Re: [jox] Licence for articles
- From: Toni Prug <tony irational.org>
- Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 18:00:48 +0100
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 http://p2pfoundation.net/Peer_Production_License
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)
http://www.networkcultures.org/_uploads/%233notebook_telekommunist.pdf
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.
+1
NC is an anti-pattern for me. Free Software would not have been
possible with NC - so what should it be good for?
Grüße
Stefan
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal