Commons Management Agreement

I notice Kleiner says here that the CopyFarLeft license isn't intended for software, but rather for "cultural works":

https://youtu.be/hIO94WTDsbM?t=5142

Presumably therefore he'd include similar ones like PPL and CopyFair.

I notice Kleiner says here that the CopyFarLeft license isn't intended for software, but rather for "cultural works":

OK, and these can be a different kettle of fish, although in the case of large collaborative projects like Wikipedia, the dynamics are actually very similar. If a company started publishing print copies of Wikipedia, the CC-BY-SA and GNU FDL would legally oblige them to share any copy-editing improvements they made in the process. Plus,
they would have a strong motive to help the Wikipedia commons keep going and improve, so they can keep publishing it. I think widespread use of the Creator Endorsed Mark (https://questioncopyright.org/creator_endorsed_mark) with share-a-like CC licenses would accomplish as much as PPL or CFLL for cultural works, if not more, without creating all the unintended consequences of overly restrictive licensing.

I agree with @michelbauwens1 that products that can't be costlessly copied, and require capital to replicate, are a different story. I would be interested in Stallman's views on applying a PPL or CFLL to free hardware designs:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.en.html

Here's the link to the Marjorie Kelly article on the P2PF wiki.
https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Marjorie_Kelly

The word and concept of ‘entredoneurialism’ really needs to be widely shared :-)

How to run an entredonneurial (one n or two?) business within a capitalist structure. That's the one I'm trying to figure out.

Wood spells it both ways. In http://www.ub.edu/5ead/PDF/8/Wood.pdf it has one 'n', but most places it has two. See Entredonneur in the P2PF wiki which lists some of the sources.

Regarding entredonneurial with any number of *n*s - I’ll get linguistic for a moment . . .

Words of this kind, with a pronounced latinate/French/polysyllabic nature, have a deep resonance in English English - perhaps diluted in US English. People who have been taught to write ‘plain English’ recognise that this kind of vocabulary entered the language via the practices of the Norman ruling class at the 11th century Conquest: the court, the law, the church: which of course included the very widespread enclosure of Commons to create ‘free’ assets for the ruling elite. Today this still gives such words a resonance of ‘them and us’, upper-classness, elites, legalistic process and being under rule.

In contrast, words of Germanic/Nordic origin (ie the Ango-Saxon peasant underclass) have a plainer, more practical, more direct ring about them, referring often to actual making and labouring; typically, they have fewer syllables, the vowels have a different feel in the mouth, the rhythm is more compact , the consonants do a different kind of work. Thus entrepreneurial isn’t a good word for commoners to employ, and playing games with it like entredonneurial doesn’t make things any better, it simply adds another layer of ‘clever clever’ legalese or preacherly resonance.

The words extractive and generative work much better - although as it happens these have Latin roots too. The roots - extract, generate - are obvious and simple (which makes the words seem more transparent) and verbs referring to actual productive labour (which gives the words more force) and a little emotive (which is an advantage). Is there anything 'entredonneurial' can do, that can’t be done well by 'extractive/generative'?

Related terms are enterprise and trade. Enterprise is from Old French too, but close to the world of actual working and making: ‘a project or undertaking, typically one that is difficult or requires effort’. Trade is from from Middle Low German. Early senses included ‘course, way of life’, which gave rise in the C16 to ‘habitual practice of an occupation’, ‘skilled handicraft’. Thus this word too carries a deep resonance with the hands-on, skilful doing of work. Both words were polluted from C18 as ‘free trade’ and ‘free enterprise’ and neo-liberalism has worked hard to boost these intrinsically anti-commoning usages. But the older resonances are still real and available in ordinary (English and US) English. There is sufficient common (!!) ground here to enable shared language - and shared practical commitment - between anticapitalist direct-labouring commoners and good-hearted people wedded to enterprise in a more conventional, perhaps corporate but historically deep sense (like Marjorie Kelly of The Democracy Collaborative).

This isn’t just wordplay (Germanic) and hair-splitting (Germanic). Poetic resonance in language lies deep in the mouth, ear, heart. Using the language of the extractive, enclosing enemy - even if it was laid down by their ancestor elites ten centuries ago - isn’t as helpful, I suggest, as self-consciously using a language of direct, hands-on handling of the material of society: extractive acts/corporations/processes, generative ditto.

None of this makes the legal business of licensing any easier. There are many cases to cover, it is and will remain a pluriverse, capital does get into every vein. But careful naming helps make good historic alliances?

That’s what CultureBanking sets out to do Simon! When, as has now happened here, a common threat is felt (redevelopment in this case) an opportunity presents itself to use peer production to create a common ‘asset base’ from which to grow common resources. I hope the project will be, at least, illustrative of some of the practical challenges and at best, a workable model ( expect something in between probably). Guessing one ‘n’ :-)

I am obviously very interested in this whole commons thing, otherwise I would not be here, but I still get bored by the over analysis that sometimes takes place. My concern is how to run a business that caters to the traditional demands of the client, price, quality, service etc. & is able to 'compete' within the market economy, but which is nonetheless entredonneurial in nature. Does the client need to know, or even care?. Probably not. The goal is to subtly move from one paradigm to another, but without having to bang a drum about it. I suspect it may be counter productive to be evangelical or sanctimonious about it.

@simoncarter

The goal is to subtly move from one paradigm to another, but without having to bang a drum about it

I'm not so sure about this. I choose to buy organic over industrial food, where I can, because of decades of people banging the organic drum. That includes organic shops a well as environmentalists and hippies. Some people might say it puts them off, but I suspect they just don't want to pay the trust cost of the ethical version, and they're in search of a rationalization for that.