The Librery

2% for the commons  
 and their authors
QR code

Version 2.0

Julien Paris
FLOSS fullstack developer
co-founder of the tech cooperative multi

Illustration : XKCD n°2347

Navigation with the arrows / Plan pressing echap

The Librery - slides by J. Paris is under licence CC BY-SA 4.0

Summary

Prologue

The comments appearing here are those of the author alone.

These reflections and proposals are in no way fixed and represent more of a step in a process of collective reflection.

This communication exercise should be considered above all as a way of opening these ideas to criticism , with the aim of ultimately arriving at a base of concrete proposals that can be put forward by the broadest possible consortium of commons’ stakeholders.

All elements presented here are open to discussion and criticism, including on a notes pad open for writing and comments.

Summary of key proposals


“2% for commons”
on public digital projects


A fund managed independently
by commons stakeholders


A structure that can receive public or private financial contributions


A transparent, equal and non-profit redistribution organization

General economy

 

Distribution of collected funds

 

Internationalisation & decentralization

 

Funding free softwares as a common

 

See the book “Governing the commons” authored by Elinor Orstom

Arguments grid
for financial contributors

PUBLIC PRIVATE
CONTRIBUTION 2% of the amount
of digital projects 		Depending on the type and size of the business:
  • x % of annual recurring revenue
  • x % of management surplus / annual profits
  • x € yearly by developer
  • fixed sum annually
OPTIONS
  • One-off agreement
  • Multi-annual agreement
  • Agreements per project
  • (or) with an administration
  • One-off or multi-annual agreement
  • Donations
  • Pledge of donations
CONTRACTUALISATION
  • 45% of the donation: direction by the structure towards one or more common areas
  • 45% of the donation: direction by OGC towards one or more communities
  • 10% of the donation: OGC management fees
COUNTERPARTS
  • Critical commons maintenance insurance
  • Labeling
  • Team empowerment
  • Choice by structure to direct towards common areas
  • Choice by structure to specify certain remuneration mechanisms (distribution keys)
  • Tax exemption (if private structure)
FUNDS MANAGEMENT
  • Transparency of the OGC and participation in its governance
  • Automatic reporting on donation usage
  • Online management of contribution contracts
  • Automation of administrative procedures
  • Certificate for tax exemption (for private structures)

Problematic

 

Economically, industrially and democratically  
  a question of life and death…

No internet without digital commons

 

Could public services today do without all or part of the few free tools shown here (absolutely non-exhaustive list)?

These same tools are also themselves based on more or less low layers of a multitude of other open source tools (languages, libraries, databases, standards, etc.).

Some companies whose services rely on these open source building blocks are fully aware of this dependence on an extremely large and diverse eco-system.

Among these companies, some contribute and redistribute the value they generate, others quietly try to re-internalize these building blocks and the people who master them best .

The main issues

  • Sustain and improve existing commons
  • Helping the emergence of new digital commons
  • Develop the contribution to the commons as an economic activity of tis own
  • Strengthen advocacy for a society of the commons at a time when the risks of resource exhaustion are increasing
  • Anticipate and prevent the risks of loss of digital sovereignty
  • Specify the place of public authorities policies in supporting the commons

Main considerations

  • The sustainability of digital commons poses infrastructural and strategic, even democratic, challenges
  • Many digital commons are invisible because they are in more or less low layers of digital infrastructures
  • The economic models of digital commons assume - often - a logic of valorization of services around the commons , therefore assuming to be developed ex-post after significant investments in R&D, in time…
  • The economic balance of the commons can be based on very diversified sources of income : donations, subsidies, volunteering, patronage, etc.
  • Direct support from public actors can today be available in different forms: calls for projects, subsidies, public procurement, etc.
  • The general economy of digital commons and commoners is unique in the economic landscape and is also complex to evaluate

Some questions

  • How can we develop the digital commons economy as an essential or even desirable industrial sector ?
  • What if we considered “commoners” (contributors to digital commons) as authors , in the sense of copyright?
  • What are the examples in recent history that echo these issues?
  • What kind of structure should we invent to respond to these challenges?
  • If digital companies have understood the strategic and economic interest of the commons on which they have developed, what is the level of awareness of public authorities ?

Attention points

Be wary of business as usual…

 

Consolidate the digital commons economy  
  by directly remunerating the authors

Or just shot yourself in the foot

 

Without digital commons  
  our digital infrastructures will collapse

The commons, condition and driver of innovation

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

FLOSS complex business models

 

The risk of ecosystem exhaustion

 


See the presentation by Tobie Langel given during State Of Open Con 2024.

Security risk

The security risk narrowly avoided in 2024 on the XZ Utils library (source)

 

“A billion for open source”. See the presentation by Tobie Langel 2024.

 

The security risks (see the FOSSEPS report from the European Commission in 2022) of our digital infrastructures once again raise the question of the lack of resources allocated to the maintenance of open source projects.

Systemic risk

 
 

Examples found on the Github sponsors homepage

The economics of public services and digital commons

 


An engine running on reserve ?

Some central notions



Common guarantors of infrastructure and digital public services


The commons as an industrial sector


The commoner as an author


Pooling of funds and management

Why 2% of public procurement?

A simple slogan

Existing regulatory and legal frameworks

Acceptable amounts on public development budgets

A swarmable mechanism for scaling up

Raise awareness of sovereignty issues

Develop the role of the public actor in supporting the commons

Simple slogan and mecanism

The ambition is to reach certain orders of magnitude in terms of amounts collected, so that these are sufficient to irrigate and consolidate an industrial economy of the commons.

This ambition therefore requires addressing numerous interlocutors in the administration and in the private sector, each with different concerns, professions, priorities or action frameworks.

In order to be able to generalize the principle of collection and pooling for support of the commons, it is therefore necessary to offer all sponsors a mechanism that is simple to understand from the outset and simple to implement , whatever their administrative affiliation or their sector of activity.

Framing figures and orders of magnitude

Overview of major French State IT projects
September 2023, source data.gouv.fr
For a total of approximately 3,625 million euros

 

Management of major French State digital projects
2020, source Cour des Comptes
an average of 343.631 million euros/year between 2016 and 2018

 

Become aware of sovereignty issues

  • Free tools located in the lower and less visible layers of the various digital services set up by public authorities raise questions of criticality and risks (see the note from the Quai d’Orsay ): security, technical complexity, updates, maintainability…

  • The proper functioning of “ low level ” tools can be an undervalued dimension when calculating the risks of digital projects, projects which sometimes have an infrastructural dimension ( sovereign cloud , health data, army payroll software, etc.).

  • Sometimes critical “ low level ” tools can be maintained by individuals outside national borders, outside the sectoral authority of the sponsoring administrations, and yet prove essential to the proper functioning of the services implemented ( examples of cURLor openSSL , or that of core.js library).

Role of the State

The State as facilitator for commons

Before playing the role of actor or producer of commons, the State can take on as a priority the role of guarantor of the framework for the production of commons of general interest by civil society. This framework is above all legal and legislative (GDPR, RGAA, DMA, etc.) but the role of guarantor of this framework is also played through support and animation actions, as already proposed by public actors such as the ANCT , IGN or DINUM.

The State as industrial policies carrier

The State, but also all ancillary administrations (agencies) or decentralized (communities), can support the industrial economy and the jobs represented by private actors producing the commons, by perpetuating various direct financing methods including the “2% common”, in addition to other historical modes of support.

A sustainable financing mechanism

  • An alternative to one-off funding (grants, calls for projects, ad hoc funds , etc.)

  • Taking into account the orders of magnitude necessary to support a real economy of the commons

  • An ability to “ scale up ”: either by playing on the percentage, or by expanding to sectors other than digital

Implementation to be clarified

  • Is the existing regulatory framework sufficient ? Is there a legal risk of being accused of distortion of competition?

  • Which projects, in which partner administrations, with which allies, to experiment with now ?

  • What strategy is there to bring this principle before decision-makers in the administration?

Some additional ideas

  • Start with the public, expand to the private (or share the effort): would it be interesting (for political or economic reasons) to break down the “2%” into “ 2% = 1% public + 1% private ”? That is to say 1% of the public order upstream, and 1% of the turnover or invoices of private companies in project management?

  • Putting numbers against ideas : assessing the amounts of public money currently spent on digital projects to establish a sort of forecast budget

Digital commons are
collective or collaborative works

  • Digital is a cultural industry, just like publishing, cinema or music

  • Digital commons (software, databases) can be considered works of the mind

Commoners are authors

  • Contributors and/or initiators of digital commons can be considered as authors or co-authors (at least in France)

  • The notion of author is legally regulated in France: an author of free software retains economic rights over his work.

  • A free/digital common work is potentially a collective or collaborative work (hence the notion of co-author)

Contributing is a job

  • Contributing to software or a database is a high value-added activity

  • You can combine the fact of being an author and having a salaried activity

  • A free work can be developed by an employee within a company

    • The author remains the employee (a legal entity cannot be an author)
    • The company is the owner of the rights, provided that this is specified in a copyright assignment contract.
    • Special case of civil servants developing commons within the framework of their functions.

Managing free copyrights
requires a shared structure

  • Just as has been the case in the field of music or publishing, it is in practice impossible for an individual author to do himself :

    • monitoring all modes of exploitation of its works

    • defending its rights with broadcasters

  • New free works are initiated by individuals , sometimes as employees in companies but not always.

The digital commons economy is unique

"A software is free once it is paid"

  • A free work is - as a first approximation - not intended to directly receive operating income, one of the specificities of digital commons is their free use and distribution.

  • Financial flows linked to the production of a digital commons can only be found upstream of their publication

Use the law as leverage

A free license does not mean that the author no longer has rights, but:

  • what entity exists to defend these rights ?

  • Even if there were an entity to defend these rights, there are no clearly defined financial flows for their support, but on the contrary a jungle of different economic models

Learn from past experiences

  • It is necessary to defend and promote people/authors, offer them an income model, to encourage people to contribute to digital commons and above all to earn income from it (partially or totally)

  • There already exist and there have been experiments for changing the law (global license, universal income, etc.), but these proposals have not always been successful and/or are still not very operational.

  • Rather than seeking to add to the law and regulations, it is possible to rely on existing law, to draw inspiration from various historical examples such as the private copy royalties, the creation ofcollective rights management organisations such as the SACEM or the SACD, or even the concept of French “cultural exception”

The Librery

 

A sustainable financing mechanism
and a collective management organization (CMO)
by and for the authors of commons


Collect,
pooling,
and redistribution
of funds


A strong requirement for transparency, non-profit making and parity


Diversified forms of support for the commons and commoners


The possibility of a label

General economy

 
 
 

OGC missions

  • collect financial contributions from broadcasters
  • identify common areas and their authors
  • calculate what must be distributed (distribution keys)
  • redistribute in rights / declare to URSSAF (to make life easier for authors)
  • defend the cause and rights of authors of digital commons
  • promote the status of authorship of digital commons
  • introduce into the law clauses equivalent to those relating to the CNC / SACD / etc… (compulsory contribution regime?)

Financial contributions to support the economy of the commons

For the sake of pooling resources, the collective management organization must be able to receive different types of potentially “incoming” financial flows, public or private money:

Potential financial flows of public origin

  • Plea for the principle of 2% common in public procurement on digital projects (inspired by “ 2% for 2 degrees ”, from the Rousseau Institute; or “ 1% for art in France”)
  • Subsidy-type financial contributions from public institutions (IGN, ADEME, DINUM, etc.)
  • Intervention at European level to support digital commons, such as NGI, NLnet, or projects such as EDIC

Potential financial flows of private origin

  • Financial contributions (donation type) from certain private companies benefiting from/disseminating digital commons
  • Services such as code audits, sourcing , etc.
  • Advocacy for the principle of a mandatory minimum contribution obligation - or royalty - for industries whose activity is based on the extensive exploitation of strategic digital commons

Governance conditions

  • The commons falling both in the public sphere and in the private sphere, it is desirable that all parties can be represented within the OGC, however ensuring good representation of authors/individuals, given that the mission of the OGC is good at defending them

  • As a structure defending a sector (the commons) the OGC has more legitimacy as a private law structure, provided that the different stakeholders can be fairly represented

  • Include authors as well as publishers, funders and broadcasters of digital commons into the governance

Structural conditions

On the basis of the criticisms made of cultural OGCs (see Benhamou) we can list some necessary (but not sufficient) conditions to avoid certain shortcomings of historical OGCs identified by observers and the academic field:

  • Management fees not exceeding 5% to 10%
  • Monitoring and automation of author registration and remuneration
  • Capping of salaries of OGC managers
  • Representation of all authors (1 person == 1 vote)
  • Total transparency of governance and operation, particularly regarding the choice and implementation of distribution keys

Operating equilibrium
(assumptions)

Operating costs

With a full team (5 full-time people, see further in the “Reflections on governance” section) with salaries of €4,000 net/month, offices, and some additional services (accounting, subscriptions, services online…) :

as a first approximation the total operating and management cost would be around €550k/year.

Collect

If we maintain operating and management costs around 10%, this means that the OGC must be able to collect €5.5 million/year.

Starting from a base of “common 2%” on digital projects, this collection amount corresponds to a set of digital projects whose cumulative budgets would represent €275 million / year before contribution to the commons.

Redistribution

In summary, by applying the principle of “common 2%” on a set of digital projects to the tune of €275 million / year, the OGC would be able to redistribute: €5.5 million (collected) - 0.55 million € (management fees)

soit i.e. a redistribution of €4.95 million / year to digital commons.

The label as an incentive

  • The existence of a legitimate organization for all stakeholders in the digital commons would make it possible to imagine the creation of a “ common label ”, which the organization could issue to projects and structures.

  • The notion of “common labels” can be an interesting area to develop to encourage administrations and businesses to contribute up to 2% of their digital projects budgets.

  • The notion of label raises the questions of objective criteria allowing a digital common to be qualified as such.

  • The other counterpart of the notion of label would be to be able to identify and monitor economic valuation indices (financial, time allocated, savings, etc.) making it possible to better situate the contributions of digital commons within the industrial sector.

Logo ideas


Inspired from XKCD n°2347

 
 

Inspired from Baudot codex

 
 

Collect and redistribution

Distinguish
work, author,
broadcaster, and editor

A “two-sided market” type approach

The notion of apportionment contracts to integrate the particularities of the stakeholders

Main concepts

The parallels with other cultural industries are as follows:

  • Work (individual or collaborative): 1 free software (=== 1 song)
  • Author : 1 developer / designer (=== 1 artist)
  • Broadcaster : 1 entity/administration deploying free software (=== 1 radio station)
  • Editor : 1 private company developing a free product (=== 1 production house)

General mecanism

  • Authors : authors must register, and declare which free works they contribute to
  • Works : you need a catalog of works (free software, free databases) on which you can track contributions
  • Broadcasters : they must declare which works they broadcast, and they must contribute financially to a common fund (via agreements). This contribution can be imagined in different ways, cumulatively:
    • contributions
    • and/or flat-rate contribution
    • and/or flat-rate contribution per community
    • and/or indexation on a budget allocated to the development of common areas

Distribution of collected funds

 

A1/ Process from the commons broadcasters side

 

  • A broadcaster is considered to be a legal or physical entity ready to voluntarily pay a sum in order to remunerate the authors and co-authors of one or more publications.

  • A broadcaster signs a commons apportionment contract with the OGC, the OGC undertakes to redistribute the amounts voluntarily paid by the broadcaster.

  • The contract indicates an amount of voluntary contribution on one or more common areas, or even without a particular common area, all over a given period.

  • This contract may include redistribution clauses and rules

  • The contract is then broken down by amounts allocated per year and per common.

  • All contracts and their associated amounts are aggregated by common, this constitutes one fund per common (and per year)

A2/ The concept of apportionment contracts

Upstream - that is to say with respect to the financial contributors (process A/) - it would be possible to associate with each financial contribution apportionment contracts specifying the different uses of the sums, the conditions and rules of redistribution, as well as the shares allocated to specific common areas or on the contrary without precise marking.

We could imagine that each financial contribution could be associated with a contract specifying:

  • one or more shares marked on one or more common areas chosen by the contributor/broadcaster, due to their direct interest in delegating maintenance for the proper functioning of their own services.
  • a floor share without signage, with a view to redistribution chosen by the OGC to other “ low level ” or low visibility commons (share which could for example be donated to entities such as Thanks.dev or equivalent).

B/ Process from the authors’ side

 

  • An author registers with the OGC, specifying which works/communities he contributes to.

  • A contract for the transfer/management of copyright is established between the OGC and the author.

  • Its contributions to commons are calculated and recorded during the year, common by common

  • At the end of the year, his contributions make it possible to calculate the amount of remuneration allocated to him, common by common, according to the associated fund and the redistribution rules.

  • The OGC establishes its copyright declaration with the authorities and sends the proof of declaration to the author

  • Note : the process on the author’s side is the one that needs to be as fast and automated as possible in order to avoid any administrative burden and exponential management costs.

C/ Special case of digital commons editors

  • A commons editor employs one or more employees, considered to be the initial authors of the published commons

  • The editor is considered the manager of the copyright of its employees.

  • The editor allows the management of rights in his name by the OGC with the URSSAF

  • The editor registers its employees as authors on the OGC

  • The OGC calculates and declares the remunerations to the authors as in B/, with the particularity of declaring these sums to the authorities in the name of the editor also but sends the documents to the editor

Simplified full data model

See the markdown document on the repository.

Part 1/2

 

Part 2/2

 

Thoughts on the governance

A representation of all commons stakeholders

A structural majority for the authors

Human and technical resources for the implementation of missions

Strong transparency and non-profit requirements

Funding free softwares as a common

 

See the book “Governing the commons” by Elinor Orstom

General diagram

 

General principle diagram of The Librery (made withWhimsical)

From top to bottom :

  • The stakeholders :
    • Authors
    • Works (common)
    • Broadcasters
    • Editors
    • Sympathizers
  • The OGC team
  • The pool fund and its different uses
    • Rights management
    • Targeted aid
    • Programs / actions
    • Promotion of the commons
  • The available tools
    • Web portal (+ backoffice)
    • Third-party services

The stakeholders

 

The financial means: the fund

 

The human resources: the team

 

The technical means: tools

 

Internationalisation & decentralization

Being able to adapt to local legal specificities

Being able to share datasets (registers of authors or commons)

Have a decentralized information architecture

Why anticipating an international approach?

The constraints of the production of digital commons

  • Digital commons can be developed anywhere in the world.
  • The commoners contributing to the same common can themselves be based in different countries.
  • The financial contributors to the commons can also be based in different countries.
  • An OGC is necessarily legally based in a country, the legal status of an OGC can therefore be different from one country to another (foundation, trust, association, trust, etc.).
  • An OGC does not necessarily have the vocation - or the capacity - to deal with all of the commons at the global level, it is more realistic to envisage that an OGC has a precise territorial and/or sectoral anchoring.

It is therefore necessary that all CMOs throughout the world can share common registers to avoid duplication and legal inconsistencies: register of commons, register of commoners, amounts of financial contributions, allocation of sums towards the commons and the commoners…

Decentralized architecture

  • It would be possible - or even more realistic - to have several OGCs distributed throughout the world, and/or different OGCs “specialized” in certain verticals (industrial sector, programming language, etc.)

  • For such a system to operate on an international scale, the information infrastructure must be shared, while allowing each OGC to manage its own corpus.

  • Technically it would be possible to offer all OGCs a free digital management tool based on ActivityPods in order to be able to both decentralize data storage, while allowing each instance to manage its own datasets.

Principle diagram

 
 
 
 

Scenarios

A simple mechanism

Contractual approach

Different approaches depending on public or private actors

Arguments grid
for financial contributors

PUBLIC PRIVATE
CONTRIBUTION 2% of the amount
of digital projects 		Depending on the type and size of the business:
  • x % of annual recurring revenue
  • x % of management surplus / annual profits
  • x € yearly by developer
  • fixed sum annually
OPTIONS
  • One-off agreement
  • Multi-annual agreement
  • Agreements per project
  • (or) with an administration
  • One-off or multi-annual agreement
  • Donations
  • Pledge of donations
CONTRACTUALISATION
  • 45% of the donation: direction by the structure towards one or more common areas
  • 45% of the donation: direction by OGC towards one or more communities
  • 10% of the donation: OGC management fees
COUNTERPARTS
  • Critical commons maintenance insurance
  • Labeling
  • Team empowerment
  • Choice by structure to direct towards common areas
  • Choice by structure to specify certain remuneration mechanisms (distribution keys)
  • Tax exemption (if private structure)
FUNDS MANAGEMENT
  • Transparency of the OGC and participation in its governance
  • Automatic reporting on donation usage
  • Online management of contribution contracts
  • Automation of administrative procedures
  • Certificate for tax exemption (for private structures)

Inspirations

Focus on the Public Copy initiative

 

The Public Copy initiative consists of the description of a mechanism for allocating and then redistributing funds to open source projects, which a company can freely choose to implement provided that it respects its form and spirit. .

The system proposed by Public Copy is not a fund shared by several companies : each company choosing to adopt the Copie Publique mechanism contributes alone to its own fund, on the basis of an annual base that it chooses and makes public. A company can thus devote, for example, 1% of its turnover, or 3% of its net management surplus, or even a fixed amount per year. The only condition is that the rule is clear, transparent, and allows contributions to the fund on a recurring basis.

Different aspects of the Public Copy mechanism are interesting to highlight, in particular those relating to the process of selecting supported projects chosen by the company Code Lutin and the dynamics that this process generates:

The choice of supported projects is broken down into 2 phases in parallel, dividing the sum to be initially redistributed into two separate envelopes:

  • a collective phase, aimed at identifying and choosing a reduced number of projects through a “call for applications”: candidates send a description of the project for which they are requesting support, and also specify their needs. The collective chooses between 1 and 3, following the establishment of a jury.
  • a more individual phase, where each employee has the possibility of redistributing an envelope to one or more projects of their choice (from the call for applications or not). This phase makes it possible to support more projects of smaller sizes.

All the company’s employees are involved during the process of identification, evaluation, selection, and remuneration of the projects to be supported. Each person - individually or collectively - can thus actively contribute to supporting free third-party projects, a freedom that does not exist in any company.

Following the call for applications, one of the moments described as the most exciting is that of the meeting (face-to-face or video) with the candidates. This stage allows members of the company to discover individuals and original technologies, in a direct manner while retaining the human and social dimension of the projects.

A warm thank you to the members of Code Lutin with whom the author was able to exchange in Nantes, and who were able to describe their Public Copy initiative with precision and passion

Focus on the “post-open” licence

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The Post-Open license proposed by Bruce Perens consists of making it contractually obligatory for companies generating more than 5 million USD per year using and/or modifying the source code to: either revert the code under the same license (“POST-OPEN OPERATING AGREEMENT”), or establish a remuneration contract for people or entities responsible for maintaining or improving the source code (“POST-OPEN PAID CONTRACT”).

The screenshots in this slide are extracted from this Bruce Perens’ video. Another video from 2024 gives additionnal updates.

A warm thank you to Bruce Perens with whom the author was able to exchange extensively on the topic

Extract of the article 3.2 (PAID CONDITIONS) of the post-open licence draft

  1. The end-user revenue through all legal entities in which YOU have ownership exceeding 5% or equivalent control without ownership exceeds USD$5 Million anually. End-user revenue is all money or other value collected from customers, including the financial value equivalent of any non-monetary remuneration such as barter or the grant of rights or privileges.

  2. You provide, for remuneration, any work in the POST-OPEN COLLECTION to others, other than PERSONAL USE, or perform that provision at the order of another legal entity that receives remuneration for it. This includes (but is not limited to) provision of the work as a service; or inclusion of the work in a product that is sold, for example software that is sold or sale of a device containing the WORK.

  1. You make MODIFICATIONS to any WORK in the POST-OPEN COLLECTION without performing one of these actions (you may perform both):

    1. You enter into the POST-OPEN OPERATING AGREEMENT and make a PUBLIC RELEASE of the MODIFICATION.

    2. You enter into the POST-OPEN PAID CONTRACT.

How can we continue
this reflection?

Share and debate these ideas with commons stakeholders

Contribute on the pad open in writing and comments

Identify experiments in pooling financial resources to support the commons

Map the actors / broadcasters / producers / products

Identify, classify and prioritize a shortlist of strategic commons for the State or communities

Collect testimonials and new ideas from digital commons producers

Bring together these ideas, documentation, testimonials on an online website

Ressources and documentation

Some bibliographical elements, classified by media and major themes, in addition to general notes relating to reflections around The Librery.

Channel on Matrix for chatting

Documentation website of The Librery

Bibliographies (Zotero)

Note pad open for writing and comments

Videos / conferences (playlist Youtube)

Source files on Gitlab

Other notable online resources

Press review

Matrix channel for the press review & survey

2024

2023

2022

Credits

Presentation realized with :

Thanks

The comments published in this presentation are those of the author alone.

However, the author would like to send a big thanks to all the people who contribute to enriching this reflection and supporting the movement for a society of the commons.

Proofreadings or comments


Luis Roman Arciniega Gil

Vincent Bachelet

Alex Bourreau

Jeanne Bretécher

Brendan Brieg Le Ny

Sébastien Broca

Olivier Charbonneau

Benoît De Haas

Maïa Dereva

Ludovic Dubost

Margot Godefroi

Marguerite Grandjean

Bastien Guerry

Serkan Holat

Alain Imbaud

Nicolas Jullien

Laure Kassem

Arnaud Levy

Tibor Katelbach

Nicolas Loubet

Thomas Menant

Alex Morel

Bruce Perens

Benjamin Poussin

Pierre-Louis Rolle

Caroline Span

Informal discussions


Jaime Arredondo

Vincent Bergeot

Alexandre Bigot-Verdier

Mathilde Bras

Dorie Bruyas

Héloïse Calvier

Valentin Chaput

Bertrand Denoncin

Virgile Deville

Angie Gaudion

Rémy Gerbet

Maxime Guedj

Jan Krewer

Benjamin Jean

Tobie Langel

Claire-Marie Meriaux

Aude Nanquette

Samuel Paccoud

Gabriel Plassat

Benoît Ribon

Johan Richer

Simon Sarazin

Sébastien Shulz

Xavier von Aarburg

A last word…


 


Utopia reduces when cooking
which is why
you need a lot from the start


Quote from Gébé, “L’an 01”

Versions des contenus

Archives (v.1.4 - v.1.7)

Archives (v.1.0 - v.1.3)

Thanks for your attention !

https://julien_p.gitlab.io/the-librery-slides/presentation-en.html

 

XKCD n°2347

  julien.parismulti.coop

channel Matrix for chatting