I’ve had to end partnerships and cancel projects because I found that there was a conflict of interests with our beliefs and operating models. Gaining clarity around this has taken years - coming from feelings of ‘off-ness’ to understanding licences and ownership vs service models. So here is a brief run down:
Business models fundamentally influence the way entrepreneurs and their companies interact with their clients and the broader community.
Two primary models stand out:
where businesses get paid by restricting access to something
and another
where businesses get paid to provide a service.
Of course both models are possible simultaneously: A landlord, for instance, could ideally provide stewardship services rather than merely collecting rent. The more we pay for services and their underlying costs the more we encourage sustainability and community engagement. However, if a business or individual seeks long term retroactive payments for past actions, such as intellectual property rights, building a house, buying land, they must solidify these arrangements legally to ensure future payments.
Likewise if the goal is to amass and protect wealth without sharing it, it leads to the creation of defensive mechanisms—walls, security, and systems to maintain this wealth. This approach creates a war-like society focused on preservation of power structures rather than growth and sharing. The introduction of monetary systems in Kenya - where individuals began to be paid by the colonists and had to convince everyone else they were poor and Must work to get money - show a breakdown of social infrastructure quite clearly and tragically.
The Case of Google and Open Source Licensing
A relevant example is Google's creation of the Apache 2.0 license, which allows them explicitly to hide modifications to open-source code. This practice can lead users to join open source system then be forced into proprietary systems, restricting freedom and collaboration. In contrast, licenses like AGPL 3.0 promote "share alike" principles, ensuring that any derivative work remains open and accessible. This licensing prevents business models that restrict access and encourages ongoing community engagement and innovation.
Google’s explicit ban on AGPL code highlights the conflict between open, collaborative ecosystems and restrictive business models. Google's policy prohibits the use of AGPL-licensed code in any of its products, ensuring that they do not have to contribute back to the community. This stance is primarily to protect their business model, which relies on controlled access to proprietary services. (note: All the open source software we make at Grassroots Economics Foundation is BANNED by Google).
What I like about AGPL3.0 (CopyLeft) Licences is that they push forward a clear intention - that my efforts are for the commons and should not be corrupted and hidden. It builds a community of service providers that want to use and build on and improve each others work. It is kind of amazing and taking off more and more - despite corporate bans like Google. "Don't be evil" is Google's former motto -now that Google is owned by Alphabet they switched to "Do the right thing"- that makes shareholder profits go up.
Let's ask some critical questions about shareholder equity. Are shares truly shared, or are they amassed and hoarded? Is there any incentive for shares to circulate and flow within the economy? What responsibilities come with holding shares? Are shareholders similar to landlords who provide no services and accumulate wealth by restricting access? Do we want shareholders running our infrastructures? Will we approve of the next owners to whom these shareholders sell?
Do we want reliable infrastructure that can sustain its own upkeep?
Most people I talk to agree that shares are not about sharing, and venture capitalism is about profiting with the least amount of work possible while making much of the population addicted to and dependent on various owned infrastructures and gradually restricting access over time—essentially, neo-colonialism. This approach mirrors the imperial monetary systems that introduced financial infrastructures for trade, which became increasingly difficult to escape. Today, we find ourselves deep within the mechanisms of a rigid economic system, hoping there is still life and opportunity once/if we are released.
Commitment Pooling and Ancestral Wisdom
Commitment pooling, a protocol inspired by ancestral land management practices, offers an alternative economic model as well as a transition path. This approach aggregates commitments (services, products) within a community, allowing for fair and equitable resource exchange withing polycentric networks. It's a system rooted in mutual service and collective agency, promoting community well-being and resilience.
The Grassroots Economics Foundation has been pioneering this model, integrating digital vouchers with traditional practices like Rotational Labor Associations (ROLA). These vouchers represent commitments for specific goods or services, and their exchange within a community fosters trust, cooperation, and economic stability.
Future Directions
Modern implementations of commitment pooling involve digital systems that enhance transparency, interoperability and scalability. Community Asset Vouchers (like gift cards) as well as any curated digital assets can be traded within Commitment Pools, providing production financing, liquidity and supporting various community-driven projects. This system creates curated exchanges for commitment, akin to a stock exchange but based on future utility rather than ownership.
This model encourages a service-based economy where developers and other service providers are compensated for their time and contributions, with their work remaining open and accessible. Vouchers act as pre-purchased commitments for future work, fostering a sustainable economic environment. Just as developers can be paid in national currency to contribute to the knowledge commons with AGPL 3.0 licenses, investors can put their money into economic commons instruments like Commitment Pools - composting colonial instruments into healthy soil. Seeding, developing and maintaining healthy commitment pools and local markets is an amazing service - it’s a whole different type of business model.
The good new is that the great transition to knowledge commons (CopyLeft Open Source) and economic commons (Investments in mutual service) is already happening. By becoming part the economic and knowledge commons, you contribute to a more fun, equitable, resilient, collaborative and livable future.
Note: I’m the founder and co-director of Grassroots Economics a non-profit in Kenya that can pay our costs without grants or donations. Check out our policies here on technology. We’re not perfect - but doing our best every day.
Older Posts on the topic: