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
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(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/tmpcommonsnet
_______________________________________________
Tmpcommonsnet mailing list
Tmpcommonsnet(a)lists.sudoroom.org