See making of
- 1 Shareful love
- 2 Shareful will
- 3 Shareful wow
- 4 Shareful morphosintaxis
- 5 Shareful and law
- 6 Shareful wow is lovelier than law
- 7 Sharic
- 7.1 Sharic legend
- 7.2 See also
- 7.3 Shareful nature
- 7.4 Shareful in the market
- 7.5 Shareful will
- 7.6 Shareful vs Others
- 7.7 Gift
- 7.8 Shareful love, defaults, cores, clauses and specifications
- 7.9 The default form
- 7.10 Terms vs conventional law
- objects being used and cared
- allow and expose use restrictions
- not perturbing future relation
Shareful plays with:
- objects being more active
- scalable permissions and non-binding wishes attached
- enriching people avoiding price
- what people feel and view with the "lovely sharing" default code
- inviting to share with shareful invitation defaults
- providing a sharing grammar (SAPI) with custom clauses scripting bundles for priceless borrowing
This default invitation is letting being, trust and relating flowing because:
- is short and lovely loaded
- can be understood and debated easily by anyone barely knowing any english
- makes hipothetic settling interaction pleasant enough
Defaults, clauses and wills
Here in this wiki you'll find a set of limitations (shareful clauses --> SAPI), but anyone can add their own custom clauses in whichever application. Some platform could not feed or blacklist another so-called shareful platform, or at some platforms your inviting might be labelled as "for sharing" only (not shareful) if you choose to make a custom shareful core (customize a default shareful inviting by overwriting any of the default SIs offered there).
Shareful clauses are harming the shareful love but might make more comfortable most of the people in many contextual situations. Some shareful acts will start heavily claused and after gaining more trust, they will be dropping some or all clauses later for that or for another thing.
- Shareful form, ideal base for implementing the SAPI.
- Love and limits sources, the more extended mindmap version maybe.
It focuses in simetric relationing between types of clauses ("limits" on the right side) with its implicit opposite positive ones ("shareful default love" in the left) if the clause is not selected.
- Love and limits (resumed), useful for a web presentation
Shareful clauses are coded with the -y suffix added to an adjective (shareful is primarily a noun) that is:
- Unique (is not a formal word)
- Recognizable (related to the popular view on that restriction)
- Insultive connotation(for promoting a discouraging influence for restricting and for encouraging selfcriticism when doing so).
Clauses can also be expressed with graphics, signs, audio and else formats (in the way).
Furthermore than normative narrative, additional shareful invitation specifications can be added to a SI.
- Wills, wishes, projections attached (useful for networking offeror with more related receiven)
- Future happenings that could surely condition it (i.e. shareful conditionals)
- Use ease and safety instructions
The settling clauses are useful for
- settling mediation
- not needing adding other type of use restricting clauses
- generating quality relational information between offerors
The default settling is
- "caring cheers" in the invitation
- "tell contact and bring it back" in the web form
- "as found or improved" in the support text
The extended default clausing for settling is
- "the one who more lovely offers in the future".
- "..., less things have at the present",
- "the one having been less user of the more similar things in the past",
Shareful.be is one of the posible shareful platforms, it is very free because:
- very free easy to copy (i.e. shareful backup, shareful mirror, translate, improve, redistribute, etc.)
- lovely referral (i.e. the more shareful crowded place in the world, for lighting the communication of the invitation, etc.)
- offering additional help (i.e. documenting non-binding cases for contextual and subjective mediating with the offers, etc)
be.shareful.be form is made with
- the less code possible
- the more expressive featuring
- more varied forms
Shareful, morphositactickly speaking, is:
- defaultly a noun (for adding adjectives representing clauses i.e. Timy shareful)
- useful as a verb (i want to shareful my time)
- an adjective (i.e. Shareful time)
-Shareful is a word that don't exist in english, regardless of shareable, useable and useful.
Shareful is ever barely used by english native speakers, unless it is a quite logical and lovely construction (usable --> useful, shareable --> ...). Majority of people with a little knowledge of the english language sometimes get to feel shareful before than a native english speaker.
Shareful translations should be adapted to the local way of coding the act of lovely sharing. I.e. "compartiva" is one way to translate shareful into spanish, portuguese, italian, catalan and galego. Any spanish speker can either invite to it as if it is "compartiva" or it is "shareful". Both should work the same way, it is up to the invitor.
Shareful is copied with any other words bringing any benefit to it. They only need the reference of as in shareful in their copied invitation if that is explicitly wanted, i.e. xrfl, shary, churfle, etc
churfle is the universalization of productive, careful and happy use, as in shareful.
Churfle or sharfle is lovelier than shareful because
- much lovelier phonetics (phonetics being the link to its etimology)
- Better as a verb (to churfle vs to shareful, churfling vs sharefulling)
- better as a noun (i.e. instead of shamefulness, does need the invitation companion less).
But churfle it has a lesser wow than shareful because
- requires time for getting its meaning
- requires a high phonetic art
- it does increase joy of some experts, but is less trustful for newsharers overall
- "Invitation" refers to the terms (core + clauses + other specifications).
- "Offer" is the object + terms.
- By the way: "Invitation" generally means "invitation to an offer" in law.
In any posible shareful conventional plaintiff, if the conventional authority would consider that:
- You have mislaid a thing by offering it shareful (you are being a society damager for dumping carelessly something in the public space). Tell us or directly tell them that they should go and sue the shareful default invitation writer and rest of other users
- You have gifted it. You can argue that is easier to say "for you" than "shareful", which even being a neologism, the epistemologic path to get to sharing is the more reasonable and traceable construction
- You have given a co-ownership of it. That can happen, as shareful is based in sharing, i.e.
Conventional law has sharing mainly specified as co-ownership, and less for when is sharing is a joint (concurrently or not) or for free borrowed use (most of the sharing cases in life and what shareful is for) and could cause the following trouble:
-Dear judge or else conventional authority, i saw him he was asking for light to people and i only gave him the following invitation to treat: "i can share the lighter with you" and he did not bring it back to me a minute later when i asked him for giving it back to me. He asked for my contact and stole it from me for a week!.
That judge could later interpret your sharing offer verbal phrase as if you had gifted part of co-ownership to that someone and closing your claim (instead of the liability in a breach of borrowing contract from that someone to you that you are looking for).
Rather having said: "shareful" (lighter), is supposed to have helped you a little bit more with conventional law authorities. Shareful clauses should be enforceable through the conventional law private contracting field but there have not been sharefulness with conventional law test cases (yet?).
Shareful wow has a more lovely vibration than law codes for sharing i.e.
We want shareful terms to be shared with please between people. We pretend the using of sensible smiles for inviting and for the acceptance of terms too, for being independent from the word "shareful". We don't pretend to "hack the law", we neither want to "crack the law", we "art the code".
Conventional law is highly artificial and its sophistication has a poor quality code. It creates an environment where people is being dependent on elitist lawyers and unreachable power structures for the most of us. Finally, there is also the Full Lawful Shareful Invitation project for making a copy of the SI based on lawyers language which will never be a parent of the default SI nor impede any of the rights offered with the default SI.
Damages are discouraged with the settling defaults and with clauses i.e. requiring a grant, or using useful external tools i.e. trustful code.
The more that shareful offering grows around, the more a damage causes bad reputation. Every offeror is free to interpret such behaviour as "not caring" and imped you using according to that, you could try to difamate him but you are less.
Shareful nature is ..
Shareful love is ...
Shareful will is...
We some or most of the times communicate with other people because we need (or simply want) material things that they posses. With shareful we are decreasing the implicit rivalry and authority there is in the blind unspecified ownershipconventional private property standards present at conventional sharing, barter and for freeing.
-What is mine is mine and i can give it to someone else who then would think it's only hers and problem solved.
We could do that better through barter than through conventional currencies, but we could also use sharing standards We some or most of the times communicate with other people because we need (or simply want) objects they posses. With shareful we are decreasing the implicit rivalry and authority there is in the blind unspecified property present at conventional barter, sharing and gifting.
-What is mine is mine and i can give it to someone else who then would think it's only hers and problem solved.
With sharing standards (shareful), even only coditioned by abstract non-binding terms (wills), we'll improve our relation with the other human through a (freed) shareful (clauses) offer used as a excuse and as initial invitation for having a clear and pleasant relating. It is only about changing that old (property) belief into these new (offering, being, inviting) more caring ones:
-This is mine and i want you to feel it as yours too while you use it, but "yours" doesn't mean you can deny others using it at your free will. You should allow and encourage the more of other people to shareful it too in the same way i'm offering you to use it.”
-Sure i wish something to be shareful..”
-We just need to choose the shareful clause(s) for each object we offer.
Shareful invitations are phrases exposing certain conditions for either sharing a tiny pen or for a collection of big goods. We have created a set of sharing restrictions (shareful clauses) from practical experienced cases where people decide denying others using something while permitting the rest of interacting. This classifying offer many ways for doing shareful forms.
And for a more estructured way for better developing planned shareful production and other less shareful guided communal actions we have comunaction.org sample.
We want shareful to be understood and debated with the minimal posible learning curve by anyone barely knowing any english. Shareful default terms (read more below) are the only word shareful in the first place.
We want to achieve that by ennouncing "shareful" for offering whatever, the message (invitation content-contract) is being understood, resulting in the concrete shareful thing used accordingly to the 5 words long shareful invitation.
By not coding a default further, we are risking the shareful will to be breached and/or leaving the mediating to a very contextual or subjective level, but we are not afraid of that. Words can be used for lying, but there are words harder to mislead than others, and "shareful" (everyone, caring, cheers, etc) are quite loaded for being too lamed.
See this post
"being, doing and to shareful" companion verbs.
Making shareful a noun godificates shareful, and that is not bad because shareful is a personalization of a global intention (i.e. useful, everyone) so contains an important god-willing vibe. So adjectives for recognizing invitations better coming before shareful and other kind of descriptions go after shareful.
Shareful translations should be adapted to the cultural local morphological way of conceptualizing the act of sharing fully.
I.e. we created a latin version of it ("compartiva") for playing with the shared meaning, and the cultures sharing. Compartiva is either quickly understandable (while a bit weird too) in spanish, portuguese, italian, catalan and galego. Any spanish can either invite to it as if it is "compartiva" or it is "shareful". Both should work the same way, it is up to the invitor.
- offering to let without asking for exchange
- the joint use of an object
- having something in common (being related or close)
The nicer part of “sharing” is further extended with “shareful”. More importantly, its universal definition could be further approached than the "sharing" one (i.e.sharing miscoding).
A "for sharing" thing needs to declare some rights & duties, and the less exposed they are, the more authority rely in offerorship.
Shareful wants to expose universal sharing ways, for people not being afraid of or dubious about offerors non-declared intentions and for anyone not having further doubts for not sharing whatever.
How we are going to standarizedly resolve competing concurrence for limited goods while we are giving universal acces to them?
Sharing World say: “Ownership”. Shareful reply would be: “-Choose your settling clauses”, and a shareful settling default could be -Auctioning the directing the biddings from concurrent competition into increasing sharefulness”. Similar but slightly different from copyleft virality.
Copying is a sharing practice, so sharing standards (i.e. shareful) have to or can be copied with other words: Churfle, sharfle, frdy xrfl, ... are posible sharings too.
“Churfle” is a copy of shareful that could be either (and easierly than shareful) used as a noun, verb and as an adjective at the same time. “Churfle” adds an important happiness connotation to “shareful”.
The word “churfle” would be a greater addition than “shareful” but it has some impòrtant defects for our intention: “Churfle” is relying in the english phonetics for the minimally needed consistency for relating something new to something with some historic or broadly guessable meaning.
“Churfle” is a massive blow to the etimologics of sharing, but by betting on that more vanguardist keyword, we thought it all would be less efficient overall. we have to limitate somehow the extremism in the shareful originality in favour of a higher ease of use of it (with less learning curve). we are already culting that originality enough with shareful.
Shareful is different than libre, and get close to each other in the more novely versions.
Shareful is about specifying the conditions on how to fully share a property someone has.
Freedom is about how free is the property offered for sharing it fully or less or not at all.
Informally: A really really free thing should also have to be shareful. Informally: A really really shareful thing should also need to be free.
You can share fully a car that you don't have the motor designs (sources) of it, as far as its owner give you appropiate liability information.
At shareful, the acces to the sources is not a precondition for sharing. The debate at Shareful (and also accesorily at Free) is rather about how we communicate enough and not too much liability information to others about the offered value before allowing a shareful co-use.
Something free (as in freedom), can be asking you for royalties before using it, that doesn't happen at Shareful default.
Public normally refers to:
- a free barter offer from your jurisdictional's authorithies (i.e. public park, but only if you have a passport or a visa).
- publicy whatever (i.e. The GNU General Public License).
PublicPropertyProperty was and is a very good term as a shareful love, but shareful.be looks nicer.
With the Shareful Invitation a private owner invites (publicies) to the public the ease of use of his/her object.
A “Shareful Invitation” is a "Free as in freedom", "Free as in beer" and "Free as in available" invitation (as in cultural work).
Gift is esplicitly giving the property to the offeree, while freed don't specify that. So the receiven has to like or don't dislike the gift while a freed offering can't be intrusive.
Gift is also used wrongly for gift to world, gift to the nature. This is wrong because those entities may not have the capacity (or mistake) of liking the gift. Freed offering wants to put people at the same status than other nature, because nature don't understand about property coding.
Freed offering lets us adding wills to the offer better than at gift, where they are very contradictory instead.
Freed don't specify the first offeree will have full property rights, while it being an obvious conclussion. Despite that being obvious, it may not be enforced with conventional authorities, because they not have the freed status coded, specially for non-intellectual property. "Public domain" is probably the most aproximate conventional code for freed. When trying to enforce freed in daily life, (i.e. one can be the offeree who is being unwishedly controlled by the offeror, hence it is not really freed offering) we'll have to rely in difamation (trusting) which makes enough sense because freed being so lovely, it won't be that much used by fakers because fakers tend fake with nice codes but not that much with very very lovely ones.
Both gift and freed are synonims of "for free", but freed is better looking than "for free", and if you think about it rushlessly, you get to feel that freed is a liberated "for free", with relating "for free" to "gift" it looks more to ba a careless "for free" offer. And this such a lovely act is a very caring one.
freed for freed (shareful for the rest)
freed for shareful (freedy shareful)
shareful for shareful (sharefuly)
Commons is the absence of ownership.
- The absence of property rights on the thing (Freed shareful instead).
- Property collectively owned by a closed group of sharer people (egy shareful, comune instead).
The shareful default invitation is the phrased text for inviting to sharing that we promote from shareful.be. It is one of the possible shareful cores anyone can choose and/or (re)create. The default SI is a resumed phrased version coming from the shareful love.
Shareful love is ...
We can add shareful clauses to any shareful core. Clauses can limit the invitation intention through more restrictive terms, or through a far more permissive way than what the default is suggesting. Far shareful clauses are exagerating the shareful value (love), hence forcing its flow, hence conditioning its use badly enough to deserve to be classified as clause (and not core - love).
Default invitation and cores
When we talk about shareful plainly, we can use it as a full core itself. However, when we want to extend formality in that offer to others, the lightest and more pleasant way would be to talk about a "shareful offer" or a "shareful invitation".
"Invitation" is the terms (core + clauses + other specifications). "Offer" is the thing + terms.
When adding "Invitation", we need to describe something else that is 'inviting', based in the values we want to promote. The default shareful core is the text found at the http://wiki.shareful.be/en/Shareful_Invitation and in the default shareful form.
Shareful Invitation (default)
Change the core
If you don't like the shareful default invitation text offered for you sharing, you can change that default and choose a copy of it.
There are core reciprocal copies and you can create at core fork for your shareful offer.
It could either be a more minimal core (i.e. "Use with care") or a more extended one (i.e. Full Shareful Invitation).
Fork the core
Still reluctant about someone imposing you how to share? Nevermind, you can overwrite that and we can call it for sharing.
The default form
We display the clauses in a web form (at be.shareful.be) that you could use for making up your own sentences for inviting others to share your things. We finally choosed displaying only 5 keywords.
When you click in any of these words (or containers) you will find the specific main suggested restrictions related to that keyword / thematic, that you can freely overwrite with your own words. We choosed to prominently showcase at first clicks the options that more come to mind to people along with some spicy botethic conversation along.
There is always the option to extend default form options for each type of clausing up to reaching its edgy depths or go straight away to the full form.
Once you have elected the conditions, be.shareful.be offers a preview of the full terms in clauses list or in a paragraph and in variety of available formats. You can copy, modify and embed variety of shareful forms.
Shareful specification is additional information explaining the shareful concept or related information about the offer that does not conditionate meaningfully the use of it, i.e. 100 shareful, adding use safety information to a shareful offer, Shareful house invitation.
Clausing is somehow acting against the essential will (values, intention) and ease of use of the SI, but we wanted to offer those because we believe that even if you are not a fully shareful person as the core says, you might be interested in restricting something while permitting all the rest.
We shouldn't be impeding the corrupting of the shareful will and by rather promoting it in more identifiable ways, we might make more comfortable most of the people in certain contextual situations. In fact, mosts SI initiatives will start heavily claused and after gaining more confidence, they will be dropping some or all clauses later.
Some shareful offer could have 7 soft clauses and altogether be more worth than another having just hard one
We want the SI to be already very ambituosly near to the fullier sharing way posible, and for doing so we don't need reaching the edge. We also offer you the possibility of restricting by exagerating the shareful values. These are called far shareful clauses.
For the naming of each shareful clause and its categorization we reasoned that the choosed keywords should be somehow:
- Recognizable (related to the popular particular restriction)
- Original (for not conflicting with other keywords that we could better use for other specifications i.e. car shareful is better to be a synonim of shareful car than a name of a clause for "only if you have a car")
- Simpathetickly insulting (for promoting a discouraging influence for restricting and for encouraging selfcriticism when doing so).
We have also choosen some overpositivist keywords on the edge of seriousness for far shareful clauses, for also insulting a little bit those using them while making it funnier (as each of the concrete situations provoked with the far shareful clauses are).
Those choosen keywords for identifying a clause are single adjectives because we want to shareful to be primarily a noun. They are unique and recognizable english adjectives (they are not used popularly but they are all understood because:
- A new keywords vocabulary is a better environtment for standarizing
- The english sufix "-y" matches perfectly the simpatethic and insulting will we want for the shareful clauses, and it makes up new flowing looking words that are very easy to interpret and extend.
- As the only exception to the -y sufixing, we use the -ness suffix for clauses for settling disputes.
This standarizing of adjectives for clauses is useful for the offeror:
- Saving time of having to phrase it all
- For an initial user candidates filtering by estating an initial broad restriction which (s)he will later further specify to interested subscribees or not. (i.e. sectary means "only for some people" but i don't tell you who exactly in my published ad)
- Cross-platforms federation
These adjectives are a default specification we promote, without limiting it to be forcedly assumed by any culture which could legitimately have another imaginary for naming this kind of restricting. We could also choose numbers, graphics, signs or audio for standarizing the clausing too.
We are only planning showing the adjectives in the specification documents (shareful clauses wiki pages, shareful mindmap) and in the software distributions as metakeywords, hide or not shown and optionally federable.
Settling disputes clauses
The default settling of disputes in shareful is covered with "caring cheers", it is endured with a suggested minimal further defining/clausing of caring as "tell contact and leave it as found or improved" and it can be endured adding custom clauses that estate the parameters which the settlers should be elected and guided with.
The parameters for settling use disputes are offered as clauses where people would choose whether to give preference to some resolutive ways over others. For this type of clausing it is interesting to feature the ordered positioning of settling parameters. i.e.
-I choose to elect the settlers by "the one who less things have at the present" first, secondly by "the one having been less user of the more similar things in the past", thirdly by "more vitalism would generate in the future". They are the more popular settling clauses and that's enough for me. Choosing these clauses makes me enough comfortable for not adding further timy or corrupty restrictions.
These indicators would also provide us some interesting data about the user general preferences for how to develop whatever else in the future. Other people could have choosen the same parameters ordering and that could give that user a very interesting information for establishing a relation with that yet unknown sibling, beyond the sharing or not of those shareful things where the parameters where applied to.
Terms vs conventional law
The SIs aren't obsessed with conventional authorities' final decissions on the SI interpretation or validation. We are obsessed with the human understanding and positive evolution with the phrases (message, mantras, etc) we recommend.
The environtmental freedom development proposals we do through the things we decide freeing to others are special acts of beauty we offer to the world and, by using a cold and unsympathic created tool for that (a lawyers language license that doesn't even grant complete safety to our intention) we are loosing an important part of that beautiful vibe.. Only need to recall for the simpler the better, truth is cheap to represent.
We shouldn't complain about how conventional laws are phrased and having as an operating principle a normative artistic work all based in standards from that disliked framework at the same time (i.e. CreativeCommons think the law as is is more important than users learning-discussing the terms). More specially, we should be taking into consideration the environtment we want for that normativism to happen in (i.e. we want to ease the using of sensible smiles for inviting and for the acceptance of terms for sharing sharefully, then shareful could dissapear) and not only the one that legal experts are demanding us to provide to them.
The SI refused the strict lawyers language for its phrasing while keeping the smallest posible part of the legal (or sciencitfic) art of doing these kind of normative works (“invitation” is the minimal formal way of offering a future binding contract to others). We don't pretend to “hack the law”, we neither want to "crack the law", we “art the code also called law".
The so called free licenses used for preserving some freedom standards for software and/or for artistic works want to 'hack the (conventional) law'. They primarily pretend to use the conventional force (estate legitimated violence) by offering you the possibility of starting a plaintiff in a conventional court if any of the users of your free licensed work don't act as the license (legal binding contract) specifies. So the phrasing of the terms are made in the lawyers language because that is aimed to help your lawyers persuading a judge in a court case against your license agreement violators. This way, the intelectual written work a license is, will get up to extents where it will be very unpleasant for the reading, understanding, enjoying and replicating of it (the more meaningful use of it).
The posibility of making a Lawful SI based on lawyers language is an open worthy work to be done. Tthe SI will carry on regardless of the court veredict at whichever conflictive case. Whether those full lawful creations should be reciprocal copies with the SI or the SI shouldn't want that artificiality to be its sibling, has an answer:
-If a full lawful SI that doesn't imped any of the actions granted to happen within the actual default SI, then: Yes, why not. The full lawful SI could be a sibling but probably never a parent of the SI, if the copying (familing) gets hierarchizable, which is nor yet the case.
Using any of the SIs for sharing whatever is much more safer than using none or using "sharing". I.e. You can say something like -I could share this with you to anyone and expect him behaving in a non further specified way. Now imagine that that someone refuses to bring back that given (borrowed) thing to you later when you request it back. Then, you could either use force against him by your moral constitudinary means (get it by force from his hands and risking being sued by him) or you can go to a police station and sue him for robbery. The judge could later interpret your sharing offer verbal phrase as if you had gifted that to that someone and closing your claim or could interpret liability in a breach of contract from that someone to you and punish him accordingly. In this sense, the SI (i.e. you saying instead: -I can shareful this with you) would theorickly help you a little bit more in front of a police officer or a judge in such that case.
If the conventional authority considers that you have mislaid a thing by offering it shareful (you are being a society damager for dumping carelessly something in the public arena), the tell us because we will do more shareful with such hipothetic case.
What we want to promote as disuasory violence for respecting the sharing will from the offerors is the difamating, blacklisting of people refusing to compensate damages after having tried alternative dispute resolutions for those eventual cases. This can't be dealt within the shareful default, as it will bloat it with panicking and won't cover them enough anyway. Shareful.be is neither supposed to do that, but any offeror could simple ask for specific granting code (i.e. evil code) in the future.
The more that shareful things grow and grow, so the more shareful offers would be around, the more using of things you lose if you don't compensate an accidental damage.