permaculture

["Akiva" <akivaw@hotmail.com>]

Copyright is a legal construct used to protect intellectual property for the 
purpose of commerce.

If Mollison and/or Holmgren want to protect the word "permaculture" in this 
context, then they certainly have reasonable claim to do so. However, each 
of the assembled ideas within the practice of permaculture is more like 
parts of a shared body of wisdom which arise from human experience upon this 
living planet. People were placing swales on contour and growing banana 
circles before Bill was born. Is each individual concept touched upon by 
permaculture (and often shared by other uncopywrited ecological design 
practices) to be only contained within a legally restricted, copyrighted 
label? This seems conterpurpose to permaculture ethics and natural patterns, 
smacking of inefficient centralized monopoly. There is no legal standing for 
such a restrictive appoach.

Permaculture ethics say nothing about maintenance of currently-existing 
hierarchy, unless of course, that hierarchy is the most effective approach 
for care of the earth and its inhabitants. Truth will out, and good design 
is our universal, rightful inheritance based upon patterns in nature, no 
matter who expresses and copyrights expression of that awareness. It's like 
trying to copyright "justice" or "efficiency".

Scott wrote:
"There is the opposite problem of those whose egos don't allow them to
give credit where it is due so rather than call it permaculture they lay 
claim to ideas formulated by others.  I guess the high road approach would 
be to say "oh, well! as long as the word gets out."  But it seems to me that 
the greater the ground swell named permaculture the greater the effect on 
the world at large.  I has been a long struggle for many who have carried 
the design process and teaching around the world where permaculture is 
becoming well known and a common name shared by all of us permaculturalists 
that I would hate to see lost.  That commonality in and of itself is a 
critical
part of creating a borderless sustainable future for people."

Yes, share credit where credit is due. There is, however, no reason why 
someone couldn't call themselves an "ecological designer" and use some 
concepts found within the practice of permaculture in their professional 
work without commercially representing it as permaculture. If we are to have 
a "borderless sustainable future", no one needs accept attempts to restrict 
their design practice beyond the reasonable right to do so.

Scott also wrote:

"It has been a long time since there has been any kind of personal
interaction in the U.S. permaculture family and there are many issues
that could be discussed and shared."

Is the global permaculture community a "family" in which the the next 
generation gets to freely live their own creative lives and we share common 
ethics and practices, or is permaculture a commercial corporation in which 
distribution rights are controlled and limited by a central power? Or both? 
There seem to be different conceptions of permaculture simultaneously held 
and often within the same person.

I recommend that those who consider themselves part of permaculture get 
clear on what the rightful parameters of permaculture actually are, so that 
its power and benefit are optimized. This will yield support for the earth 
and its inhabitants rather than confusing or restricting our personal 
practices because the copywrite/ownership of permaculture sprawls beyond 
those rightful parameters.

Thanks for this vital exploration,
Akiva Werbalowsky
Ojai, CA











> From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." <lflondon@mindspring.com>

> On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 14:23:44 +1000, Pacific Edge Permaculture
> <pacedge@magna.com.au> wrote:

> >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.


> I think it is very shortsighted to make this statement. To throw
> Bill's copyright to the winds would be, essentially,  to abandon the
> very standards and principles that have made this movement grow
> steadily in acceptance and use since it began. To open this Pandora's
> Box would be a huge mistake. "You never miss it until it's gone", you
> know.




________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com