Message 00524 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00515 Message: 12/32 L4 [In date index] [In thread index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [jox] Licence for articles

I dislike CC for way too many reasons to go in here.
No votes for it from me.

Just a glance at 'topics of interest' of CSPP suggests that if we are to practice what we research - peer production - we should seriously consider using a license that promotes is. One based on collective ownership of, or at least control over, the means of production, collective work that does not tolerate wage labour.

I propose we use

Key points of this Copyfarleft license are:

c. You may exercise the rights granted in Section 3 for commercial purposes only if:

   i. You are a workerowned business or workerowned collective; and
ii. all financial gain, surplus, profits and benefits produced by the business or collective are distributed among the workerowners

d. Any use by a business that is privately owned and managed, and that seeks to generate profit from the labor of employees paid by salary or other wages, is not permitted under this license.

Dmytri's arguments (known already to quite a few of us, i guess)

ps. Stefan, I think that the reason FS thrived while allowing commercial use is that some of the users will add value to the shared object (new code, bugs fixed, documentation). What can we expect from a for-profit entity that will perhaps one day wish to commercially exploit the shared object? What can they add to a finished text, other than bundling it to sell it in a different format? Not much.

On 02/06/2011 17:21, Stefan Merten wrote:
Hi all!

2 hours ago Alex Halavais wrote:
I would make the argument for CC-BY-SA.


NC is an anti-pattern for me. Free Software would not have been
possible with NC - so what should it be good for?




Thread: joxT00515 Message: 12/32 L4 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00524 [Homepage] [Navigation]