No subject
Wed Mar 5 08:29:34 CET 2014
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.
The divide intern/extern usually refers to a firm. If external parties want
to use the resources commercially, then they have to pay a license fee or
make other contributions.
*The GPL effectively enables a social logic of unlimited use, including by
multinational companies. The peer production license resticts it. From my
point of view this makes it a stronger and not a milder license. Let me
point out that I do not take the PPL as perfect, but as a new kind
of Commons-Based Reciprocity Licenses, whose detailed modalities can very
well differ from the original PPL. Such licenses fully allow commercial
exploitation, but ask for reciprocity. Think of a traditional indigenous
community using a GPL of similar. This means any commercial entity can use
the knowledge and commercialize it, without any benefit or profit-sharing
with the creators of the knowledge. A CBRL would simply ask for reciprocity
and would allow these traditional communities to generate autonomous living
and livelyhoods, something which is impossible with the GPL*.
Is only exchange reciprocal? In order to justify the PPL the argument of
reciprocity is claimed. The "communist" GPL is non-reciprocal, while the
"socialist" PPL demands reciprocity. The word reciprocity nicely blurs what
is actually meant: exchange. In fact, the GPL breaks the logic of exchange,
while the PPL requires and enforces it -- namely not only the exchange logic
itself, but the societally valid form of equivalent exchange. Someone who
wants to keep "the surplus value into the commons sphere" has to act that
way, whereby "commons sphere" is a euphemism for an ordinary company.
*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 only some form of negotiated
reciprocity. The important aspect is to generate a flow of realized value,
necessary for social reproduction, from the sphere of capital accumulation
to the sphere of the commons. The second aspect is organizational. It
promotes the self-organisation of an ethical economy, and makes those who
want to join it, conscious of that fact, including for-profit companies
which can decide to ally with the ethical enterpreneurial coalition*.
The notion of reciprocity is misused in an ideologically blurring way.
Licenses are never reciprocal, only people can behave that way. Thus, the
question can only be whether licenses encourage reciprocity between people
or not, and if so, in what way. Then the evaluation of GPL and PPL looks
completely different.The GPL creates and promotes direct reciprocity
between people, because no exchange and also no compelled contribution
stands between people.
*This is absolutely wrong, the GPL doesn't demand nor create direct
reciprocity between people. It is entirely possible to use GPL material
without 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
sustain the system. But there is absolutely no requirement for direct
reciprocity. The reciprocity is between the individual and the system as a
whole. A coder or wikipedia contributor cannot expect any return from any
particular individual but only expects the benefits of the whole system,
which depend only on a general flow of contributions.*
By contrast, the PPL limits direct reciprocity by putting exchange or
compulsory contributions between people if they want to use resources
commercially. But what is commercial? It is the same discussion which has
taken place around the NC module of the Creative Commons Licenses. There
the insight is: The NC module undermines sharing, and the same applies to
the PPL (although trying to dissociate from the CC-NC).
*The PPL only limits non-recicprocal use by for-profit companies. It does
not prohibit commercial exploitation but actually encourages it, while the
Non-Commercial CC license actually prohibits it. The NC does not undermine
sharing, but commercialisation. The PPL encourages and allows both sharing
and commercialisation.*
To sharpen the point: Both licenses support reciprocal behavior of people.
With respect to GPL it is positive reciprocity, because in this case it
only counts how people behave socially and which rules they agree upon in a
self-determined way, in order to bring all participants together.
Concerning the PPL it is negative reciprocity, since a portion of people
are subjugated to the alien form of exchange of equivalents (money) and are
excluded 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.
*From the above refutations follow that this conclusion is entirely
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, since it subsumes livelyhoods to capital
accumulation.*
This is the end of my response to the first part of the critique by Stefan
Meretz. The critique in no way refutes any of the premises for the need of
the PPL or similar Commos-Based Reciprocity Licenses.
--
*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
<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates:
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
--001a11c3ce32825ba604f4c49fe9
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">a cleaner version of my response, which will be published =
on march 20 on the p2p blog:<div><br></div><div><p class=3D"" style=3D"line=
-height:1.5em;margin:0px 0px 15px;padding:0px;color:rgb(42,42,42);font-size=
:11.111111640930176px;font-family:Lato,sans-serif!important">
<a href=3D"http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/?p=3D37660" rel=3D"bookmark" title=
=3D"Permanent Link to Responding to Stefan Meretz’s critique of the P=
eer Production License" style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-weight:bold;text-=
decoration:none;font-size:1.7em">Responding to Stefan Meretz’s critiq=
ue of the Peer Production License</a></p>
<img src=3D"http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/Michel=
%20Bauwens.jpg" alt=3D"photo of Michel Bauwens" align=3D"left" style=3D"col=
or: rgb(42, 42, 42); font-family: Ubuntu, 'Lucida Grande', Verdana,=
Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11.111111640930176px;"><p style=3D"line-heig=
ht:1.5em;margin:0px 0px 15px;padding:0px;color:rgb(42,42,42);font-family:Ub=
untu,'Lucida Grande',Verdana,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:11.11111164=
0930176px">
</p><div id=3D"postauthorname" style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-weight:bold;p=
adding:1px;font-family:Ubuntu,'Lucida Grande',Verdana,Arial,sans-se=
rif;font-size:11.111111640930176px">Michel Bauwens</div><div id=3D"postdate=
" style=3D"color:rgb(153,153,153);padding:2px;font-family:Ubuntu,'Lucid=
a Grande',Verdana,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:11.111111640930176px">
17th March 2014</div><p style=3D"line-height:1.5em;margin:0px 0px 15px;padd=
ing:0px;color:rgb(42,42,42);font-family:Ubuntu,'Lucida Grande',Verd=
ana,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:11.111111640930176px"></p><br style=3D"color=
:rgb(42,42,42);font-family:Ubuntu,'Lucida Grande',Verdana,Arial,san=
s-serif;font-size:11.111111640930176px">
<div class=3D"" style=3D"font-size:1.2em;overflow:hidden;color:rgb(42,42,42=
);font-family:Ubuntu,'Lucida Grande',Verdana,Arial,sans-serif"><p s=
tyle=3D"line-height:1.5em;margin:0px 0px 15px;padding:0px"><strong>Stefan M=
eretz</strong> produced <a href=3D"http://keimform.de/2014/social=
ist-licenses/" style=3D"color:rgb(184,91,90);text-decoration:none">a critiq=
ue of the Peer Production License</a>, or more generically, Commons-Based R=
eciprocity Licenses, in the Keimform blog, to which I promised to respond.<=
/p>
<p style=3D"line-height:1.5em;margin:0px 0px 15px;padding:0px">Unfortunatel=
y, the critique is rather weak and misleading, so our responses will be rat=
her short and inserted inline. Our responses are in bold and b-quote.</p>
<p style=3D"line-height:1.5em;margin:0px 0px 15px;padding:0px">For context,=
I support the PPL, not in its full detail, but as a first of a kind, Commo=
ns-Based Reciprocity License (the concept is from Primavera de Filippi and =
Miguel Veira).</p>
<p style=3D"line-height:1.5em;margin:0px 0px 15px;padding:0px">The key argu=
ment is the following: the present fully-sharing open licenses which allow =
unrestricted commercial exploitation create a ‘communism of capital&r=
squo;, i.e. a sphere of open knowledge, code and design, which is subsumed =
to the present dominant political economy. But what we need is an autonomou=
s sphere of peer production, in which commoners and peer producers can crea=
te their own livelyhood, while staying in the sphere of the commons. In oth=
er words, we need a ‘capital for the commons’. The best way to =
achieve that is to converge the sphere of immaterial commons contributions,=
with a sphere of cooperative accumulation through which the surplus value =
can stay within the sphere of commons/cooperative production.</p>
<p style=3D"line-height:1.5em;margin:0px 0px 15px;padding:0px">This is why =
we need a new type of licensing.</p><p style=3D"line-height:1.5em;margin:0p=
x 0px 15px;padding:0px">So, without further ado, Stefan Meretz writes:</p><=
p style=3D"line-height:1.5em;margin:0px 0px 15px;padding:0px">
“At first one has to understand the nature licenses have under the gi=
ven conditions. Licenses are permissions, thus contracts, “granted by=
a party (‘licensor’) to another party (‘licensee’)=
as an element of an agreement between those parties”. It bases on th=
e precondition of excluding all other people by the “rightholder&rdqu=
o;. The power of exclusion given by law can be converted into a “perm=
ission for all” by way of tricky constructions combined with the obli=
gation to put derived works under the GPL as well (copyleft principle). Her=
ein is nothing communist. The logic of exclusion is partially reversed and =
therefore new spaces of commons oriented practices can be created. Better t=
han nothing. The license itself only protects these practices against propr=
ietary destructions. From my point of view this can not be more under the g=
iven conditions. The outer world is ruled by the logics of valuation and ex=
clusion, and every free zone to self-determine other practices has to be wr=
ested from these dominant logics. Embryonic forms, precisely.”</p>
<blockquote style=3D"border:1px dashed rgb(176,176,176);padding:10px;margin=
:30px"><p style=3D"line-height:1.5em;margin:0px;padding:0px"><strong>This f=
irst critique is rather weak. Indeed, I am not talking about the legal, con=
tractual basis of the GPL and similar licenses, but on the social logic tha=
t they enable, which is: it allows anybody to contribute, and it allows any=
body to use. This is both consistent with Marx’s defintion of communi=
sm, and with the definition I use, that of communal shareholding by Alan Pa=
ge Fiske. This logic of course only exists in the realm of abundant digital=
information, but it exists within the sphere of the political economy of c=
apital</strong>. To deny this on the grounds of legal technicalities seems =
to me a feeble argument.</p>
</blockquote><p style=3D"line-height:1.5em;margin:0px 0px 15px;padding:0px"=
>The second part of the thesis “…the more capitalistic the pra=
ctice” fails as well. There is no comparative of “capitalistic&=
rdquo;. If you replace “capitalistic” with “commodity-bas=
ed”, then is becomes even clearer: Something is a commodity or not. F=
ree software, for instance, isn’t a commodity. It can be appropriated=
and used by everyone, even by big corporations. However, they cannot trans=
form the free software into a commodity, since this is prevented by the GPL=
. But they can use the software in order to realize their business models i=
n another fields. This free use is a thorn in Bauwens side. He wants the co=
mmons to only be commercially used by those who have contributed beforehand=
.</p>
<blockquote style=3D"border:1px dashed rgb(176,176,176);padding:10px;margin=
:30px"><p style=3D"line-height:1.5em;margin:0px;padding:0px"><strong>This i=
s also very weak, since I am not saying and never said, that the GPL turns =
free sofrware into a commodity. But what I’m saying, and what nobody =
can deny, is that non-commodified free software is subsumed to the capitali=
st economy that uses it. There is a thriving commercial company of products=
and services which is using and is based on GPL-generated code, as there i=
s on open design. 75% of Linux developers are paid by commercial companies =
operating in the capitalist marketplace.</strong></p>
</blockquote><p style=3D"line-height:1.5em;margin:0px 0px 15px;padding:0px"=
>From my perspective the presentation of the GPL as “communist”=
is wrong, but this attribution has the function to propagate a milder lice=
nse variant which then is called “socialist”: the PPL (Peer-Pro=
duction-License). This license only grants external access to the resources=
to those who are using them non-commercially, while internally unlimited e=
xploitation is allowed. The divide intern/extern usually refers to a firm. =
If external parties want to use the resources commercially, then they have =
to pay a license fee or make other contributions.</p>
<blockquote style=3D"border:1px dashed rgb(176,176,176);padding:10px;margin=
:30px"><p style=3D"line-height:1.5em;margin:0px;padding:0px"><strong>The GP=
L effectively enables a social logic of unlimited use, including by multina=
tional companies. The peer production license resticts it. From my point of=
view this makes it a stronger and not a milder license. Let me point out t=
hat I do not take the PPL as perfect, but as a new kind of <strong>Com=
mons-Based Reciprocity Licenses</strong>, whose detailed modalities can ver=
y well differ from the original PPL. Such licenses fully allow commercial e=
xploitation, but ask for reciprocity. Think of a traditional indigenous com=
munity using a GPL of similar. This means any commercial entity can use the=
knowledge and commercialize it, without any benefit or profit-sharing with=
the creators of the knowledge. A CBRL would simply ask for reciprocity and=
would allow these traditional communities to generate autonomous living an=
d livelyhoods, something which is impossible with the GPL</strong>.</p>
</blockquote><p style=3D"line-height:1.5em;margin:0px 0px 15px;padding:0px"=
>Is only exchange reciprocal? In order to justify the PPL the argument of r=
eciprocity is claimed. The “communist” GPL is non-reciprocal, w=
hile the “socialist” PPL demands reciprocity. The word reciproc=
ity nicely blurs what is actually meant: exchange. In fact, the GPL breaks =
the logic of exchange, while the PPL requires and enforces it — namel=
y not only the exchange logic itself, but the societally valid form of equi=
valent exchange. Someone who wants to keep “the surplus value into th=
e commons sphere” has to act that way, whereby “commons sphere&=
rdquo; is a euphemism for an ordinary company.</p>
<blockquote style=3D"border:1px dashed rgb(176,176,176);padding:10px;margin=
:30px"><p style=3D"line-height:1.5em;margin:0px;padding:0px"><strong>This i=
s the first valid critique. Indeed, the PPL / CBRL would indeed limit the n=
on-reciprocity for for-profit entities, but no, Stefan is wrong, it does no=
t demand equivalent exchange, but only some form of negotiated reciprocity.=
The important aspect is to generate a flow of realized value, necessary fo=
r social reproduction, from the sphere of capital accumulation to the spher=
e of the commons. The second aspect is organizational. It promotes the self=
-organisation of an ethical economy, and makes those who want to join it, c=
onscious of that fact, including for-profit companies which can decide to a=
lly with the ethical enterpreneurial coalition</strong>.</p>
</blockquote><p style=3D"line-height:1.5em;margin:0px 0px 15px;padding:0px"=
>The notion of reciprocity is misused in an ideologically blurring way. Lic=
enses are never reciprocal, only people can behave that way. Thus, the ques=
tion can only be whether licenses encourage reciprocity between people or n=
ot, and if so, in what way. Then the evaluation of GPL and PPL looks comple=
tely different.The GPL creates and promotes direct reciprocity between peop=
le, because no exchange and also no compelled contribution stands between p=
eople.</p>
<blockquote style=3D"border:1px dashed rgb(176,176,176);padding:10px;margin=
:30px"><p style=3D"line-height:1.5em;margin:0px;padding:0px"><strong>This i=
s absolutely wrong, the GPL doesn’t demand nor create direct reciproc=
ity between people. It is entirely possible to use GPL material without any=
reciprocity, as the overwhelming majority of its users actually do. But th=
e GPL requires what anthropologist call ‘general reciprocity’, =
i.e. at the collective level, a minimum of contributions is needed to susta=
in the system. But there is absolutely no requirement for direct reciprocit=
y. The reciprocity is between the individual and the system as a whole. A c=
oder or wikipedia contributor cannot expect any return from any particular =
individual but only expects the benefits of the whole system, which depend =
only on a general flow of contributions.</strong></p>
</blockquote><p style=3D"line-height:1.5em;margin:0px 0px 15px;padding:0px"=
>By contrast, the PPL limits direct reciprocity by putting exchange or comp=
ulsory contributions between people if they want to use resources commercia=
lly. But what is commercial? It is the same discussion which has taken plac=
e around the NC module of the Creative Commons Licenses. There the insight =
is: The NC module undermines sharing, and the same applies to the PPL (alth=
ough trying to dissociate from the CC-NC).</p>
<blockquote style=3D"border:1px dashed rgb(176,176,176);padding:10px;margin=
:30px"><p style=3D"line-height:1.5em;margin:0px;padding:0px"><strong>The PP=
L only limits non-recicprocal use by for-profit companies. It does not proh=
ibit commercial exploitation but actually encourages it, while the Non-Comm=
ercial CC license actually prohibits it. The NC does not undermine sharing,=
but commercialisation. The PPL encourages and allows both sharing and comm=
ercialisation.</strong></p>
</blockquote><p style=3D"line-height:1.5em;margin:0px 0px 15px;padding:0px"=
>To sharpen the point: Both licenses support reciprocal behavior of people.=
With respect to GPL it is positive reciprocity, because in this case it on=
ly counts how people behave socially and which rules they agree upon in a s=
elf-determined way, in order to bring all participants together. Concerning=
the PPL it is negative reciprocity, since a portion of people are subjugat=
ed to the alien form of exchange of equivalents (money) and are excluded fr=
om 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>
<blockquote style=3D"border:1px dashed rgb(176,176,176);padding:10px;margin=
:30px"><p style=3D"line-height:1.5em;margin:0px;padding:0px"><strong>From t=
he above refutations follow that this conclusion is entirely erroneous. In =
fact, there is only self-determination of the contributory process in the G=
PL context, but full alienation to capital in the surrounding commercial sp=
here. By contrast the PPL not only allows full self-determination in the co=
ntributory sphere, but requires self-management in the cooperative sphere o=
f self-reproduction, something which is much more difficult with the GPL, s=
ince it subsumes livelyhoods to capital accumulation.</strong></p>
</blockquote><p style=3D"line-height:1.5em;margin:0px 0px 15px;padding:0px"=
>This is the end of my response to the first part of the critique by Stefan=
Meretz. The critique in no way refutes any of the premises for the need of=
the PPL or similar Commos-Based Reciprocity Licenses.</p>
</div><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><b>Please note an intrusi=
on wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no record of previous communica=
tion, proposals, etc ..</b></div><div><br></div>P2P Foundation: <a href=3D"=
http://p2pfoundation.net" target=3D"_blank">http://p2pfoundation.net</a>&nb=
sp; - <a href=3D"http://blog.p2pfoundation.net" target=3D"_blank">http://bl=
og.p2pfoundation.net</a> <br>
<br><a href=3D"http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-fou=
ndation" target=3D"_blank"></a>Updates: <a href=3D"http://twitter.com/mbauw=
ens" target=3D"_blank">http://twitter.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href=3D"http://w=
ww.facebook.com/mbauwens" target=3D"_blank">http://www.facebook.com/mbauwen=
s</a><br>
<br>#82 on the (En)Rich list: <a href=3D"http://enrichlist.org/the-complete=
-list/" target=3D"_blank">http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/</a> <br>=
</div>
</div></div>
--001a11c3ce32825ba604f4c49fe9--
More information about the P2P-Foundation
mailing list