The license idea is in my opinion the best one we have heard for the direction of the group and of the coworking movement. It reflects the initial values of coworking of: community, openness, collaboration, accessibility and sustainability. It does not undermine the progress we have all made in the coworking world while still being a firm designation and statement of the work that we have all contributed. It allows discussion to progress in the same way that it has now without routing that discussion through different channels, a governing organization or gatekeepers. It does not shut down the discussion of the next steps for coworking as a global movement but puts down one step in a direction that we can all agree on.
The license, in my interpretation is closer to the GNU public software license that Alex could be referencing than the CC license that others have mentioned. Let me say that I am intrigued by the CC license and think it is also good but let's go back to origins of the GNU public license: the commons wanted to protect things that were in the commons because they were created by the commons so that people who were privately motivated couldn't put a small twist on an idea and then commercialize all of that work as their own to turn a profit. It seems to me that the core values of community, openness, collaboration, accessibility and sustainability are something that we, the coworking community, "the commons" want people to practice if they are going to use the name coworking. A visible, transparent statement (license) that is self-enforced by the community would put a public face on where we are as a community and an idea at this point. This license also seems to avoid the stumbling block for most of the discussion which is centering on "next steps." One on hand we're not done with the discussion about next steps. On another hand it's great that we're even talking about "next" steps because it means we're in a new phase of the coworking movement, one in which we're discussing new things beyond how to open and maintain a coworking space, something that is pretty well worked out by now. Because there are so many discussions to be had about the direction, strong decisions in any one way will close, not open further discussion, it seems that we should progress how we began by solidifying the origins of the coworking movement as a way to allow for further discussion until another issue like this comes up. It's like in the Foundation Trilogy: An empire was formed by key decisions being made when they had to be, other than that things ran as they should. Creating a license could be the way to solidify the second step of coworking and let everything else progress as it should. Matthew Caroline Collective On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 12:24 AM, Alex Hillman <[email protected]>wrote: > I'm still going to close up the brainstorm (since we've had at least a > couple of good ideas) at 5pm EST today for the funds redistribution, and > will re-post the ideas that I got. If you've got something specifically > related to how funds are collected, and how the funders are rewarded, *today's > the day*. > > But the real reason for this post: > I was doing some digging into my own personal archives, and found an 22 > month old post of mine, from back when this list was a mere 1000 people. Ha. > > http://dangerouslyawesome.com/2008/06/its-about-giving-back-this-time/ > > Please read it before continuing this post. If you're not going to read the > whole thing, I'd ask that you consider these excerpts: > > When I describe the beauty of the coworking movement to someone, it goes > something like this: > > Coworking isn’t really a franchise, but it’s sort of an open source > franchise. I say that in the capacity that there is no monetary buy in to > participate in the community, and yet, you’ve got the experiences (successes > and failures) of everyone before you to work with. We’ve got a wickedly > strong toolbox, and you can have it. At this stage in the game, with all of > the press, you’ve got a very strong brand and high rate of press visiblity > to work with. You can use whatever you want. It’s here *for you*. All we > ask is that as you grow, learn, and achieve, *you remember where you > started and keep us posted*. This isn’t just for us, cuz we’re going to do > it too. It’s for the generations to come, as the movement grows, morphs, and > evolves. > > So if it seems a little absurd that I’m freaking out about people branding > themselves as “coworking” and not contributing to the list (or any visible > forum), you see what I’m getting at? > > --------------------------------------------- > > In the case of coworking that I’m trying to illustrate, it’s about > representation. > > I’m not asking for a financial buy in to use the brand “coworking” (if > anybody should, it’d be Brad Neuberg, but even he doesn’t want that from > you). The fact that Brad has only ever asked that his name be attributed as > the origin of the word as related to this movement is key, and I understand > his reasoning completely: the success of the movement that contributed > groundwork to is a crucial part of his C.V., and when he gets around to his > next big idea, it’s important that his attribution in the coworking history > books is present. > > Attribution. Linkbacks. A track record for, and of, sharing. This is all > really, really important or else the whole thing risks toppling in on > itself. > > ------------------------- > > *What would a coworking license look like?* I’m not totally sure yet. I > know I’m not interested in restriction, since that would be entirely counter > to the principles of the movement. I’m just looking at little things to > help *enforce reciprocity*. > > Am I interested in policing such a thing? Of course not. > > But if there’s something on paper, misunderstandings can be dealt with. > -------------------------- > > And really, all I want is to help give back even a little piece of what > I’ve gotten from this community. As the movement grows, those expectations > need to be set forth clearly. > > -------------------------- > > And since that’s *what we want* with coworking (more people to experiment > on the model and link back to their inspirations, as well as provide new > inspirations), I think that could be helpful. > > I know not everyone thinks about giving back, and if you require people to, > you’ll always be disappointed. That’s the unfortunate reality. I accept > that. > > I think we’re lucky to be part of a community where the leeching is still > the less-common situation. But as the movement grows more and more, the > opportunities for exploit increase. > > -------------------------- > > I didn't push the idea at the time, but was more watching patterns and > getting frustrated. Some of those patterns have evolved, and brought us to > where we are today. > > <http://dangerouslyawesome.com/2008/06/its-about-giving-back-this-time/> > I'd like to offer the idea that's more lightweight than the organizations > that have been proposed. The thing we've really been talking about is > ironing out the expectations associated with coworking, and largely, tying > them back to core values somehow. The problems with organizations are many, > and something I'm not interested in debating here. What I'm curious, > legitimately curious because I don't have enough knowledge to back up > successful or failed models, is the idea of using something like a license > to unify us and set expectations. > > Not like a drivers license, but like a software license. One that > encourages sharing, reciprocity, building market value, and ultimately, more > knowledge capital along with the word "coworking" and its associated ideas. > > The downsides to this, of course, are that software licenses themselves > have a bit of a holy war background to them, and that they're complicated to > understand. Such is legal. > > The upside is, it addresses some unity and usage with the word coworking, > which we all value enough to have spent the last 3 weeks discussing a domain > and its implications on the list. > > I don't know if this idea has legs, and love to open up the floor for > founded discussion. > > /ah > indyhall.org > coworking in philadelphia > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Coworking" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<coworking%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/coworking?hl=en. > -- Matthew Wettergreen, Ph.D Caroline Collective Co-Founder // Co-Director 4820 Caroline st // Houston // TX // 77004 http://carolinecollective.cc Rice University Engineering and Design for Art and Artifact Conservation (EDAAC) Program Director http://edaac.rice.edu e: [email protected] w: http://matthewwettergreen.com c: 713.825.4613 t: @organprinter -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Coworking" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/coworking?hl=en.
