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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20140317/95bc7362/attachment-0001.htm

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
P2P-Foundation mailing list
P2P-Foundation@lists.ourproject.org
https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

End of P2P-Foundation Digest, Vol 39, Issue 25
**********************************************

Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/