The GNU GPL uses Copyright to enforce Copyleft which requires Users gain access to the immaterial Sources of the Objects they use.
Objects are finished goods, such as a computer program.
Sources are the “preferred form of the work for making modifications to (future instances) of it”, such as human-readable “source code”.
We might think of the Sources as the Immaterial Means of Production.
The GNU GPL is voluntary, meaning the ‘owners’ of the Sources choose to apply this constraint.
Hmm… How would this structure apply to the production of a physical Object such as bread?
Let’s say we are going to write a sort of “Terms of Operation” that owners of Material Means of Production can voluntarily choose to apply to real property. For now we can refer to this agreement as the “General Public Terms of Operation” (GPTO).
Now let’s do some text-replacement and see what the results should look like:
The GPTO uses Property Rights to enforce “Property Left” which requires Users gain access to the Material Sources of the Products they use.
Products are finished goods, such as a loaf of bread.
Material Sources are the “preferred form of the work for making modifications to (future instances) of it”, such as a farm to grow wheat, a mill to grind flour, and a bakery to bake loaves.
So a business operating like this would need to somehow make sure the person buying bread gains access to the farm, mill and bakery, even though that user may not know how or even want to deal with those Material Sources.
This may seems like an impossible goal since Material Sources have real costs that cannot be ignored.
I thought about this problem for a very long time.
In the meantime I kept hearing about large corporations controlling more and more of the production we need, and collecting more and more Profit along the way.
I wondered about the special value called Profit. I wondered where it really comes from and what we really ought to be doing with it.
Then it suddenly occured to me that we can use part of the Profit the User pays at the point-of-sale to buy and build more farms and mills and bakeries that then eventually become the real property of those Users.
Almost simultaneously I also realized that when Users own the Material Means of Production, they can accept the Product itself (such as bread) as the return on investment, meaning there is no need to sell the Product at all since it is already the property of those who will consume it.
So by treating (at least part of) Profit as the payer’s investment, Users incrementally gain property ownership in the Material Means of Production.
And if these Users treat the Product itself as their return on investment, they do not sell the bread to themselves, and so eventually no longer pay Profit to anyone.
If these Users have surplus Product, they can sell it to Users who do not yet have enough ownership, and even charge Profit against them, but must (according to the GPTO) treat some of that Profit as the payer’s investment so that all Users eventually gain enough ownership in the Material Sources of Production needed to insure they have control over what they need, and can receive those Products at no more than the real costs of production.