Jan-Christoph Borchardt wrote: > I don’t control the server.
Many people (such as Richard Stallman) assume hardware cannot be shared in a freedom-preserving way. http://GNU.org/philosophy/network-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.html This is a long-standing problem that may seem to be without a solution. But once we address this issue, we can easily outperform GitHub, Google, Amazon, Yahoo, Verizon, ConAgra, Nestle, Nike, Pepsi ... and in fact, *ALL* corporate organization, because we only be required to pay the actual Costs of operation. Until then, we will continue to grovel and beg those corporations (and the governments they control) to "do the right thing" - even though they *cannot* be on our side because the goals of their investors conflict with the goals of the Users. There is a massive psychological barrier to reconsidering who should own the Means of Production. Imagine the Users gain control (instead of the Workers as we have always been told). We, the Users, will still need to pay all the Costs of production (including any wages), but, since we can accept the Product itself as the Return for those Investments (the ROI), the Product will not be sold, and so Price == Costs and Profit is UNDEFINED! We must use this knowledge to begin hosting git repos and email and social networks and general storage, etc. for our own, mutual benefit. Imagine http://Drive.FreeCulture.org as a competitor to http://Drive.Google.com , but co-owned by we, the people. To say it is too expensive is to misunderstand, since Google covers their Costs *AND* they collect Profit beyond the real Costs - while we only need cover Costs. Am I missing something? Why will we not gather together to accomplish our goals? Sincerely, Patrick Anderson http://SocialSufficiencyCoalition.BlogSpot.com _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
