thanks for the comments but the CBRL would not reduce the 75% nothing .. all use that contributes is fine, and the minority that doesn’t would pay a license fee, something they are used to in all other sectors anyway .. the point of the CBRL is not really to extract the maximum amount of license fees, but to introduce the reciprocity model in the economy that uses the commons as its bases.

Re your remark about the NC, maybe you are right, and that’s why the CBRL does not do it, it encourages commercialization, but transforms it into a ethical economy.

Not sure what the meaning is of your remark about socialist critiques, are you a socialist ? In any case, peer to peer favors self-management.

Your conclusion may be right, and that is exactly why we need something else, which is not focused on code, but on transformative social change. Free code is not enough.

“The GPL effectively enables a social logic of unlimited use, including by multinational companies. The peer production license resticts it. From my point of view this makes it a stronger and not a milder license.”

Reducing the value of Linux to other actors by 75% would not make it “stronger” for them.

“The NC does not undermine sharing, but commercialisation.”

It undermines sharing by preventing people from being able to produce work to share.

“By contrast the PPL not only allows full self-determination in the contributory sphere, but requires self-management in the cooperative sphere of self-reproduction, something which is much more difficult with the GPL, since it subsumes livelyhoods to capital accumulation.”

I seem to recall socialist critiques of self management…

The PPL imposes a particular economic model. The GPL privileges the liberty to use the code over any other consideration. It is overreach to accuse the GPL of subsuming livelihoods to capital, the GPL ironises capital’s attempts at this in order to return value to society. The PPL is more of a sulk.