This is incorrect. It is only the BY-NC, BY-NC-ND, and BY-NC-SA licenses that prevent others from *directly* profiting and making a livelihood from their creative work. BY-SA is essentially a copyleft license, although one that fetishises the idea of “sharing”. It allows any recipient of the work to directly profit from it and make a livelihood.

“The problem with Copyleft is that it effectively won’t stop any large, exploitative corporations or even regimes from appropriating and profiting from creative work originally produced within the Commons and dominating the open source economies which are built on the free labour of volunteers”

Copyleft means that the creative work of already dominating corporations and regimes will be returned to the commons. And that they cannot enclose it. This is a good thing, and removing this ability would be counter-productive.

“So, how do we keep this type of work within the Commons, while adding value and sustainability to those contributing to it?”

BY-SA and a good business model (with apologies to anyone for whom that’s a trigger word).

“If a content curator is running valuable material while obtaining income from, say, advertising or having an Amazon store on their webpage; and if this person decides to run our translations and, thus, have them improve his or her chances of earning an income, we feel that this would be an advantageous situation for us, too.”

Yes, exploitative economic activity can add value through the licenses. This principle is a general one.

“Our understanding of PPL is that it fosters trust among peers.”

By alienating workers from the products of their labour or by denying them the ability to redistribute corporate and state resources?

It fosters mistrust through discrimination.

“These and other licenses are not the ultimate answer to the many contradictions and problems that have arisen (and are sure to arise) within the Commons”

Absolutely. They can however be the wrong answer.

How do you define a “worker-owned cooperative” for the purposes of this license? In some cases this may be obvious, but in others not so much. Specifically, is it for the organization itself to decide that it’s worker-owned or is it for their local government’s definition of private versus cooperative business?

If a husband and wife work together, maybe with their adult kids, but no non-family members, the company that they run is probably considered either a privately owned business or just a sole proprietorship. (Maybe just the wife’s name is on the legal papers.) In reality, though, all the workers (ie, family members) may be co-decision makers and co-investors in the business.

I’m not trying to tear the license down. I LOVE the idea of it. I’m just trying to poke holes now so we can make it better.