First of all - just to make sure, we are talking about the same -, I think this is not a software-related question, but a question how to organize commons in general. The software supports commoning, it doesn’t frame it. The social process has to be vague while concepting the software, because the software “does not know” anything about the discussions/circumstances/rule-making outside the software-mediation. The software users do not have specific rights to set the purpose of means. The software algorithm can make proposals how a mean could be used effectively (within the borders of the information it has) and software users can take part in the rule-making just like every other peer can.
So from a software-perspective my answers to the three questions would be: we don’t know, we don’t know, we don’t know. And we can’t know it.
I think the relevant questions are at the beginning:
- How can we support the social process over the use of a mean a) between software-users and b) between software-users and non-software-users.
- How can we support the process, that the result of those discussions gets transfered in a software-readable way?
And independent from the software we have to support developments like the Munus-Stiftung, because we as Commoners (not as software-users/developers) need legal structures to use means as commons.
And as a Commoner I think ‘creative-commons-like material-commons-licences’ are part of the answer of the three questions.