I think there is a flaw on the title page and the description of the fairwork concept. We had again discussions on it yesterday at our Vienna meeating. I think the Fairwork Foundation should herald the principle that knowledge cant be owned . And anything that is a description of a material thing, like the design etc. is in this sense knowledge. It should be Open Source, period. Open Innovation is not enough, its like a more subtle form of exploiting mass creativity, social productiion, private gain. If there is a license at all, it has to protect the Open Source spirit. If its a Creative Commons Share alike license or a FairWare license still has to be determined.

Rather than intellectual property, we have different possibilities to protect the production system and to ensure the benefit of fair trade.

*) create a brand that people consider theirs - and protect that brand against fraud.
*) track products from the beginning to the end.
*) market the benefits of the foundation.

Please help in carving that point out!

see also: http://openfarmtech.org/weblog/

I am glad that you insist in this point because I really think the same. Only a new paradigm can change the way we produce and trade things. I understand all the reflexes of protecting intellectual properties against unfriendly take over but I think the only way to handle this is by unconditional openness.

Of course we need to think hard what kind of business model will work based on this principle. But we are the first experimenting with this ...



Thats exactly what we also discussed in Zurich. And we think a brand should be the most valuable asset of the Hybrider Konzern. (BTW: do we already have a term in English for our "thing"?)

Probably the second most important asset could be the warranty. However it is unclear how quality of products based on open source principles can be assured. Probably some kind of certification could be the way.

For instance in open source software companies are doing this. The OS application server JBoss is certified by different manufactorers of operating systems like IBM (on AIX). Or Redhat Linux.

I totally agree with both of you.

But we have also face the actual situation and the power behind big commercial and legal organizations. I recommend to watch the film "Dutti der Riese" http://www.artfilm.ch/duttiderriese.php (I can send you the DVD if you would like). It shows how big companies, tried to destroy the co-operative society "MIGROS".

So my proposal would be a extension of the Creative Common License. Of course CC is only meant for digital content, but I think it goes in the right directions.

It would be something like a extension to the Non Commercial (See: http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/presskit/icons/nc.png ) part of the CC.

It would guaranty the right to share and remix designs but not to use it for commercial reasons outside of a FairWare Agreement developed by the Fairwork-Foundation.

Look at my proposal here:

http://fairwork.mixxt.org/networks/images/image.116861
(you have to be logged in to see the picture)

I am sure we could motivate more designer to publish there designs under such a license, rather then under a total open circumstances. If I would be for example a designer of furniture, I would like to open my work under this FairWare CC License and to see how a lot of small manufactures would produce it under fair conditions. But I would not be amused to see my design in Wallmarkt or Ikea, produced in a sweatshop in Vietnam or even a prison in Mexico.

Open Source means Decentralisation means less vulnurability.



Why not leave this decision to the designer? Already lots of people do publish designs under cc or other open source licenses.

Of course it sounds compelling to have a license which says "must be produced fair". If such a passage is legal and can enforce this why not create such a license?

I am sure, that we can find a legal way to to formulate such a license and than we can let it open to the designer. It is not posible to deside before there are opportunities for a decision.

Open Source Hardware Licenses have been discussed for a while but it seems to be a difficult thing because Copyright does not protect the idea but only the expression of the idea. Have a look at this study: TOWARD OPEN SOURCE HARDWARE (PDF).

Or have a look at the draft of the TAPR Open Hardware License.

Currently there is no other way than using patents/closed source or open source everything. Or we invest lots of energy in developping a third way.

edited on 27/10/2009 by Reto Stauss

We have to differentiate between Patents (Protection of (technical) Innovation) and Copyright (protection of designs and Competition Protection Act (protection of trademarks and from camouflage of customers) From my opinion today patent laws are going in a wrong direction. See for example posted through Franz yesterday: http://www.foodfreedomnetwork.com/2009/10/monsanto-files-patent-for-new-invention.html If it makes any sens to work with patents is  a really open question for my, which we have to solve pragmatically. In most cases it will not make sens yet because of our limited resources. political resistance against hyperbolical use of parents is maybe more productive. Copyright is still very much a protection of Prior Art and we can easily protect designs with a upgraded Creative Common License. For my this has maybe more a psychological impact. If somebody will harm this protection, it is also a question of resources if we can do something against it on a legal base. But on a ethical and psychological base it would be good to have that kind of License.

edited on 02/05/2010 by Thomas Diener

I agree completely!

TRANSPARENY and FAIRNESS should be strong assets of such brand image. It will be stronger, the more our business model allows all members to live it! Therefore, complete structure and organization should be fully in line with TRANSPARENCY and FAIRNESS !

In my opinion we have a great chance to break the power of traditional multinational groups being TRANSPARENT and FAIR, which is "innovative" (new paradigma) and opposite current market situation.

I believe the more transparent we are the more we will gain fully trust at customer, producer, designer, etc. which will result in more "business" and market share. More, complete transparency provide us most powerful "partner" in Web2.0 age, which is media (journalists and community people)!