resending with proper subject, sorry for that ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> Date: Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 8:06 AM Subject: Re: P2P-Foundation Digest, Vol 39, Issue 25 To: p2p-foundation <[email protected]> hi Marco, my own understanding of Commons-Based Reciprocity Licenses differs in many aspects from the PPL For example, I want the commons to work with all forms of not-for-profit oriented busiensses but to call worker-owned businesses as engaging in unlimited exploitation is perinicious such a business works for the workers, and why should it not be able to use commons code ???
*Socialist Licenses?* by Stefan Meretz -- From my perspective the presentation of the GPL as "communist" is wrong, but this attribution has the function to propagate a milder license variant which then is called "socialist": the PPL (Peer-Production-License)< http://p2pfoundation.net/Peer_Production_License>. This license only grants external access to the resources to those who are using them non-commercially, while internally unlimited exploitation is allowed. (...) But what is commercial?
That's an important aspect. On the PPL internally unlimited exploitation is allowed if
*"You are a workerowned business or workerowned collective".* IMHO this is not sufficient to describe a Peer Production Organization. Is needed, as I before stated, a charter to define it.