deal", please see this: Federal_National_Mortgage_Association).
Passing through all the layers, the Problem was of over trust, that much that even the specialists did not understood the (financial) instruments they used, while relaying the most only on the identity of the sellers assumed to be well enough respected!!! This is always caused by over centralization!!!! The solution therefore must care for better distribution of wealth and for cooperative ownership.
First let's introduce the concept of GovComCom: These are ComCom of which initial private shareholders are government agency/ies and of which common shareholders are included in some target groups to be helped by some governmental activities for satisfying some social, of community and/or financial requirements of the union or the state, the city, the community etc. eg. for such such fields are education (universities), health-insurance, social/community activities organizations/groups etc. It is part of the concept that the GovComCom may become latter ComCom by having the government agency/ies exchanging hands with the private sector and still as such it is unalike the privatization as we know it today, since the new ComCom would be still held also by their common shareholders.
By the government creating some ComComs acting like commercial banks, where the Private Shareholders (under some guidelines/regulations) of the ComCom are agents of the federal powers and its Common Shareholders are borrowers who personally guaranty loans transformed directly, or (mostly) indirectly to be the mortgage owned by Fanny May and/or Freddy Mac, where each of the borrowers in their loan also pay for the one's right (given as a bounce) to sell or become a common shareholder in the ComCom, but only after the debt to the ComCom is paid off and where some parts of the private portion of such a ComCom could later on be sold by the government to some private hands.
This type of ComCom may be formed with specific limitations, such as of number of Common Shareholders, value of to their total debt and/or its quality of distribution, and even (because of the nature of collective responsibility bind with benefit of the Common Shareholders) such that within each GovComCom the Common Shareholders are not competitors of each other, (e.g. if the borrowers are players acting in the same field then they shall be located not in the same region or be Common Shareholders in other such GoveComCom).
These GovComComs, then, are to be additional players in the stock market attempting to own shares in Fanny May and Freddy Mac, or becoming Common Shareholders in one and/or both of them, if they would become ComComs themselves.
If this is the case, then, even when the federal powers have to intervene by injecting (tax) money and/or by providing some sort of guarantees, still the burden of excusing such an action will be lighter, since now such intervention is done to directly support those who are desired by the federal powers (due the tax payers and in the name of the voters), and only via them the stock market, but not directly the unknown stock market players and only via them the desired ones.
Of course all this should be urgently considered since things already became too ugly, meaning both companies are held from being corrected by the market, just because they are too big to fall.
- 4) How to quantify the quality of any distribution and especially the one of wealth (and distinguished from how to map such distribution between some groups) ?
Let X, out of the whole population in question,
be equals the percentage of the owners arranged from the richest to poorest,
such that the position of the richest on the X is in the range tending to X=0
and that of the poorest is in the range tending to X=100;
Let G, representing the grid upon X, be a counter of all the X points evaluated in question,
each of which is in equal distance of 100/G from its nearer X point/s.
Let Y, out of the whole property owned by the whole population in question,
be equals the percentage of the property owned by
all the owners specified from the current X to X = 0,
such that the percentage of the property is ADDED
per each X from the current to the zero for accomplishing calculating each Y;
Let Q, representing the Quality of the distribution,
be equals -5000 + the sum of all Y,
where 0 <= Q <= 5000 and the bigger is Q the worse is the distribution,
hence Q/50 is the percentage of the quality of the distribution in question
out of the worst possible distribution,
where Q is comparable across some such distributions
only if the G in question is equal across all the distributions.
- Some notes:
- It is hard to get the data, we get only portions, please help to get the data. here is the last such protion: ""The top 1% of all households owned 35% of the world's wealth last year. Meanwhile, the top 0.001% (1%/1000), ultra-rich households holding at least $5 million in assets, commanded $21 trillion — a fifth (20%) of the world's wealth". From making the Q of it we would approximately get 0.000001% (1%/1000000) of the World population owning 10% of the property on earth, that is 6.7 billion/100,000,000=67 peoples which we do not have the list of their name. Could you help on getting good data?
1.The diagonal on the plane (where x=y )
represents the best distribution of the wealth,
and the worsen the distribution
the bigger is the belly of the produced graph above that diagonal,
where the worst distribution, corresponding to each 100%*100% square,
accounts to 5000 and the best to zero.
2. This graph vs the diagonal represents,
while the capacity demarcated between the graph and the diagonal quantifies,
the quality of the distribution of wealth,
such that the bigger the capacity the worsen is the quality
and hence, as it quantifies the group,
it provides a kind of zoom with an insight into one group in question,
but it is valid only within the group and not across some such groups,
although is valid for all such groups if are collectively regarded as one group.
3. If we do want to compare the quality of distribution in groups
(and distinguished from comparing the distribution between those groups),
then we also must have D, as such diagonal, per each such group.
We can do so by
first arranging the groups from the richest to the poorest,
then setting the natural number m >= 1 as an identifier per each such group,
then setting per each group the n(m)
as the percentage of wealth of the group m out of the richest group
(so that n(1) =100 on m=1 and n(m) <=100 on m>1 )
and then recalculating per each such m:
y(m) = y * n(m) / 100 ,
x(m) = x + 100 * m
and D(m) being a direct line between
point_1=((m-1)*100,0) and point_2=(m*100,n(m)).
4. We can set in question any kind of population (X) in relation to its property (Y),
e.g. all the people vs all their property,
or all the people in USA vs their property,
or all people watching TV for more than 5 hours a day vs
their property etc.
5. We can always add new dimension z,
representing the changing in the quality of the distribution along the time,
where z = some time notation e.g. year, or day etc.
- 5) How ComCom and the constitution of its citizens are related?
The constitution of its citizens is based on the natural right of each of its citizens to own equal share of all the resources belonging to the union/state, hence the constitution establishes arrangement treating the state/union as a ComCom of which d=1.
- 6) What make a person be a ComComist?
Attempting to ComComize and generally to interface with ComCom rather than with private Companies of which d=0.
- 7) Should some more chill responses be considered for ComComizing, and if so what are those?
Yes, here are some:
It is time to admit that our well trusted specialists in economy were so deadly wrong to measure the health of any economy heavily/mainly by its growth and regardless the quality of distribution of wealth in it!
That was like measuring stability of a system by the increase of the energy it contains and regardless where the energy is located and how well it is concentrated in its locations. Shortly they measured excitement of a system and confused it with its health, such doctors are only drug pushers, no more, and the drug in this context is the increase of consumption due to the increase of debt cynically and cyclically guaranteed.
(The analogy of wealth being held (i.e. money) to energy, is base upon the ability to generate changes by both.)
In short, ownership matters! Do not give it a way, while you can own but still share equally the ownership for to act similarly as in the public domain, but in the domain being your ComCom. Sometime you may not want to share with all the people for all their reasons if you strongly oppose some of them.
- As for the overpowering open-source initiative's clauses 5 and 6 instructing "No Discrimination Against Persons, Groups or Fields of Endeavor" (initiated, declared and described at opensource.org/docs/definition.php) and in relation to the question of For whom is the knowledge making profit, here are some responses for to consider both clauses unfair toward the individuals in the communities the initiative claims to protect and to reconsider some kind of, but not overpowering, discrimination:
- You may consider your work valuable that much that your competitor such as those who do not always only provide and respect the open-source motion even when form time to time are very supportive to massively suck your source (such as google, microsoft, oracle, ibm etc) would NOT benefit from learning your work for latter taking their advantage against all your community, you or some values you believe in.
- Your business model without generating some advantage against your competitors is weaker, making you less capable for your claimed needs (see the case of mozila firefox vs the chrome of google, aiming blocking the block add features provided in firefox), where advantages against your competitors are gained by dominating discrimination, such is even between the group of registered members vs the others.
- You may be working in a closed company and be well payed by it and just because you know well to orient in the open community and you may additionally even contribute to that community, in which case you would be in contrition/counterproductive/contradiction (schizophrenic) mode, when asking yourself just how much of my work would I give to the community and how much to the company paying me so well. This usual case of being in contradiction weakens each, any and all of the community.
- You may consider some values, such as no discrimination against minorities or gender, be valuable so much so that you should not let your work be used by who ever act against your values.
- As for the Rationale behind clauses 5 and 6: You may find that you do not necessarily want to get "the maximum benefit from the process", what ever (since they defined it) that "process" may be and assuming that "the process" is somehow related to generally advancing the huge thing we call technology, since such technology may be developed (by others) to kill or to contribute to discrimination, addiction, confusion disorientation or global warming etc.
- 8) Does the stock market and privatization, being the main factors establishing the globalization as we know it today, contribute in their design to worsening the distribution of wealth, and if so how?
Yes, and here is the how it is just so "happening": Privatization takes out from the all being equal voters any possible power of decision and the stock market is determined only by players seeking for their best exit strategy, which is no more than first takeover then hand it over to in the height price to the richer ones, which if are not more foolish than you, would make the same for getting richer.
- 9) How about a Credit Union - could this be considered a type of ComCom?
No, since ComCom is only where the common shareholders have Equal number of shares, since only, by such equality we could cause both: better distribution of wealth and cooperative ownership.
- 10) After the end the communist regime the Privatization in Czech Republic was made by offering equal shares to all the citizens, but then some of which citizens could and did buy the right of the others and so the distribution just gut be much worsen, how ComComizing could differ or could prevent such a case from happening?
Such case, could not happened and still be leagl, since it is agreed by all shareholders of any ComCom that in a ComCom one common shareholder could never have right of more than one common shareholder and that all shares owned by all common shareholders are unable to be owned by any other than common shareholders and that the proportion of those shares out of the total market value of the ComCom must always be d .
@bring back@italic text