frankly, that statement does not make sense to me,

we are talking about workers who are contributing to the commons, allowing unlimited use of the commons to which they contribute ? and we are talking about other workers, who contribute to other commons, to be able to contribute another commons

in what way is that unlimited exploitation ????

the reality is opposite, as this allows commoners to live from their contributions, as opposed to the current situation, where they can only live from their contributions by hiring their labor out to capital

On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Marco Giustini <info@marcogiustini.info> wrote:

2014-03-17 3:59 GMT+01:00 Michel Bauwens <michel@p2pfoundation.net>:

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). 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.

_______________________________________________
commoning Mailingliste
JPBerlin - Politischer Provider
commoning@listen.jpberlin.de
https://listen.jpberlin.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning

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/