Open Close
<-- Next-->

common and private companies for open and close source or knowledge!!

common-company:Open close" align= "left

Faq:

Q) Fitting to close AND open source, including Web2.0, strategies, how?

A) This is New approaches for interfacing Companies and individual

Common companies: For building communities like of artists and/or developers in form of commercial companies. Common companies are commercial ones, but each of which consists of 2 portions, in 1 of which, each of the shareholders has equal number of shares and is either a person or a common company.

Decentralizing Human Systems is now in your hands, also in the commercial world.


Q) Common companies just made a little noise- Whoosh!

A) no !
since d(as in Decentralization of the company), indicating the private or common feature of the company, is vertical (i.e. d is an additional dimension) to how much of its source is open or close to the public domain, hence company can be either private or common delivering products of which source is either open or close!!!

  • i.e. d is vertical to the proportional amount of the company's source/knowledge being open in regard to its profit and out of all such source/knowledge - the open and the close.

Q) equal number of shares sounds fishy

A) equal number of shares sounds fishy, Yes it sounds!!! but equalization is used for specific (yours in this case) preferences as it always does:

Yes it sounds!!! But try this: you have your open-source project, of which core developers are private shareholders. Now you allow other to benefit from your project, including developers and/or users, which might become common shareholders.

Now this equalization of the common shareholders, if you build it right, serves your preferences as a private shareholder.

Remember, not all the company is held either by common or by private shareholders, so considering the d, a balance of powers must be made!!!

The equalization in common companies is just a tool which with keeping attribution (with the preferences, form and formation) still make fluent your sharing of your knowledge.

Now there is here another aspect. I came to it because of my fear of use of some agents of government, which would be using my intellectual property.

You might say, as rms said, hey, well, they would take it anyhow, butthat is what blocked me since then.

The problem with open-source for me is with another kind of equalization, the kind which do not let me have preferences as for what is the use of what i developed. i mean yes, in the end , every one would benefit, from the moment it is out, but what is out, a peace of code a concept , how long is the way in which i still have some control (i mean in the early days in that project i do have, for that is the project), for me it- the way until the project, with some phases etc, is completed - is my responsibility.

With common company i can share that responsibility and be at least in frame of law for not serving who i strongly oppose.


Q) it needs something, i can't put my finger on it

A) I wish i could, and i do want to do my best for, to put any finger on it. If you mean that common companies need something, yes of course, it needs. What it need is people ready to explore the potentiality of it, that is all what i am trying now to do: Gathering core of freaks to Common Companies, building a nice working e.g., which would grow slowly and be scalable but surly be different one beginning with initial law costs. For this what is required is not so much of private investors, but as i said there, 100 common shareholders maintaining the growth itself (by paying for their membership and by adding their activities), with leaving (due to defined d) a portion ready for private investors to come afterward into it.

Q) "Define membership."

A) Membership - it allows service of the company to its clients being members, and it might be paid by activity of clients and/or by their real money.

Shareholding - it allows control over, and benefit (in from of dividend) from, the company, and it might be paid by activity of clients and/or by their real money.

Membership and Shareholding are calculated independently as for such payments. e.g. membership cost 24$ per 3 months, and common shareholding 10 $ only once, so that in the first cycle of 3 months the one pays 34$, whereas in the other such cycles only 24$.

Now, the total = C*10$, where C is the number of Common shareholders, whereas the the assets of the company is from the membership payment minus dividends and the expenses of the company, upon which the common shareholders may have control (that is depended on the d, which also affect the the value of the common or private shareholding).

Q) "Having stock is not membership. It has to be more.

We have to be careful not to replace one dependency with another."

A) The dependency in this structure, as in the constitution of its citizens and as in my invention (-see piletech), is or might be cyclic but with distinction allowing to maintain the order. in other words it is mutual dependency. This is the point!!! in normal math cyclic get stuck (with stack)!

@bring back@

By namzezamnamzezam, on 30 May 2007 02:41 history Tags:

comcomized-logo.png

~~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