For Whom Is The Knowledge Making Profit

Rational: Sometimes cooperating by licensing is simply too weak in comparison to ownership in partnership between peers, particularly when seeking for "openness" between themselves, the peers can form their own "ring".

  • E.g. When such peer ownership is over resources, which are required for having platform for open development of their ideas and from these ideas all the way until the products/services and farther on to the clients, as each ring, has its own openness and policy for messaging and history.
    • Only now such openness can be used for gaining more power for the "rings" of the peers and for each such peer, as such peers as developers, researchers or clients, can now even be forcing within it ring and hence radiating outside, some common values, such as of human rights -
      • e.g. when using product/services never doing so in torturing.
<-- Next--> open-close

NEW: The guideline for any person-to-person-agreement (for non profit or profit organization) establishing the organization as a comcomized one.

The argument of The Cathedral and the Bazaar made by esr (upon which the open source "movement" was established) is true, but not only for knowledge making but also for decisions made upon it, which is done only where the owners sit.1

When the Approach is As the knowledge is Where the use (of the knowledge) by others is made The profit is made
of closing knowledge exclusive property centralized, as the use is restricted by the owners and/or separated from the products of the knowledge centralized
of opening knowledge contributed property decentralized, as the use of the knowledge is allowed under standards such as gpl, open-source and common-creative, within the umbrella named Web2.0 centralized and/or decentralized
of common companies exclusive and/or contributed property centralized and/or decentralized decentralized, as more as the factor d is bigger

The knowledge, even when is shared, does not necessarily contribute to the decentralization of the profit made from it.

E.G. Google inc, the biggest monopoly on earth, uses the technology build in the open source community but used only in its closed servers and only such that no one knows what is the algorithm it uses, and where its partners are those who are named evil such as doubleclick, meaning those who use the practise of monitoring us without our knowledge and delivering that knowledge to unknown parties. see here what more can we do by using the piletech thing (you can also see it here, this time as a personal story, if so would you like).


Mozilla VS Google

“We’re a tiny company. We’re 250 people and we’re competing with Apple, Microsoft, [and] Google.” - John Lilly, CEO of Mozilla

Hence mozzilla must be ComComized for surviving and we could use ComCom Social for the sake of the open source community in its struggling in front of the codes closed in servers owned by big cooperations.

The problem is not just financial; it is also ideological.

Why YouTube HTML5 Videos Don’t Work in Firefox and Opera and What is that <video> tag of the h.264 ?

"www.pallab.net/2010/01/26/youtube-html5-videos-firefox-opera-h264-ogg-theora/ " news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-10440430-264.html

The action therefor should be so that Mozilla could create a better than youtube service.

This, i believe, could be done by comcomizing such project, such that the goal is to build that-thing-bigger-than-youtube, as one which belongs to the users of the thing.


Conclusion: the closing-knowledge or opening-knowledge approaches oppose each other on the same dimension as the common companies approach open up a new additional dimension.

See also the latest Faq and specifically the the chill responses to be considered for ComComizing

please consider also this personal thread

  • Only 15% of all the linux code is made by individuals and not by the big-cooperations.
    • This is done for having for free the code (15%) of new ideas be imported and regulated (85%) not only into the linux platform but also into the closed platforms of the big-cooperations.
    • This is due the evil and 5th (out of the 10) clause claimed by the open-source to comply for being qualified as open-source (see opensource.org/docs/osd).
    • The clause claims No Discrimination when comparing person (such a poor one) with cooperation such as Microsoft or Google (which is based only on open source in its close servers).
Add a New Comment
or Sign in as Wikidot user
(will not be published)
- +

@bring back@

By namzezamnamzezam, on 05 Nov 2007 00:01 history Tags:

~~Page's End!~~ Ignore ads by installing adblockplus.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 License