No subject
Wed Mar 5 08:29:34 CET 2014
erroneous. In fact, there is only self-determination of the contributory
process in the GPL context, but full alienation to capital in the
surrounding commercial sphere. By contrast the PPL not only allows full
self-determination in the contributory sphere, but requires self-management
in the cooperative sphere of self-reproduction, something which is much
more difficult with the GPL.
END OF THE FIRST RESPONSE
Peter, if you resend this somehow, it will prompt me to respond to the
second part.
--089e0141a7da3a810d04f4c49b41
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">I published the critique on my blog as well, and promised =
to answer,<div><br></div><div>so here is a first attempt</div><div><br></di=
v><div>see inline</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gma=
il_quote">
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 6:52 PM, peter waterman <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:peterwaterman1936 at gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">peterwaterman19=
36 at gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" sty=
le=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div style=3D"font-size:small">Peter says:<br><br></div><d=
iv style=3D"font-size:small">I can more or less understand what is at issue=
here, but as 'thru a glass, darkly'. In other words, I am out my d=
epth here. But I certainly welcome informed and civil dialogue on a matter =
rather more central to global social emancipation than the regurgitation of=
sterile debates that mark the theologically-inclined Left.<br>
<br></div><div style=3D"font-size:small">May the exchange continue, civilly=
and fruitfully.<br><br></div><div style=3D"font-size:small">PeterW<br></di=
v><div style=3D"font-size:small">
<br></div><div style=3D"font-size:small"><br><div><a href=3D"http://keimfor=
m.de" target=3D"_blank">keimform.de</a></div>
<div>Auf der Suche nach dem Neuen im Alten</div> =09
=09
<div>
</div>
=09
=09
=09
<div>
<div>
<a href=3D"http://keimform.de/2014/socialist-licenses/print/" title=
=3D"Artikel drucken" rel=3D"nofollow" target=3D"_blank"><img src=3D"http://=
keimform.de/wp-content/plugins/wp-print/images/printer_famfamfam.gif" alt=
=3D"Artikel drucken" title=3D"Artikel drucken" style=3D"border:0px none"></=
a>
</div>
<h1>Socialist Licenses? </h1>
<p><em>Von</em> Stefan Meretz</p>
<div>
<p>[Diesen Text gibt es auch auf <a href=3D"http://keimform.de/2014/soziali=
stische-lizenzen/" target=3D"_blank">deutsch</a>]</p>
<p>Michel Bauwens has made a <a href=3D"http://keimform.de/2014/wie-erreich=
en-wir-eine-commons-orientierte-transformation/" target=3D"_blank">proposal=
for a “median choice of socialist licenses”</a> which is based=
on the <a href=3D"http://keimform.de/2008/copyfarleft-a-critique/" target=
=3D"_blank">Copyfarleft-License</a> of Dymtri Kleiner. In this post I try t=
o critically analyze his proposal.</p>
<p>At the beginning Bauwens’ thesis is: “the more communistic t=
he=20
sharing license we use, the more capitalistic the practice”. Being a=
=20
prominent example the <a href=3D"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_P=
ublic_License" target=3D"_blank">GNU GPL</a> is called a “communist l=
icense”. Is there something in that?</p>
<p><span></span>At first one has to understand the nature
licenses have under the given conditions. Licenses are permissions,=20
thus contracts, “granted by a party (‘licensor’) to anoth=
er party=20
(‘licensee’) as an element of an agreement between those partie=
s”. It=20
bases on the precondition of excluding all other people by the=20
“rightholder”. The power of exclusion given by law can be conve=
rted into
a “permission for all” by way of tricky constructions combined=
with the
obligation to put derived works under the GPL as well (<a href=3D"http://e=
n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft" target=3D"_blank">copyleft</a> principle).</=
p>
<p>Herein is nothing communist. The logic of exclusion is partially=20
reversed and therefore new spaces of commons oriented practices can be=20
created. Better than nothing. The license itself only protects these=20
practices against proprietary destructions. From my point of view this=20
can not be more under the given conditions. The outer world is ruled by=20
the logics of valuation and exclusion, and every free zone to=20
self-determine other practices has to be wrested from these dominant=20
logics. Embryonic forms, precisely.</p></div></div></div></div></blockquote=
><div><br></div><div>This first critique is rather weak. Indeed, I am not t=
alking about the legal, contractual basis of the GPL and similar licenses, =
but on the social logic that they enable, which is: it allows anybody to co=
ntribute, and it allows anybody to use. This is both consistent with Marx&#=
39;s defintion of communism, and with the definition I use, that of communa=
l shareholding by Alan Page Fiske. This logic of course only exists in the =
realm of abundant digital information, and exists within the political econ=
omy of capital.</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_q=
uote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1e=
x"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div style=3D"font-size:small"><div><div>
<p>The second part of the thesis “…the more capitalistic the p=
ractice”=20
fails as well. There is no comparative of “capitalistic”. If yo=
u replace
“capitalistic” with “commodity-based”, then is bec=
omes even clearer:=20
Something is a commodity or not. Free software, for instance, isn’t a=
=20
commodity. It can be appropriated and used by everyone, even by big=20
corporations. However, they cannot transform the free software into a=20
commodity, since this is prevented by the GPL. But they can use the=20
software in order to realize their business models in another fields.=20
This free use is a thorn in Bauwens side. He wants the commons to only=20
be commercially used by those who have contributed beforehand.</p></div></d=
iv></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>This is also=
very weak, since I am not saying and never said, that the GPL turns free s=
ofrware into a commodity. But what I'm saying, and what nobody can deny=
, is that non-commodified free software is subsumed to the capitalist econo=
my that uses it. 75% of Linux developers are paid by commercial companies o=
perating in the capitalist marketplace.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8=
ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div style=
=3D"font-size:small"><div><div>
<p>From my perspective the presentation of the GPL as “communist&rdqu=
o; is=20
wrong, but this attribution has the function to propagate a milder=20
license variant which then is called “socialist”: the <a href=
=3D"http://p2pfoundation.net/Peer_Production_License" target=3D"_blank">PPL=
(Peer-Production-License)</a>.
This license only grants external access to the resources to those who=20
are using them non-commercially, while internally unlimited exploitation
is allowed. The divide intern/extern usually refers to a firm. If=20
external parties want to use the resources commercially, then they have=20
to pay a license fee or make other contributions.</p></div></div></div></di=
v></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The GPL effectively enables a social log=
ic of unlimited use, including by multinational companies. The peer product=
ion license resticts it. Let me point out that I do not take the PPL as per=
fect, but as a new kind of Commons-Based Reciprocity Licenses. Such license=
s fully allow commercial exploitation, but ask for reciprocity. Think of a =
traditional indigenous community using a GPL of similar. This means any com=
mercial entity can use the knowledge and commercialize it, without any bene=
fit or profit-sharing with the creators of the knowledge. A CBRL would simp=
ly ask for reciprocity</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_q=
uote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1e=
x"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div style=3D"font-size:small"><div><div>
<p><strong>Is only exchange reciprocal?</strong></p>
<p>In order to justify the PPL the argument of reciprocity is claimed.=20
The “communist” GPL is non-reciprocal, while the “sociali=
st” PPL demands
reciprocity. The word reciprocity nicely blurs what is actually meant: <em=
>exchange</em>.
In fact, the GPL breaks the logic of exchange, while the PPL requires=20
and enforces it — namely not only the exchange logic itself, but the=
=20
societally valid form of <em>equivalent exchange</em>. Someone who wants
to keep “the surplus value into the commons sphere” has to act=
that=20
way, whereby “commons sphere” is a euphemism for an ordinary co=
mpany.</p></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This is =
the first valid critique. Indeed, the PPL / CBRL would indeed limit the non=
-reciprocity for for-profit entities, but no, Stefan is wrong, it does not =
demand equivalent exchange, but some form of negotiated reciprocity. The im=
portant aspect is to generate a flow of realized value, necessary for socia=
l reproduction, from the sphere of capital accumulation to the sphere of th=
e commons. </div>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div style=3D"font-size:sma=
ll"><div><div>
<p>The notion of reciprocity is misused in an ideologically blurring=20
way. Licenses are never reciprocal, only people can behave that way.=20
Thus, the question can only be whether licenses encourage reciprocity=20
between people or not, and if so, in what way. Then the evaluation of=20
GPL and PPL looks completely different.</p>
<p>The GPL creates and promotes <em>direct</em> reciprocity between=20
people, because no exchange and also no compelled contribution stands=20
between people. </p></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><di=
v>This is absolutely wrong, the GPL doesn't demand nor create direct re=
ciprocity between people. It is entirelhy possible to use GPL material with=
out any reciprocity, as the overwhelming majority of its users actually do.=
But the GPL requires what anthropologist call 'general reciprocity'=
;, i.e. at the collective level, a minimum of contributions is needed to su=
stain the system. But there is absolutely no requirement for direct recipro=
city. The reciprocity is between the individual and the system as a whole. =
A coder or wikipedia contributor cannot expect any return from any particul=
ar individual.</div>
<div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"=
margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"=
ltr"><div style=3D"font-size:small"><div><div><p>By contrast, the PPL limit=
s direct reciprocity by=20
putting exchange or compulsory contributions between people if they want
to use resources commercially. But what is commercial? It is the same=20
discussion which has taken place around the NC module of the <a href=3D"htt=
p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons" target=3D"_blank">Creative Comm=
ons</a>
Licenses. There the insight is: The NC module undermines sharing, and=20
the same applies to the PPL (although trying to dissociate from the=20
CC-NC).</p></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The PPL=
only limits non-recicprocal use by for-profit companies. It does not prohi=
bit commercial exploitation but actually encourages it, while the Non-Comme=
rcial CC license actually prohibits it. The NC does not undermine sharing, =
but commercialisation. The PPL encourages and allows both sharing and comme=
rcialisation. </div>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div style=3D"font-size:sma=
ll"><div><div>
<p>To sharpen the point: Both licenses support reciprocal behavior of peopl=
e. With respect to GPL it is <em>positive reciprocity</em>,
because in this case it only counts how people behave socially and=20
which rules they agree upon in a self-determined way, in order to <em>bring=
all participants together</em>. Concerning the PPL it is <em>negative reci=
procity</em>, since a portion of people are subjugated to the alien form of=
exchange of equivalents (money) and are <em>excluded</em>
from the cooperation to this end. Thus, the GPL is rather in accordance
with the commons idea of self-determining own rules than the PPL.</p></div=
></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>From the above refutati=
ons follow that this conclusion is entirely erroneous. In fact, there is on=
ly self-determination of the contributory process in the GPL context, but f=
ull alienation to capital in the surrounding commercial sphere. By contrast=
the PPL not only allows full self-determination in the contributory sphere=
, but requires self-management in the cooperative sphere of self-reproducti=
on, something which is much more difficult with the GPL.</div>
<div><br></div><div>END OF THE FIRST RESPONSE</div><div><br></div><div>Pete=
r, if you resend this somehow, it will prompt me to respond to the second p=
art. </div></div>
</div></div>
--089e0141a7da3a810d04f4c49b41--
More information about the P2P-Foundation
mailing list