petros

Thanks for the hint.

As for licencing schemes, I know PPL almost since the moment it was publicly announced. I was also considering NC clause in CC licence. I cannot speak for my co-op peeps, but my way of thinking you may find below:

1. I am generally against the idea of "intellectual property" as it is now used in capitalist economy and ideology. Apart from the reputation aspect (attribution), to me it is an artificially expanded bullshit that is only invented to extend control over immaterial creation. That is why, even if I refer to licensing laws, I publish it under the section "For those who obey law…".

2. I am in no position to monitor and enforce restrictions against commercial use of my works. Even more, boundaries there are pretty much blurred and there are many cases that I, personally, would see differently depending on a particular situation. Say, giving a printed version of my work for free to participants of an event -- depending on whether the event participation was free, freemium or highly paid. All that means that the NC restriction would be futile, thus showing its weakness. And PPL inherits that, adding its own ambiguities and overregulation. But the main problem is, IMO, that NC licences make a statement: if you want to make money on my work, pay me royalties. And that is reinforcing and perpetuation of the "intellectual property" paradigm, which I reject. Not that I'd expect to become filthy rich that way.

3. So, instead of making a paper tiger, I chose to go another way. Share-Alike clause is much easier to enforce. It can be monitored by anyone who cares enough to check the attribution and compare it with the derivative work licence. Then the request to change the licence can be made retroactively. Also, the virality of SA clause makes me happier. I do not care if someone makes money by producing and audiobook with my essays, as long as I can take this audio and spread it around for free. This way whatever the audio producer "exploited" out of me, they return to the community, using open licence themselves. So, my priority is to encourage penetration of open licences throughout the economy, rather than limit them to my/our political bubble. If it works for Arduino and Wikipedia, I do not see why it would not work for me.

Absolutely!

• NetCommons: https://kanenasblog.wordpress.com/2017/11/27/between-the-kill-switch-and-facebook-zero/
• Platform Cooperatives: https://czytanki.tepewu.pl/calibre/book/4
• Economic self-organisation: https://czytanki.tepewu.pl/calibre/book/6

What is your opinion abut usability in the context I gave? From some other source I got this:

Zap and Osada do one thing (social networking) and do it well. Use Osada if you want a really good ActivityPub server, and use Zap if you want or need nomadic identity and much stronger privacy than the fediverse can offer. Use Hubzilla if you actually know what a ‘platform’ is and want to build something great (decentralised communities and cities with shoppes and businesses that all respect your freedom) rather than than just waste your life in idle chit-chat.

What says you?

Shall we compare notes? I believe the sociopolitical aspect is primary, as long as there is interoperability on technical level. My interest in ZOT family comes from the fact that they are largely ignored in Fediverse discourse and I would like to know why.