Hi!

Great stuff! Thanks for sharing!

So just a point about what I am trying to learn from Creative Commons is
that:
- it is hard to make a global license because of all differences in
legislations, copyright is very standardized but it is still an issue,
networking is much less unified
- different people have different values, we can have different names
for different licenses (like what is situation in FOSS world), or we can
have one name with different variations (like Creative Commons)

Why I believe the second approach is better is because then we can
assure that despite differences the suite of those licenses are still
interoperable and do not forgo the main points. In the case of CC this
is attribution, the see this as a common value any license should
require. We might see something else in a similar light.

Ah. One more: I propose Network Commons name for all this and to get
commons.net domain name from the Creative Commons (they have it but are
not using it).

Roger, thank you for presenting my ideas in Berlin!

Mitar

Greetings comrades!

A pleasure to participate in a most excellent roundtable discussion moving

toward a network commons license this evening at c-base!

Here are the notes off the etherpad, for documentation and sharing with our

friends across the pond. I will also shortly start a thread for a round of

introductions :-)

-------

This pad is meant to just as an index. Discussions must be kept in

individual pads

(tmp) mailing list

http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/tmpcommonsnet

name

http://etherpad.guifi.net/L2-org-name

vision and mission

http://etherpad.guifi.net/L2-mission

initial pad THAT MUST BE REWORKED

http://etherpad.guifi.net/C4EU-orgs

=======================================================

rought notes of meeting at IS4CWN 2013

*) we continue the discussion via the tmp mailing list

pls send any update, no matter from where

*) international organisations

ISOC

RIRs (e.g. RIPE-NCC, )

*) international actions

lobbyingg

policy making

*) license

*) network map

to have a big picture

*) define what a CN is

=> which/who can be accepted at the L2org

FNF proposal: https://commons.thefnf.org/index.php/Free_network_definition

0. Freedom to participate and to make others participate

L2 access vs L3 access => access the network vs peering with the

network => joining th commons vs extending the commons

1. Freedom to communicate using the network for any purpose without

interception or interference - and free of charge

2, The freedom to modify and improve the network, including the ability to

access, author and distribute information about how the network functions.

? non-(private?)-profit with the network itself

not really sure if this must be at this level (could/should be placed

in the licence)

Fair profit [guifi] - can be legally enforced

Transit inside the network should be free

Guifinet: Difference between Network and content. Access to the

Internet is content

internally must be free. to get outside might be charged

Precaution that we maintain actual freedom - problem with Creative

COmmons is that much that is licensed under CC is not actually free

(non-commercial)

Additional concerns (very likely not to go to the def/license but as

recommendations)

The freedom to know the ecologial impact of the hardware?

The right to ask for the information about the hardware?

fairness as a restriction?

running free software?

distribured property (multistakeholder)

is not a request, but it is recommended

Cannot charge a fee to interconnect the commons.

Access to knowledge as a fundamental principle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access_to_knowledge_movement

Three themes here:

Free Network

Community Network - owned by the community

Profit / Non-profit

overlay net. vs physical net

we are talking about phy

what about mixed overlay+phy networks (e.g. fon)?

difference between the picopeer agr and our efforts

*)*) licence

FNF proposal

http://commons.thefnf.org/index.php/Network_Commons_License

creative-commons-like incremental license proposed by Mitar at Oakland (?)

suggestion: confront with statistics of CC in terms for flavours used

examples of additional clauses:

- free software only

- ecological footprint

- not for profit

- owned by the users?

Membership

???

=Action Items=

* Isaac: Take 'owned by its users' out of the preamble

* Annemarie will pass around suggestions for legal frameworks

* Isaac: compare the picopeer agr and our def

* roger: rewrites these notes and sends them to the ml

* christian: contacts a RIPE college

* jenny: send notes to the list

-------

Jenny

http://jennyryan.net

http://thepyre.org

http://thevirtualcampfire.org

http://technomadic.tumblr.com

`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`

"Technology is the campfire around which we tell our stories."

-Laurie Anderson

"Storytelling reveals meaning without committing the error of defining it."

-Hannah Arendt

"To define is to kill. To suggest is to create."

-Stéphane Mallarmé

~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`

_______________________________________________

Tmpcommonsnet mailing list

Tmpcommonsnet@lists.sudoroom.org

http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/tmpcommonsnet

--
http://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m