Peer Production Licence : une licence conçue pour les biens communs ? Dans une chronique précédente, j’avais pris parti dans le débat à propos de la clause Non-Commerciale des Creative Commons, dont certains réclament la suppression à l’occasion du passage à la version 4.0 des licences. Je défendais l’idée que cette clause doit être maintenue, dans l’intérêt même de la Culture libre, notamment parce que la notion de Non Commercial est importante pour espérer parvenir un jour à une légalisation des échanges non marchands, seule solution pour mettre fin à la guerre au partage qui sévit actuellement. L’un des arguments les plus forts avancés par les détracteurs de la clause NC consiste à dire qu’elle est incompatible avec la notion de biens communs, alors que celle-ci figure pourtant dans le nom-même des Creative "Commons". C’est ce qu’avance notamment Rufus Pollock, co-fondateur de l’Open Knowledge Foundation, dans ce billet : C’est un point crucial [...] Les Creative Commons ne permettent tout simplement pas la constitution de biens communs.
Sharing. C. Peer Production License. The peer production license is an example of the Copyfarleft type of license, in which only other commoners, cooperatives and nonprofits can share and re-use the material, but not commercial entities intent on making profit through the commons without explicit reciprocity This version of the Peer Production License: a model for Copyfarleft was copied from the text "The Telekommunist Manifesto". Created by John Magyar, B.A., J.D. and Dmytri Kleiner, the following Peer Production License, a model for a Copyfarleft license, has been derived from the Creative Commons ‘Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike’ license available at a. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. Nothing in this License is intended to reduce, limit, or restrict any uses free from copyright or rights arising from limitations or exceptions that are provided for in connection with the copyright protection under copyright law or other applicable laws. a.
B. C. I. D. E. F. I. Ii. G. Tiberius Brastaviceanu: A Pragmatic Critique of the Peer Production License. Republished from Tiberius Brastaviceanu: Why I still don’t believe in the p2p license A license for a technology is a limitation of use of that technology. A newly created technology is not a scare city by nature, because it is something that lives in the realm of knowledge, which has very low distribution costs. It is only scarce in terms to the number of individuals who can understand it and to put it into practice. A license creates artificial scarcity, it is in some way going against the nature of the thing. So why do we have licenses and patents then? The reason for their existence is actually economical.
But we must note that patents have an expiry date. In today’s world, the costs of innovation has dropped dramatically, because more and more people are able to exchange ideas online and use computer programs for design and simulation. Since the cost of innovation has dropped, limiting access to a technology makes less sense. One might argue that this doesn’t apply in all areas. Open letter to Michel Bauwens after Ouishare. Dear Michel, it was a pleasure meeting you at Ouishare fest, a fun gathering of various actors in the so-called Collaborative Consumption/ “sharing” /“New Economy” movement. Sharing, it seems, is growing: the revenue flowing through the share economy directly into people’s wallets will surpass $3.5 billion this year, with growth exceeding 25%. Airbnb alone has housed over 4 million individuals since 2008, 2.5 million of which took place in in 2012 alone [Ref]. As pointed out in this presentation by Loic Lemur, there are many reasons for the sudden surge of interest incuding the ongoing economic crisis.
Technosocial changes bring about new landscapes of opportunities and pitfalls. You pointed out that it is not whether the entitiy is run for profit or for benefit, or whether it is managed in a centralised or decentralised manner per se that positions it as contributing to the common good, or not. Am I missing something important here? Thanks again, Nadia Photo credit: Gayane Adourian. Can the Commons compete with the for-profit economy? How can the commons economy can overcome its polar opposite, the accumulative capitalist economy? Paradoxally, by creating a bridge between the two, Michel Bauwens explains in a discussion that emerged after OuiShare Fest.
A few weeks ago, Nadia El Imam from Edgeryders addressed an open letter to me that was a response to the closing keynote at the OuiShareFest in May 2013, where I presented a four-quadrant interpretation of the emerging collaborative economy, with four different value-laden models vying for supremacy but also already co-existing in the present. Nadia’s editorial open letter contains a number of open questions, which I will try to answer paragraph by paragraph, while asking understanding for the delay, due to a very intense 14-week lecture tour, which made this kind of concentration a bit more difficult to achieve.
To begin with, Nadia writes: Dear Nadia, in exposing the four models, I distinguish two broad social-economic models. Creating a enclosured sphere of Commons.