permaculture

[Pacific Edge Permaculture <pacedge@magna.com.au>]

To quote you"The issue was addressed in a letter by permaculture founder,
Bill Mollison, in a recent edition of Permaculture International Journal. In
that letter,
Bill reasserted his rights as the owner of the copyright over the
permaculture concept. Although he did not mention the fact, this right is
enshrined in the Australian Copyright Act".

May I qoute Bill's words in the PC Manual. p11
A Policy of Responsibility (to relinquish power)
The role of a beneficial authority is to return function and responsibility
to life and to people; if successful, no further authority is needed. The
role of successful design is to create a self-managed system.

Permaculture started with Bill Mollison and David Holmgren but has since
been shaped by the input of us all.  We where invited to be part of it. Now
we see what was undeniably the work of many being asserted by an individual
as their copyright. In the PC Manual it is not expressed as a Bill Mollison
copyright . . . perhaps a little late to claim one. Time has seen PC shaped
by many not steered by one.

Perhaps the whole issue around maintaining standards could have been put out
to a forum such as this which represents the collective efforts of the many
who joined the founders of the concept and contributed to where it is now. A
dictate from above to a network that has evolved to a level playing field.
Why? Do we need a beneficial authority after more than 20 years? If so then
PC as a movement was not a successful design, is not a self managed system.
Permaculture is not very Permaculture??? If it is not a successful design
why bother worrying about it being in decline. Let it go. . . or evolve into
something more successful than any of us can even imagine.

The copyright claim, whether well intentioned for the purposes of
maintaining quality standards or for more self serving reasons, the effect
is the same.  . .  a decline in PC. If pushed further it will see a  number
of legal counter claims from those who have helped shaped it and it herald
the widespread abandonment of the use of name in the activities of many
more.

Now we may be coming a bit closer to why Permaculture is in decline. I
personally have operated as a business professional for many years
independently of  using the name Permaculture. Firstly, I am then in control
of my own corporate image and P.R. Secondly I have never wanted my ideas to
be taken to be the ideas of a loose coalition only to be ultimately seized
by an individual claiming Intellectual Property rights over them. Finally,
PC has no management structure or standards. PC  has too loose a corporate
structure for me to use as anything other than a part of my education and a
networking opportunity.

I think that all this points to a need to get organised . . . get a
structure that is fair and democratic whilst honouring the contributions of
the founders and the many who have since contributed to it. In other words
get professional . . .  a democratic corporate structure.

It would be a tradgedy to see so much good work decline and die.