[cc-community] Re: designer patterns using CC

Rob Myers robmyers at mac.com
Sat Jun 18 05:26:42 EDT 2005


On 18 Jun 2005, at 00:45, Greg London wrote:

> I think we're talking about two different types of "natural".
> I mean "natural" as in a "zero sum game" with finite resources,
> i.e. physical property owned by individuals,
> versus abstract ideas that are public domain.

Game theory is an attempt at naturalization of ideology using the  
theoretical jargon of mathematics.

> you can't exhaust an electronic version of linux.
> everyone can download a copy and use it without
> taking any copies away from anyone else.

You need a machine to run it on though, and the availability of the  
code (ability to make your own variant) is key, as with clothes  
patterns.

Pattern/design -> Linux .

Sewing machine/santatron -> computer.

> physical stuff is naturally zero-sum.
> For me to get a pair of jeans,
> someone has to lose a pair of jeans,
> which tends toward a private-property system.

For me to *make* a pair of jeans doesn't stop you making the same  
pattern into your own pair of jeans. Any more than me building Linux  
stops you building Linux.

It'd be embarrassing if we both wore the same outfit to the same  
party, but that just means a larger pattern commons is better. :-)

There are issues around the exclusivity of haute couture, but clothes  
get pirated anyway, the "real" clothes should be higher quality, and  
being a trend-setter is probably good.

This is more about "hacking", personal creativity or avant-garde  
progression, rather than mass-production. Mass produced clothes are  
"inspired" by more expensive clothing without compensating the  
original designers anyway.

> At least until we get a santa claus machine...

There is a personal fabricator movement in its early stages at the  
moment:

http://fab.cba.mit.edu/

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/06/02/tech.reprap/

Bootstrapping self-replicators are cool.

- Rob.



More information about the cc-community mailing list